# 1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"



## Psychoblues (Nov 5, 2007)

Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.

Give it an honest thought, OK?


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.
> 
> Give it an honest thought, OK?



The military operation to oust Saddam Hussein and his government was over then and the mission was accomplished.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> The military operation to oust Saddam Hussein and his government was over then and the mission was accomplished.



so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.



Oil.

The mission was to secure it.  Done.

Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Oil.
> 
> The mission was to secure it.  Done.
> 
> Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.



Then there needs to be a solution from inside Iraq. Time to divide the country into three, allocate the oil between them, make our deals and get out.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> so why are we still there? they keep changing the objective without defining the mission.



Two different missions.  The first was to boot Saddam.  Was as as picture perfect as one could ask.

The second is a still ongoing effort to try and keep a finger in the dyke.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Oil.
> 
> The mission was to secure it.  Done.
> 
> Now the mission is to occupy the country until the oil is secured for the next x years.



Supposition on your part.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Two different missions.  The first was to boot Saddam.  Was as as picture perfect as one could ask.
> 
> The second is a still ongoing effort to try and keep a finger in the dyke.




For how long? And for how much money? And for how many lost lives?


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Supposition on your part.



In my jurisdiction there's a pretty sophisticated legal doctrine concerning the interpretation of attempted crime.  Attempts are damn difficult to prove, it's easier to prove a completed offence than an inchoate one, the evidence required for the the latter is very difficult to get, but that seeming paradox is actually a damn good idea when you think about it.  

If I indulge in a set of actions which result in a crime (say, murder, we'll keep it simple) then I deserve to be sanctioned.  And they're usually quite straightforward in terms of proof (murder - here I go, big generalisation - is best defended on the question of intent unless it's obvious that a more effective defence lies elsewhere).  But my actions (getting back on track) are obvious.  They're unambiguous.  And that brings me to my point (eventually).

In the law of attempts here (we borrowed from English law) there are two tests a court applies.  The first is the one I just referred to, the ambiguity test.  A jury is given the evidence and it's asked (and directed by the judge) to interpret the actions of the defendant.  "Is there any other possible reason that the defendant did "nominate actions"?  If you believe there is then you are duty-bound to acquit.  If you believe there is no other reason then it is within your discretion to convict the defendant".  Or words to that effect.  I'm not a judge or a lawyer, but that's usually how it goes.  

The second test is the so-called "proximity test" and it's used in conjunction with the ambiguity test.  This one goes along the lines of, did the defendant get so far along the way to the crime that if the defendant wasn't interrupted they would have gone on to commit the crime?  If you link that one with the ambiguity test and all the cards come up then you can be sure you've got a solid attempt case.  

As I said, it's easier to prove the completed offence, but no matter, that's not what I'm on about.

Any objective reading of the actions of the US military in the invasion and immediate occupation following the successful invasion would show that oil was the objective.  The actions of US forces were clear.  Invade, overthrow Saddam and the Baathists and control the oil.  There was no ambiguity about action, only in the words of the Bush Administration which even today can't sustain it's weak alibis.  It was about oil.  It's still about oil.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.



Its been 1649 days since 5-1-03

March 19 2003 - November 5 2007:  1692 days
March 19 2003 - November 5 2007:  3160 KIA
Dialy KIA rate:  1.86 KIA/day

This is lowert KIA/day rate of any extended, large scale military operation in the history of the world.

Give it an honest thought.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Any objective reading of the actions of the US military in the invasion and immediate occupation following the successful invasion would show that oil was the objective.



 

Show this to be true.
I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Show this to be true.
> I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.



So you don't trust Alan Greenspan either, huh?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> So you don't trust Alan Greenspan either, huh?


You mean "The fiscal guru [that] backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "*was not the administration's motive*," it should have been"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml

That was sad.  Really.


----------



## maineman (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Show this to be true.
> I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.



I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.



This qualifies as "proof" to you?


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You mean "The fiscal guru [that] backed off that assertion by suggesting that while securing global oil supplies "*was not the administration's motive*," it should have been"?
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/the_skinny/main3267685.shtml
> 
> That was sad.  Really.



Now trying reading the exact quote that's relied upon in *your* link:



> "I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying, it *is* about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out," he said.



http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN1728306920070917?pageNumber=2

It is kind of amusing seeing you use cbs as your source. 

Honestly, though, do you think if Iraq was some subsaharan country which had no impact on our oil interests that we'd still be there or would ever have gone in?


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This qualifies as "proof" to you?



What do you think it indicates other than where the priorities were?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Now trying reading the exact quote that's relied upon in *your* link:



Hmm.



> The memoir has already drawn attention for the comment the Iraq war is "largely about oil." He said on Monday his comments should not be seen as questioning President George W. Bush's emphasis on Saddam Hussein's arsenal as the justification for invading.
> 
> "I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil. I'm saying, it is about oil and that I believe it was necessary to get Saddam out," he said



Not sure how this supports the assertion that the Bush administration went to war over oil.  but, since you believe exactly what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence against you or lack of evidence to support your belief, please contine to believe that Greenspan's comments support the idea that the administration went to war over oil.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> since you believe exactly what you want to believe, regardless of the evidence against you or lack of evidence to support your belief.



As opposed to you?

Did you hear Greenspan interviewed on the subject? I did. And he said what he said. You can spin it any way you want.

Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.

Now...if they had only competently followed up after the initial attacks....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> What do you think it indicates other than where the priorities were?


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You didn't answer the question.




Er... it was *my* question to you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> I did. And he said what he said


Yes.  He said that:



> I'm not saying that they believed it was about oil.



And thus, its obvious that, according to Greenspan, the administration did -not- go to war over oil.



> Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.


Show this to be "the truth".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Er... it was *my* question to you.


Yes it was -- posted in an attempt to avoid my question.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes it was -- posted in an attempt to avoid my question.



You really think Bush, no matter what his motivations, was ever going to come out and say, ok folks, we're going to war over oil ?

You ever read the PNAC letter practically begging Bill Clinton to oust Saddam.? That was back in 1998. I figure if you do read it, you'll know EXACTLY why they went to war because the same people who brought us to this point wrote the letter ... 



> Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East.  It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, *and a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard.*  As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.



http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Your question wasn't directed at me. And I've already told you what I think and why I think it. 

You can take it or leave it. Makes me no nevermind.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 5, 2007)

the former CENTCOM Commander, General Abazaid,  said that &#8220;of course&#8221; the Iraq war is &#8220;about oil&#8220;:



> *&#8220;Of course it&#8217;s about oil,* we can&#8217;t really deny that,&#8221; Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
> 
> &#8220;We&#8217;ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,&#8221; the retired general said. &#8220;Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.&#8221;




http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/10/15/roundtableDebatesEnergyIssues


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> You really think Bush, no matter what his motivations, was ever going to come out and say, ok folks, we're going to war over oil ?


Ah yes -- the absence of proof is proof!
The mantra of consipracy nuts everywhere.   



> You ever read the PNAC letter practically begging Bill Clinton to oust Saddam.? That was back in 1998. I figure if you do read it, you'll know EXACTLY why they went to war because the same people who brought us to this point wrote the letter ...


Why yes, I -have- read it.  
Why dont you quote to me the part where it supports the idea that the war was about oil, rather than things like security for our friends, the lives or our soldiers, and the stability of the region -- indeed, the world -- in general.

Oh.  You tried that.  I guess its not really there, is it.



> Your question wasn't directed at me.


That you responded to it means you took it up -- and still havent answered it.



> And I've already told you what I think and why I think it.


Yes.  Points you cannot support.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to  

You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.

B-O-R-I-N-G


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to
> 
> You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.
> 
> B-O-R-I-N-G



And, even more boring, you ignore the content of the posts you're addressing, trying to lead the conversation away from a place you know you haven't a leg to stand on, to somehere you think can spin your way into (what you think to be) a sound position.


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And, even more boring, you ignore the content of the posts you're addressing, trying to lead the conversation away from a place you know you haven't a leg to stand on, to somehere you think can spin your way into (what you think to be) a sound position.



Trust me, your posts aren't so perplexing that they can't be answered.

As I've told you before, I don't beat dead horses and I don't allow people to pretend I haven't answered a post when I have. You may not have liked my answers. You may wish me to answer differently.

To that I say...

Tough


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Trust me, your posts aren't so perplexing that they can't be answered.


And yet you dont asnwer them.

To wit:


> I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.


This qualifies as "proof" to you?



> As I've told you before, I don't beat dead horses and I don't allow people to pretend I haven't answered a post when I have.


So, where was your answer?

Oh, and this one, too:



> Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.


Show this to be "the truth".


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet you dont asnwer them.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> This qualifies as "proof" to you?



Wasn't my post. I raised a query about whether it was indicative of priorities. And it was, of course, but I'm still waiting for you to respond to *that*. I'll assume you can't respond.

Next....




> So, where was your answer?



Asked and answered, bubbie



> Oh, and this one, too:
> 
> 
> Show this to be "the truth".



You read the PNAC letter. Again, I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Read and comprehend and respond. Otherwise.... like I said, I can't be bothered.

Over and out.

Cheers.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Wasn't my post...


...but you made it your question when you butt in to the conversation.

And since you havent responded to the original quesion, I'll assume its because you cannot -- which is really sad, given it demands a yes/no response.



> > > Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.
> >
> >
> > Show this to be "the truth".
> ...


Please explain how this shows your claim to be "the truth", when the PNAC letter talks about things like security for our friends, the lives or our soldiers, and the stability of the region -- indeed, the world -- in general -- as reasons for going into Iraq.

If all you have is the PNAC letter to Clinton, the your position is more pathetic than I thought -- if the REAL reason we went to war was for oil, surely there'd be all kinds of evidence to that end.



> Again, I'm not going to hold your hand for you. Read and comprehend and respond. Otherwise.... like I said, I can't be bothered.
> Over and out.


How does that go?
Oh, yeah:
[montypython]
Run away!!  Run away!!!
[/montypython]


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

What are you, the freaking black knight?



> Black Knight: [calling after King Arthur] Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071853/quotes

RAFLMAO!

And this is a messageboard, bubbalah... I can "butt in" where I choose... especially when you're making yourself look silly.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> What are you, the freaking black knight?



You don't have to like the fact that you're intellectually dishonest -- but really, if you cannot admit it to me, you should admit it to yourself.

Once you do, get back to me.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Then there needs to be a solution from inside Iraq. Time to divide the country into three, allocate the oil between them, make our deals and get out.



Sounds like a plan to me.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Show this to be true.
> I'll especially be interested in the statements of US civilian and military leadership, to this effect.



I'd hop over there and do a few interviews but I'm a bit tied up here at the moment.

Okay, remember the rush to secure the oil ministry?  No rush to find WMD, just get into that oil ministry.

QED.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.



Sorry MM, still reading through and I hopped in without realising you'd already pinned this one down.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This qualifies as "proof" to you?




To a reasonably objective person it's proof, to the partisan Bushista nothing will ever amount to proof.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> Once again this is why conversing with you is akin to
> 
> You read responses and your idea of debate is not to question or discuss the content but to pretend no one has addressed your question.
> 
> B-O-R-I-N-G



We're in the middle of a federal election - politicians avoiding direct questions is breaking out all over the place


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> What are you, the freaking black knight?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 

There's a Monty Python scene for every occasion!


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> For how long? And for how much money? And for how many lost lives?



You're going to tell me that you know the answer?  Or some Democrat does?  Or are you going to say you actually believe any politician who says he/she is going to pull the plug?

Better plan on voting for Ron Paul then because he's the only one I think would actually try and do it.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> In my jurisdiction there's a pretty sophisticated legal doctrine concerning the interpretation of attempted crime.  Attempts are damn difficult to prove, it's easier to prove a completed offence than an inchoate one, the evidence required for the the latter is very difficult to get, but that seeming paradox is actually a damn good idea when you think about it.
> 
> If I indulge in a set of actions which result in a crime (say, murder, we'll keep it simple) then I deserve to be sanctioned.  And they're usually quite straightforward in terms of proof (murder - here I go, big generalisation - is best defended on the question of intent unless it's obvious that a more effective defence lies elsewhere).  But my actions (getting back on track) are obvious.  They're unambiguous.  And that brings me to my point (eventually).
> 
> ...



Here in my "jurisdiction" we don't have a drop of Iraqi oil.  Seems there's a major lack of evidence to support your theory.  Theories without evidence don't convict.

Fact is, there were plenty of reasons given for removing Saddam from power, all of which you ignore in favor of your own supposition.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Here in my "jurisdiction" we don't have a drop of Iraqi oil.  Seems there's a major lack of evidence to support your theory.  Theories without evidence don't convict.
> 
> Fact is, there were plenty of reasons given for removing Saddam from power, all of which you ignore in favor of your own supposition.



The oil is in Iraq and there it will stay until the US commercial oil interests that control it decide to start releasing it.  The price of oil is skyrocketing.  Therefore the oil in Iraq will stay there for the time being, oil interests don't want to flood the market and drive the price of its commodity down.  

The reasons for removing Saddam from power don't stand up to scrutiny.

The only interpretation that can be put on the invasion and occupation of Iraq is that the US wanted to grab Iraq's oil.  It has.  Mission accomplished.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> To a reasonably objective person it's proof, to the partisan Bushista nothing will ever amount to proof.



Just as to the partisan Bush-haters, no proof required to make bullshit accusations.  

You have nothing but unsupported allegations.  The fact that I damned sure ain't seeing a drop of Iraqi oil is pretty good proof though ...


----------



## jillian (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> You're going to tell me that you know the answer?  Or some Democrat does?  Or are you going to say you actually believe any politician who says he/she is going to pull the plug?
> 
> Better plan on voting for Ron Paul then because he's the only one I think would actually try and do it.



I don't have the answers. I don't pretend to. But based on what I've read and based on people who I DO think have better answers than we've been given, I say divide the country into three. Split the oil. And stay only as long as we have to to broker the political/economic settlement.

After that, they're on their own.

As for Ron Paul, no thanks. And it is one of my great disappointments that none of the dems are saying... that's it, we're out, game over. But I figure they aren't going to give you guys the chance to call them terrorist-lovers before the general election.

My problem with Ron Paul? Aside from the obvious issues, he wouldn't fight even for things that are worth fighting for.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

jillian said:


> I don't have the answers. I don't pretend to. But based on what I've read and based on people who I DO think have better answers than we've been given, I say divide the country into three. Split the oil. And stay only as long as we have to to broker the political/economic settlement.
> 
> After that, they're on their own.
> 
> ...



I don't think any Democrats have any more answers than the Republicans.  If you want answers, you can get them from the military, but it's doubtful anyone wants to hear their solution.

Your idea of splitting the place into three states and splitting the oil is dreaming.  Each side wants it all and will settle for no less.

Minus the political rhetoric, if we aren't doing any good being there, we need to leave.  If we are doing some good, we need to stay and finish what we started.

But the honest truth of the matter is we don't KNOW what's going on over there because all we get are slanted lies from one side or the other.  Whether you wish to claim being part of it or not, the media and the left has turned the US public against the effort and that's just wrong.  

We need to do what is right, not what suits the desires of political hacks on either side of the aisle.

And I have the same problem with Paul that you do.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Just as to the partisan Bush-haters, no proof required to make bullshit accusations.
> 
> You have nothing but unsupported allegations.  The fact that I damned sure ain't seeing a drop of Iraqi oil is pretty good proof though ...



No it isn't, it suggests to me you didn't understand my point.  If you saw Iraqi oil it would be because some oil company chief lost his or her mind.  The idea is to secure the oil so it can be used gradually.  If it were to flood the market then the price of oil would go down and the international oil market would be in turmoil.  Are you aware oil is at record prices right now?  Are you aware it won't go down?  Are you aware the US oil interests have now secured one of the largest oil reserves in the world?  Are you aware that Saddam was going to trade in that oil with other than US/European oil interests?  Are you aware that Bush's various reasons for invading and occupying Iraq are complete bullshit?

No, of course you're not.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> No it isn't, it suggests to me you didn't understand my point.  If you saw Iraqi oil it would be because some oil company chief lost his or her mind.  The idea is to secure the oil so it can be used gradually.  If it were to flood the market then the price of oil would go down and the international oil market would be in turmoil.  Are you aware oil is at record prices right now?  Are you aware it won't go down?  Are you aware the US oil interests have now secured one of the largest oil reserves in the world?  Are you aware that Saddam was going to trade in that oil with other than US/European oil interests?  Are you aware that Bush's various reasons for invading and occupying Iraq are complete bullshit?
> 
> No, of course you're not.



Sure I understand the point you are trying to make.  You've got a conspiracy theory that's about as valid as Bush being behind 9/11.

Oh, and you are incorrect in your opinion of the Administration's reasons for invading Iraq.  Every reason was valid and fact-based.  

Unlike your allegation.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Here in my "jurisdiction" we don't have a drop of Iraqi oil.  Seems there's a major lack of evidence to support your theory.  Theories without evidence don't convict.
> 
> Fact is, there were plenty of reasons given for removing Saddam from power, all of which you ignore in favor of your own supposition.



I don't think you understand. 

The goal was not to steal iraqi oil to put in your gas tank. 

The goal was to keep the massive iraqi oil reserves off world markets....

_November 5, 2007: "Oil closed at $95.93 in New York on Friday, near an all-time inflation-adjusted peak"_

...and to keep the chinese, russian, and germans from having influence over, or developing iraqi oil reserves.  Its in US interests to keep our influence over those reserves, and have them produced and developed judiciously and moderately, according to our interests.  Not chinese interests.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I don't think you understand.
> 
> The goal was not to steal iraqi oil to put in your gas tank.
> 
> ...



Of course I don't understand.  That's always the lefty argument when someone disagrees with you, is it not. 

You're guessing.  Aren't you the one who goes on for pages about "guessing" in regard to Iran and nukes?  Guess it's only guessing when it suits you.


----------



## eots (Nov 5, 2007)

hey you don't need to ponder or guess the goals the sons of bitches in there hubris put it all down on paper for you....knowing most of you are dumbed down with the corporate media to notice






Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "Lead the World to ...We provide below selected references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20 ...
Map of 1150 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html - 12k


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 5, 2007)

maineman said:


> I believe that the first building to be secured by coalition troops upon the fall of Baghdad was the oil ministry..... and while we stood guard there, we allowed the national museum to be looted.



Try getting up to date on your lies. The museum, it turns out, wasnt looted as the press reported.

Jillian, the fact that you either dont know, or ignore the information put out before and during the war about the objective, is not our fault. The objectives, and yes there are more than one, have been presented over and over. Wars rarely have one objective.

As to why we are still there since the objective of removing saddam was accomplished, why did we stay in Europe after Hitler was removed?


----------



## eots (Nov 5, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Try getting up to date on your lies. The museum, it turns out, wasnt looted as the press reported.
> 
> Jillian, the fact that you either dont know, or ignore the information put out before and during the war about the objective, is not our fault. The objectives, and yes there are more than one, have been presented over and over. Wars rarely have one objective.
> 
> As to why we are still there since the objective of removing saddam was accomplished, why did we stay in Europe after Hitler was removed?



blah blah blah irrelevant

Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "Lead the World to ...We provide below selected references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20 ...
Map of 1150 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA

www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html - 12k
__________________


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 6, 2007)

eots said:


> blah blah blah irrelevant
> 
> Project for the New American Century (PNAC). "Lead the World to ...We provide below selected references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20 ...
> Map of 1150 17th St NW, Washington, DC 20036, USA
> ...



blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization so we can impose our will on everyone, not just americans, blah, blah, blah, blah, globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization....


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Sure I understand the point you are trying to make.  You've got a conspiracy theory that's about as valid as Bush being behind 9/11.
> 
> Oh, and you are incorrect in your opinion of the Administration's reasons for invading Iraq.  Every reason was valid and fact-based.
> 
> Unlike your allegation.



Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them. Nothing he did justified what followed. Does your opinion differ? I'm sure it does.

As for oil, perhaps you want to think about this, it was written pre-war... 



> In December 2000, Iraq shut off and then slowed down its oil exports in an attempt to extort control of oil revenues. According to the United Nations, as of January 10, 2001, Iraq's reduced exports had already amounted to lost revenue totaling US$1.4 billion dollars.
> 
> Baghdad's recent insistence on selling its oil in Euros rather than US dollars, which is the worldwide industry standard, will likely result in Iraq losing $250 to $300 million yearly in conversion fees and lost interest.
> 
> [Source: US State Department]



http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601c.htm

Now, ask yourself what it would have cost *us* if oil started being traded in Euros. And ask yourself if we were going to let this guy who we propped up to fight our proxy war with Iran, bankrupt this country by forcing us to trade oil in Euros?

Interestingly, I don't think protection of the oil supply is an illegitimate reason to go to war. But it should have been said instead of all the changing and evolving excuses. It's like, well, I was late, I was busy, the dog ate my homework


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 6, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization so we can impose our will on everyone, not just americans, blah, blah, blah, blah, globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization....



You really are as dumb as you look! Go figure!


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Of course I don't understand.  That's always the lefty argument when someone disagrees with you, is it not.
> 
> You're guessing.  Aren't you the one who goes on for pages about "guessing" in regard to Iran and nukes?  Guess it's only guessing when it suits you.



Not guessing, rather drawing conclusions from the evidence.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them. Nothing he did justified what followed. Does your opinion differ? I'm sure it does.
> 
> As for oil, perhaps you want to think about this, it was written pre-war...
> 
> ...



I think, jillian, that the Bush Administration knew that the protection of the oil supply WAS an illegitimate reason to go to war, so they had to make up some reasons.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think, jillian, that the Bush Administration knew that the protection of the oil supply WAS an illegitimate reason to go to war, so they had to make up some reasons.



See.. I think they thought it just wasn't "sellable". But protecting our economy and our oil supply is a legitimate interest, IMO.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them. Nothing he did justified what followed. Does your opinion differ? I'm sure it does.



Well, yeah he wasn't a threat except that he had already invaded two neighboring countries, shot at our planes on a regular basis, and continually rattled his saber.  

Your later statements don't mesh with you WMD statement.  Of course he could effectuate his desires where WMDs or concerned.  He had the purchase power in black gold.  

Saddam DID suppress his own people.

Saddam DID practice genocide against both Kurds and Shia.

Saddam did violate the UN Resolutions and the resloutions that followed saying "this is the very, very, very, very, etc last warning."  On that alone, both Clinton had Bush had every right to resume hostilities.



> As for oil, perhaps you want to think about this, it was written pre-war...
> 
> 
> 
> http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa021601c.htm



This is all well and good, but not given as a reason for invasion, so only supposition makes it one.




> Now, ask yourself what it would have cost *us* if oil started being traded in Euros. And ask yourself if we were going to let this guy who we propped up to fight our proxy war with Iran, bankrupt this country by trading oil in Euros?



While not out of the realm of mathematical possibility, it's still supported by nothing but guesswork.  There is no evidence to lead to this conclusion.



> Interestingly, I don't think protection of the oil supply is an illegitimate reason to go to war. But it should have been said instead of all the changing and evolving excuses. It's like, well, I was late, I was busy, the dog ate my homework



I don't disagree with you on this; however, I don't see that as the reason Iraq was invaded either.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Well, yeah he wasn't a threat except that he had already invaded two neighboring countries, shot at our planes on a regular basis, and continually rattled his saber.
> 
> Your later statements don't mesh with you WMD statement.  Of course he could effectuate his desires where WMDs or concerned.  He had the purchase power in black gold.
> 
> ...



One can argue whether we had the "right" or whether it was the intelligent thing to do. Or whether in doing a cost/benefit analysis, the investment we have made in lives and resources and our wealth justified it.

And no one will disagree with you that Saddam was a bad guy. But we've been in bed with bad guys before. Look at what's going on with Musharrif. And we don't make the decision to intervene with respect to every bad guy in the world. Therefore, there had to be another piece of the equation. I think there were two: I think Saddam threatening our oil supplies and our economy was a good enough reason to take certain steps. But the second reason was that 9/11 had happened and Bush and the neo-cons wanted to show you "don't mess with Texas" and Saddam was as good a target as any.



> This is all well and good, but not given as a reason for invasion, so only supposition makes it one.



We draw conclusions from actions and circumstances all the time, whether someone says something outright or not.




> While not out of the realm of mathematical possibility, it's still supported by nothing but guesswork.  There is no evidence to lead to this conclusion.



And I think a preponderance of the evidence leads to my conclusion and that of many others. At least if it were the reason, I'd say, ok... well, at least it wasn't all about some macho show (however badly the follow up was effectuated).



> I don't disagree with you on this; however, I don't see that as the reason Iraq was invaded either.



The way I see it, but for the oil, we wouldn't be playing in that neck of the woods. Kind of a sine qua non.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 6, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I think, jillian, that the Bush Administration knew that the protection of the oil supply WAS an illegitimate reason to go to war, so they had to make up some reasons.



Bingo to a degree. I don't think they thought it was illegitimate. I think they THOUGHT the US public would think it was illegitimate. I cannot for one millisecond see GW addressing the US public during a State of the Nation speech going "My fellow Americans, we are going to invade Iraq to secure its oil reserves so as not to cause hyper inflation and affect the western world's monetary system etc etc". That would not do, because the US public (especially it's moral majority) wants righteous reasons, not monetary ones (actully it doesn't really care, but perception is important). So it rambles on about WMDs. Not only does this solve the moral dilemma, it gives the opposition no ammo! After all, who would dare oppose the destruction of a terrorist-supporting regime (other than terrorist-supporting sympathisers!)?? Of course GW knew it was about oil. M14 is just using the "He didn't say it, therefore it cannot be true" scenario. It's a bit like Vietnam - that was all about saving the democractic south from the despotic north! Of course the fact that the south was corrupt as hell had nothing to do with it! Nor the domino affect (which came out later)...lol..

Do not think for one minute M14 is naive. He is one of those "I know better than all of you" types. He thinks he is smarter than anybody else because people don't overtly say what they mean......lol.
IE? In his world, if Hitler NEVER said he hated Jews, then Hitler never hated Jews....you get the picture....

Yeah, ole M14.....he's one real smart cookie...<wink>


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> See.. I think they thought it just wasn't "sellable". But protecting our economy and our oil supply is a legitimate interest, IMO.



War is always about economic interests, but in this case a democracy invaded and occupied another country solely to grab its oil reserves.  That's what happened. 

The lies had to be told.  But there were two audiences for the lies.

One audience was the international community (ie the rest of us).  We had to be convinced that the invasion and occupation wasn't about getting the oil.  

The lies told to the American people were to cover up the real reason for putting military personnel in harm's way.  "I'm sorry ma'am but your son was killed so we could make sure our commercial interests got Iraq's oil."


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> The way I see it, but for the oil, we wouldn't be playing in that neck of the woods. Kind of a sine qua non.



This point needs reiterating! From the moment I saw George Bush Senior on the giggle box when Iraq invaded Kuwait I knew it was about oil. I said to anybody who would listen it was about oil. Let's not forget folks how GB senior waxed lyrical about the invasion and the moral implications. I said to anybody who would listen at the time, that if there was no oil in Kuwait, nobody would give a shit. Why didn't GW give a shit about Liberia at the time? Or any other regime under the cosh (including N Korea). What really sealed it for me was Rwanda a few years later. Sure, it was under Clinton's watch, but if you neocons want the Repub congress to take responsibility for the balanced budget, then they can take responsibility for Rwanda too. I'm thinking to myself - let's imagine Rwanda had held 10 percent, 15 percent, HELL ,even 25% of the world's oil reserves, what would have been the reaction of the Repub senate??? hhhmmmm


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> War is always about economic interests, but in this case a democracy invaded and occupied another country solely to grab its oil reserves.  That's what happened.
> 
> The lies had to be told.  But there were two audiences for the lies.
> 
> ...



I don't see it as "solely to grab its oil reserves". I see it as securing them. I'm not saying I agree with it or what we did. And, in fact, I don't think we should have invaded, and certainly shouldn't have done so without proper planning. But I think if the general consensus was that he was going to destroy our economic system, it could have been sold. This admin has a very low opinion of the U.S. public and hasn't been forthcoming about anything, so we don't know how it would have been approached or accepted. Transparency isn't exactly GWB's thing.

As for the soldiers dying. As opposed to dying in a civil war between shi'a and sunni? I'm not sure the distinction ultimately would have mattered.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> This point needs reiterating! From the moment I saw George Bush Senior on the giggle box when Iraq invaded Kuwait I knew it was about oil. I said to anybody who would listen it was about oil. Let's not forget folks how GB senior waxed lyrical about the invasion and the moral implications. I said to anybody who would listen at the time, that if there was no oil in Kuwait, nobody would give a shit. Why didn't GW give a shit about Liberia at the time? Or any other regime under the cosh (including N Korea). What really sealed it for me was Rwanda a few years later. Sure, it was under Clinton's watch, but if you neocons want the Repub congress to take responsibility for the balanced budget, then they can take responsibility for Rwanda too. I'm thinking to myself - let's imagine Rwanda had held 10 percent, 15 percent, HELL ,even 25% of the world's oil reserves, what would have been the reaction of the Repub senate??? hhhmmmm



Exactly. All true, of course. And why the evidence leads the way it does.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> To a reasonably objective person it's proof


To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
> To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.



See... this is where someone like you shows a total lack of understanding. You act as if he has comported himself in such a way that he would have gained support from the left of the aisle. After 9/11, most of us were predisposed to supporting him... .rooting for him, actually. I really wanted him to be a "compassionate conservative" who would run a "humble foreign policy" (his words, not mine). He took all that good will and sqauandered it with heavy-handed Rovian poltics and incompetence.

So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't the "I hate Bush" club, it's a rational response to someone who we see as having destroyed our standing in the world, attacked the constitution and undermined everything good that this country stands for.

Luckily he's out in 441 days.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> See... this is where someone like you shows a total lack of understanding.



 

Yes --  HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.

 

You crack me up.  Please -- dont stop.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes --  HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.
> 
> 
> 
> You crack me up.  Please -- dont stop.



Good that you're still playing the black knight. Was good for my soul. 

And once again, you've got nuffin' which is why you're incapable of responding to my points.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> And once again, you've got nuffin' which is why you're incapable of responding to my points.


Dream on.  All you have is misdirection, obfuscation and a utter unwillingness to even TRY to defend your claims in an intellectually honest way.  You cannot address what's actually posted, so you try to change the subject.

Dont agree?

Then show this, your claim, to be true:


> Truth is, it is obvious that but for oil, we'd never have gone in, regardless of whether that was the stated reason or not.



Please note that this means you need to PROVE this to be the truth, not just try to pass off your opinions as fact.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> Each reason was total and complete BS. They knew that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. They knew that whatever designs Saddam had with respect to WMD's, he couldn't effectuate them.



And yet, your democrat reps/senators voted for it also.

Its amazing how deluded the libs are on this. It REQUIRED THEIR voted into office officials to sign off on it also, yet they can totally ignore that and still blame President Bush, and they continue to make bogus claims that fly directly in the face of what the Clintons and their own elected officials are on record of having declared.

I just really dont get how this generation of libs can so completely, and on all the issues, just totally ignore so much factual information and be so myoptic about everything. They are living in a totally fabricated and delusional reallity.

Lets see now, the following list includes a previous sitting PRESIDENT and first lady, persons who have run for election to the presidency, and some who are currently seeking the office.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998 

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998 

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002 

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002 

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002 


*O U C H !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 6, 2007)

iT WASNT just about the oil. We could have gotten oil from Saddam if we wanted to.

It was about securing the stability of the entire region, long term.

ultimately it is about economics, which is totally legit. We cannot stop all mass murdering situations, but we can choose to stop the ones that affect our world economic situation the most. Thats why so many other nations joined in. Dont give me that bullshit about only inconsequencial nations joining. France, Germany and Russia didnt join ONLY because they knew their illegal activities were going to be exposed, along with oil for food scandal.
   Japan, Italy, Britian, Poland, Australia are hardly nations to sneeze at.

Bush didnt lie, and he laid out very substansive reasons and goals.
We have and continue to achieve those goals.
To claim they had no plan going in and have been inept at running the  war is total bullshit also. Its easy for an arm chair quarterback to criticize after mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in any war.
   It simply was a unique situation, yea we made mistakes, but we have modified what our strategy was/is and we are being effective now. It was impossible to have forseen exactly how the terrorists would react.
   The occupation was welcomed by the IRaqi people, so those who are screaming we had no right, legally or morally, to occupy, are just TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT. To believe so, you must be delusional, myoptic, denying many facts and reality, stupid, agenda driven, overly emotional and full of hatred, bitter and foolish. You must be so selfish in your desire to have it your way, that you forgo the security of the People of America, forgo the Constitution and border on, and often cross, or support those who go into treasonous actions. 
  you must be willing to delude and deceive others, lie to them and lie to yourself.
   You are simply vile, treasonous lumps of dog crap on my lawn.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 6, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You really are as dumb as you look! Go figure!



And yet, so many claim Im a dead ringer for a very handsome actor celebrity, who has even starred in his own movies. Go figure,,, so who is dumb here?

Not to mention what an intelligent, beautiful wife and baby, go figure, us ugly dummies must be lucky !!!


----------



## eots (Nov 6, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> blah, blah, blah, blah,,,,globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization so we can impose our will on everyone, not just americans, blah, blah, blah, blah, globalization, blah, blah, blah, globalization....



Hey i didn't write the pnac document they did


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

jillian said:


> I don't see it as "solely to grab its oil reserves". I see it as securing them. I'm not saying I agree with it or what we did. And, in fact, I don't think we should have invaded, and certainly shouldn't have done so without proper planning. But I think if the general consensus was that he was going to destroy our economic system, it could have been sold. This admin has a very low opinion of the U.S. public and hasn't been forthcoming about anything, so we don't know how it would have been approached or accepted. Transparency isn't exactly GWB's thing.
> 
> As for the soldiers dying. As opposed to dying in a civil war between shi'a and sunni? I'm not sure the distinction ultimately would have mattered.



This has to be seen from two perspectives.  The first is the domestic US perspective.  I think it would have been quite easy, in the aftermath of 9/11 (which I believe was an attempt to destroy the US economy) for the Bush Administration to tell its citizens that it was necessary to invade and occupy Iraq to grab its oil/secure it's oil to ensure the security of the US economy.  Now let me pause for a moment and say I don't think grabbing/securing Iraq's oil was necessary to protect the US economy - sectional interests, yes, broader economy, no; but that's another argument I suspect.  Okay getting back on point.  I think the US citizenry post-9/11 would have had a resounding "hell, yes!" and the Bush Administration would have been able to take over Iraq and it's oil with the clear support of the US people.

Now the second perspective.  The rest of us would have seen the US invade Iraq to get its oil.  Can you imagine the reaction?  It was necessary for the US to lie about the real reason for invading Iraq, not to fool the American people, but to fool - or try to - the rest of the world.  To invade another country to secure its natural resources for the benefit of the invader is an immoral act as well (presumably) as being illegal under international law.

Bush had to cobble together other nations to provide him with an alibi.  He needed WMD and Saddam's dictatorship as further camouflage.  The leaders of the countries involved in the coalition knew it was about oil but they had to go along with the lies as well.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> To the reasonably objective, it proves nothing.
> To card-carrying members of the "I hate Bush" club -- no proof is necessary.



Can you address the point?  Or is your forte making inane and irrelevant remarks?  With that comment you have added exactly nothing to the debate.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes --  HE says that securing the oil ministry before securing the art museum is 'proof enough for a reasonable person' that we went to war in Iraq for oil, and -I- suffer from a 'total lack of understanding'.
> 
> 
> 
> You crack me up.  Please -- dont stop.



I'd really prefer it if you'd address me as well, since I'm the "he" in your comment.  So, put your point to me and give me the chance to support my argument.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> And yet, your democrat reps/senators voted for it also.
> 
> Its amazing how deluded the libs are on this. It REQUIRED THEIR voted into office officials to sign off on it also, yet they can totally ignore that and still blame President Bush, and they continue to make bogus claims that fly directly in the face of what the Clintons and their own elected officials are on record of having declared.
> 
> ...




Wilful blindndess.  The Democrats knew about the lies but it suited them politically to go along with them.  Only a few stood on principle and opposed the invasion because they knew of the lies.  Those who went along with it for political purposes are hypocrites and undeserving of public office.


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 6, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> iT WASNT just about the oil. We could have gotten oil from Saddam if we wanted to.



How?  By asking nicely?



			
				LuvRPgrl: said:
			
		

> It was about securing the stability of the entire region, long term.



The region was stable, he invasion has made the region unstable.



			
				LuvRPgrl: said:
			
		

> ultimately it is about economics, which is totally legit. We cannot stop all mass murdering situations, but we can choose to stop the ones that affect our world economic situation the most. Thats why so many other nations joined in. Dont give me that bullshit about only inconsequencial nations joining. France, Germany and Russia didnt join ONLY because they knew their illegal activities were going to be exposed, along with oil for food scandal.
> Japan, Italy, Britian, Poland, Australia are hardly nations to sneeze at.



Can you clear this up, it doesn't make sense - not having a shot at you but I don't understand your point.



			
				LuvRPgrl: said:
			
		

> Bush didnt lie, and he laid out very substansive reasons and goals.
> We have and continue to achieve those goals.
> To claim they had no plan going in and have been inept at running the  war is total bullshit also. Its easy for an arm chair quarterback to criticize after mistakes were made. Mistakes are made in any war.
> It simply was a unique situation, yea we made mistakes, but we have modified what our strategy was/is and we are being effective now. It was impossible to have forseen exactly how the terrorists would react.
> ...



Bush lied.  He is still lying.  He has no credibility with most of the American people and certainly the world has an extremely low opinion of him.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 6, 2007)

I have a neighbor, actually an asshole that lives across the street from me.    I told him 6 years ago that he is not welcome on my property.  So far as I know he has not returned yet there have been a few mysterious occurances and incidents since that time.  I have not invaded his property and I don't intend to do so unless he again clearly trespasses on my own.

He glares at me, he talks scandalously about me and he indicates every will to do me harm to this day.  He has even made certain that I have seen pictures of his "gun room" and he is an ex-County Deputy and an ex-Constable.

Fuck him.  He needs to keep his ass on his side of the street and I abide the same.  One mistake, just one, on his part and I guarantee he will regret his trespass.

This conversation has turned so silly and not cognizant of so many facts.  America should be ashamed of it's actions in Iraq.  "Mission Acomplished" my ass.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Can you address the point?


I did, with exactly the same level of inanity and irrelevance that it was presented with.  And if my comment added nothing to the debate, its because of the level of irrelevance surrounding the comment I responded to.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> ...It was necessary for the US to lie about the real reason for invading Iraq...


Prove that the US -- that is, the Bush administration -- lied about the real reason for invading Iraq.

Understand that this is a multi-faceted task, and simply stating your opinions as fact is not proof.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Prove that the US -- that is, the Bush administration -- lied about the real reason for invading Iraq.
> 
> Understand that this is a multi-faceted task, and simply stating your opinions as fact is not proof.



if by "lie" you mean* "something intended or serving to convey a false impression"*, then I would suggest that the  speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again intended to convey the false impression that Saddam and Al Qaeda and 9/11 were all tied together and that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's ready to give to his allies in AQ.  That impression was false.  The attempt to convey that false impression was successful.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> if by "lie" you mean* "something intended or serving to convey a false impression"*,


If you need to quibble about the definition of "lie", then you're in sad shape.
Of course, you probably bought the whole "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" thing...



> then I would suggest that the  speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again


Please, point out the specific lie.

More importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> If you need to quibble about the definition of "lie", then you're in sad shape.
> Of course, you probably bought the whole "it depends on what the definition of "is" is" thing...
> 
> 
> ...



are you really suggesting that Bush did not convey the impression that Saddam had links to 9/11, or that he did not have stockpiles of WMD's that he would give to AQ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> if by "lie" you mean* "something intended or serving to convey a false impression"*, then I would suggest that the  speeches of Bush in the fall of 2002 where he repeatedly mentioned "Al Qaeda" and "Saddam" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "9/11" and "gassed his own people" over and over and over and over and over and over and over again intended to convey the false impression that Saddam and Al Qaeda and 9/11 were all tied together and that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's ready to give to his allies in AQ.  That impression was false.  The attempt to convey that false impression was successful.



Simply not true and your continued attempts to pretend it is are old stale and boring. In fact Bush STATED for the record more than once that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 as did other members of the Administration, including Vice President Cheney.

The intel that Saddam had WMD's was not just a US one, it was shared by EVERYONE in the western world. That he was working on nukes also was believed by the west. As I recall Germany believed he might have a working nuke in 2 to 3 years. Bush did not make anything up, nor add to what was already believed. His contention that Saddam was hunting for terrorists to do his dirty work, is in fact proven by captured documents after the war.

Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute. Though he did mention signs of improvement as Saddam began to realize his buddies France, Russia and China were not going to stop the US and her allies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you really suggesting...


You're really avoiding the issue, trying to change it to something you think you can argue, because you know you don't otherwise have a leg to stand on.

Point out the specific lie(s).
Show that they ARE lies.

Most importantly, point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute.


"I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision [to disarm]."
Hans Blix, 26 FEB 2003
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/wire/2003/02/27/blix/index.html

So, who wants to prove that this is a lie?


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're really avoiding the issue, trying to change it to something you think you can argue, because you know you don't otherwise have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Point out the specific lie(s).
> Show that they ARE lies.
> ...




creating false impressions IS lying.

go check out a fucking dictionary sometime.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true and your continued attempts to pretend it is are old stale and boring. In fact Bush STATED for the record more than once that Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11 as did other members of the Administration, including Vice President Cheney.
> 
> The intel that Saddam had WMD's was not just a US one, it was shared by EVERYONE in the western world. That he was working on nukes also was believed by the west. As I recall Germany believed he might have a working nuke in 2 to 3 years. Bush did not make anything up, nor add to what was already believed. His contention that Saddam was hunting for terrorists to do his dirty work, is in fact proven by captured documents after the war.
> 
> Remind me again why the UN had inspection teams in Iraq if no one thought he had weapons? Remind me again why Blix reported twice in 2002/2003 that Saddam Hussein was still stone walling and being uncooperative? In fact his official report states that Saddam was still blocking efforts right up until the last minute. Though he did mention signs of improvement as Saddam began to realize his buddies France, Russia and China were not going to stop the US and her allies.



FACT:  on 9/15/01  damned near everyone in America knew who was behind the attacks on 9/11


FACT:  in early 2003, nearly 70&#37; of Americans believed that Saddam had orchestrated the attacks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> creating false impressions IS lying.
> go check out a fucking dictionary sometime.


Proof positive that you cannot show that Bush lied.   

Thanks for playing, but I regret to inform you that you haven't won a prize.

Next contestant?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> FACT:  on 9/15/01  damned near everyone in America knew who was behind the attacks on 9/11
> FACT:  in early 2003, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had orchestrated the attacks.


-Please show how this proves anything regarding the Bush administration's supposed lies.
-Please show, specifically, where the Bush administation specifially linked Iraq to 9/11.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> -Please show how this proves anything regarding the Bush administration's supposed lies.
> -Please show, specifically, where the Bush administation specifially linked Iraq to 9/11.




do you understand what the concept of "creating a false impression" even means?  If so, why would you continue to post things that would indicate otherwise?

attempting to have a discussion with someone whose command of the english language was apparently arrested at the "My Weekly Reader" level is really quite tedious


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you understand what the concept of "creating a false impression" even means?  If so, why would you continue to post things that would indicate otherwise?


You have claimed that the administation created a false impression. 
Apparently, you don't understand that its your responsiility to support this claim.

To do that, you need to show two things:
-Where, specifially, the Bush administration supposedly linked Iraq and 9/11
-That this supposed link is the reason the supposed shift in opinion took place.

If you can't to these things, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

And then, if you'd like to stop avoiding the original issue and get back on point, you can:

Point out where:
-Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs
-Bush lied about the WMDs (etc) being the reason for going to war.

Again, rememeber that stating your opinion as fact isnt stating a fact, nor is it 'proof'.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You have claimed that the administation created a false impression.
> Apparently, you don't understand that its your responsiility to support this claim.
> 
> To do that, you need to show two things:
> ...



you seem to think that "creating an impression" requires some degree of specificity.  that is incorrect, of course.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> you seem to think that "creating an impression" requires some degree of specificity.  that is incorrect, of course.



So, you cannot show:
-Where, specifially, the Bush administration supposedly linked Iraq and 9/11
-That this supposed link is the reason the supposed shift in opinion took place.

And as such, you cannot support your assertion.

Again, thanks for playing.  Still no prize.

Next contestant?


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

_*cre·ate *verb (used with object) 
1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.  
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.  

*false* adjective 
1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.  
2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.  
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.  
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: *a false impression*.  


*im·pres·sion *noun 1. a strong effect produced on the intellect, feelings, conscience, etc.  
2. the first and immediate effect of an experience or perception upon the mind; sensation.  
3. the effect produced by an agency or influence.  
4. a notion, remembrance, belief, etc., *often of a vague or indistinct nature*: He had a general impression of lights, voices, and the clinking of silver.  
5. a mark, indentation, figure, etc., produced by pressure.  
6. an image in the mind caused by something external to it._ 

one can "create the false impression" that Iraq and Saddam had something to do with 9/11 without ever specifically stating as such.  Inferences, innuendoes.... if the purpose of those inferences and innuendoes was to change public opinion while maintaining plausible deniability, that IS a LIE, whether you chose to understand or accept that is really out of my hands.

am I getting through to you or do I need to dumb it down to the DICK and JANE level?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> am I getting through to you or do I need to dumb it down to the DICK and JANE level?


Yes, you have made it --quite-- clear that you are unable to support your assertion.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes, you have made it --quite-- clear that you are unable to support your assertion.



proving intent to create a false impression is obviously unrealistic.... that is why it is called creating a false impression rather than an uttering an explicit false statement.

I never suggested that anyone could PROVE that Bush explicitly lied about WMD's or Saddam's connection to AQ or OBL....I suggest that the creation of the false impression to that effect is self evident.  But not if you willfully chose not to see it, I suppose.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> proving intent to create a false impression is obviously unrealistic...


And yet, thats exactly what you need to do to prove your claim, as well as supply exaples of the statemets that supposedly created this supposedly false impression.

If you cannot do this, you're just mouthing off with meaningless partisan rhetoric.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, thats exactly what you need to do to prove your claim, as well as supply exaples of the statemets that supposedly created this supposedly false impression.
> 
> If you cannot do this, you're just mouthing off with meaningless partisan rhetoric.



Newsflash: I don't NEED to do anything to prove anything to you.  

for you to suggest that I am mouthing off with partisan rhetoric while you continue to excuse the misleading done by this administration is pretty funny, young fella.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> Newsflash: I don't NEED to do anything to prove anything to you.


Well then -- there's no reason for anyone to take you or your statements seriously.

But you really should ask youself;
If you cannot provide the evidence to support what you believe, why do you believe it?

I mean, aside from simple partisan bigotry.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Well then -- there's no reason for anyone to take you or your statements seriously.
> 
> But you really should ask youself;
> If you cannot provide the evidence to support what you believe, why do you believe it?
> ...



I could provide the transcripts from several Bush speeches where he repeatedly conflates references to Saddam and 9/11. But then, you can go find them yourself just as easily as I can.  I listened to many of them being spoken and I have a fairly good memory. If you chose to believe that those repeated references did not create a false impression that there was a connection between the two, that's fine with me.  I don't ask you to take me seriously.  I don't even ask you to read anything I write.  Please feel free to put me on ignore if you like...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I could provide the transcripts from several Bush speeches where he repeatedly conflates references to Saddam and 9/11.


Yes, Skippy, that exactly the sort of thing you should be providing.

Note that you'll have to show how the statements might actually create the impression you've claimed.



> If you chose to believe that those repeated references did not create a false impression that there was a connection between the two, that's fine with me.


If these statements did indeed create the 'false impression' you speak of, you would be able to show it.
Otherwise you're arguing that correlation equates to causation, a logical fallacy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

like I have said.  don't hold your breath.

I heard the speeches.  I read the speeches.  I was aware, as I was listening, of what Bush was trying to imply.... and I was aware of what good writers he had to craft text taht allowed him to say one thing and repeatedly imply another.  I am aware of the fact that 70% of Americans believed that Saddam planned 9/11 a scant three months before the invasion. I chose to believe that there is a correlation.  It is not such an outlandish thing to believe.  You chose not to.  fine with me.

and don't call me skippy.  asshole.  I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I have said.  don't hold your breath.


For you to provide evidence that backs your claim, and for you to show how that evidence proves your claim?  I'm not.  

I have absolutely no expectation that you have the ability to back your claims.  Its pretty clear that you're satisfied with basing your positions in simple partisan bigotry.



> and don't call me skippy.  asshole.  I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.




Whatever you say, Skippy


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> For you to provide evidence that backs your claim, and for you to show how that evidence proves your claim?  I'm not.
> 
> I have absolutely no expectation that you have the ability to back your claims.  Its pretty clear that you're satisfied with basing your positions in simple partisan bigotry.
> 
> ...



I am satisfied in basing my opinions in this instance on my observations.  nothing more.  nothing less.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am satisfied in basing my opinions in this instance on my observations.  nothing more.  nothing less.



And you're also satisfied and trying to pass off these "observations" as fact.
Your OPINIONS here are not facts, Skippy, no matter how much you might like to think so.

Edit:

From the reputation feedback you posted:


> maineman
> bad form.... you should learn to show a
> little more respect for your elders, sonny.
> Let's not make a habit of this.



Apparently you'd prefer that I refer to you as "asshole".  
No problem Skippy...er...Asshole.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

I am unaware of anything I have written in this thread that attempts to characterize my opinion as FACT, sonny.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am unaware of anything I have written in this thread that attempts to characterize my opinion as FACT, sonny.


Of course you are, Skippy.
I'm sorry...  Asshole.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course you are, Skippy.
> I'm sorry...  Asshole.



no harm no foul, son

now run along.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

So, who's the next contestant on "I can Prove Bush Lied"?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 7, 2007)

It is walks, talks and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck...even if the duck doesn't come out and say its a duck.

So M14, if a duck refuses to confirm whether its a duck or not, does that mean its not a duck (just using your own standards of proof here)?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> It is walks, talks and looks like a duck, chances are it's a duck...even if the duck doesn't come out and say its a duck.
> 
> So M14, if a duck refuses to confirm whether its a duck or not, does that mean its not a duck (just using your own standards of proof here)?



I'm sure all of this, somehow, makes sense to you as an effective response to my challenge.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm sure all of this, somehow, makes sense to you as an effective response to my challenge.



They have not been able to even make a credible claim anyone lied since to do so means they have to believe Clinton and his entire white house also lied. It is a game they play , they believe if they say the same thing over and over enough people will begin to believe if from the sheer repetitive nature of the claim, standard democratic practice.

You were not here a few months back when Maineman and Larkinn played this sparky dance and were playing with the meaning of lied. The end of it was that because one of the listed definitions of lie in the dictionary is to say something not true even if you do not know it is not true, this was their proof Bush lied.

Of course when it was pointed out that meant everyone lied every day all the time the response became, well we did not really mean THAT. Maineman went off on his tangent like now where he claimed because Bush said saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and had to be dealt with that somehow meant Bush said he planned and executed 9/11.

Democrats and Liberals think if they just keep saying the same thing over and over even if they can not prove a word of it, it will magically become true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> They have not been able to even make a credible claim anyone lied since to do so means they have to believe Clinton and his entire white house also lied.


No, that was DIFFERENT, see...



> Of course when it was pointed out that meant everyone lied every day all the time the response became, well we did not really mean THAT. Maineman went off on his tangent like now where he claimed because Bush said saddam Hussein was a threat to the US and had to be dealt with that somehow meant Bush said he planned and executed 9/11.


Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.



> Democrats and Liberals think if they just keep saying the same thing over and over even if they can not prove a word of it, it will magically become true.


And what is this called?
The Big Lie.  
We all know where that came from.


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, that was DIFFERENT, see...
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.
> ...



maineman knows what he heard Bush say...over and over again.... Bush made speech after speech where he talked about Saddam, but peppered the discussion with talk of Al Qaeda and 9/11.

It is a FACT that in the nmonths leading up to the invasion of Iraq, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had planned 9/11.  

Since he DIDN'T plan 9/11, how does the right explain the fact that 70% of Americans had come to believe that he HAD?

The right's insistence that such a shift in belief on the part of the public had nothing to do with the speeches of their president is laughable.

But hey.... because George Bush never flat out said that Saddam planned 9/11, you guys can keep on droning on about how he had nothing to do with that change in belief, and how his speeches were not meant to create a false impression..

I cannot argue that technicality.  I can point out that the president who had overwhelming public approval ratings that were commensurate with the approval ratings for his war in Iraq, now has ratings in the toilet and so does his war, and you all can hold on to your belief that that is all some bizarre coincidence, but the smart money is elsewhere.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, that was DIFFERENT, see...
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.
> ...





You do have a firm grasp on the obvious


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You do have a firm grasp on the obvious



and I see that your intellectual gas tank runs out after a stock one liner, just like always.

ho hum


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

oh...and I am curious...do you know where the phrase "the road to hell is paved with..." originates, and what the original paving material was??????


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, that was DIFFERENT, see...
> 
> 
> Its pretty clear that maineman is only interested in believing what he wants to believe, regardless if he knows why he believes it.
> ...





maineman said:


> and I see that your intellectual gas tank runs out after a stock one liner, just like always.
> 
> ho hum



I undersatnd these are hard times for libs like you. No troop deaths being gleefully reported by the liberal media, no car bombings, a huge drop in US casualities and Iraq civilians, and even some elected Dems saying the surge is working

Reid and Pelosi have all but shut up with their talk of the war being lost, and have not talked about surrender in some time

Just when the Dems were seeing theuir dreams of the US losing in Iraq, the US military starts kicking ass and are winning the fight

Damn it must be depressing to be a liberal these days


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I undersatnd these are hard times for libs like you. No troop deaths being gleefully reported by the liberal media, no car bombings, a huge drop in US casualities and Iraq civilians, and even some elected Dems saying the surge is working
> 
> Reid and Pelosi have all but shut up with their talk of the war being lost, and have not talked about surrender in some time
> 
> ...



good for them.  I hope we can start fighting our real enemies soon!


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> good for them.  I hope we can start fighting our real enemies soon!



So the terrorists in Iraq are not our enemies?


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> So the terrorists in Iraq are not our enemies?



the handful of deadenders might be, but it is silly to tie up 150K troops fighting THEM when the real bad guys are holding outdoor televised graduation ceremonies for suicide bombers in Afghanistan.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> the handful of deadenders might be, but it is silly to tie up 150K troops fighting THEM when the real bad guys are holding outdoor televised graduation ceremonies for suicide bombers in Afghanistan.



It is fun to watch the left have to eat the shitburger they served up. All we heard for years from Dems was how the war in Iraq was lost, and how the US had to cut and run

Now the facts are kicking them in the ass


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> It is fun to watch the left have to eat the shitburger they served up. All we heard for years from Dems was how the war in Iraq was lost, and how the US had to cut and run
> 
> Now the facts are kicking them in the ass



that is more rush bullshit from his number one fan.

no democrat has ever suggested cutting and running.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is more rush bullshit from his number one fan.
> 
> no democrat has ever suggested cutting and running.




All your party wanted for the last several years was to cut and run. They were pushing for surrender and sneering how the war was lost

Enjoy your shitburger MM - make sure all your fellow libs get some


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> All your party wanted for the last several years was to cut and run. They were pushing for surrender and sneering how the war was lost
> 
> Enjoy your shitburger MM - make sure all your fellow libs get some



you answer my claim that you are doing nothing but spewing Rush oneliners by spewing Rush oneliners!


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> you answer my claim that you are doing nothing but spewing Rush oneliners by spewing Rush oneliners!



I see facts still bother you and get under your skin. The last thing you and your party wanted was for the surge to work

Your attempted smear of Gen Petraeus shows how much the Dems supprt the troops and the war


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong2008.htm

enjoy some ketchup on THAT shitburger!

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

and that one too!


----------



## maineman (Nov 7, 2007)

red states rule said:


> I see facts still bother you and get under your skin. The last thing you and your party wanted was for the surge to work
> 
> Your attempted smear of Gen Petraeus shows how much the Dems supprt the troops and the war



I always wanted the surge to work.  I never smeared Petraeus.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> I always wanted the surge to work.  I never smeared Petraeus.



You did not show any outrage over the ad - you tried to parce the words  of the ad like Bill Clinton

Your party leaders never wanted the surge to work, and did all they could to try and convince the voters it was failing - even before it started


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is more rush bullshit from his number one fan.
> 
> no democrat has ever suggested cutting and running.




"Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq," Feingold explained.

Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.

Representative Maxine Waters (CA-35), Representative Lynn Woolsey (CA-6), Representative Barbara Lee (CA-9) and other Members of Congress introduced legislation that would conclude the United States' involvement in Iraq within 6 months of the enactment of the legislation.

"Bring it on," tonight we stand with the families who say, "Bring Our Troops Home . . . Now!......CYNTHIA McKINNEY

.The House of Representatives voted 223-201 Thursday to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.............Four Republicans joined 219 Democrats to pass the bill

Chris Dodd believes the time for giving President Bush blank checks is over and that we should begin safely redeploying U.S. combat troops out of Iraq, beginning immediately and completed within one year.

-----------
Now Maineman will come back with..."I don't see the words 'cut and run' anywhere"......why? ... because mm has a big problem with English....

cut and run? bring the troops home now?  immediately redeploy out of Iraq? 

we all know they mean the same thing, all except mm.... 

Come mm....don't disappoint me....give us the old spin and tapdance routine....


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> "Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq," Feingold explained.
> 
> Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.
> 
> ...



MM will also say they were taken out of context


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 7, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is more rush bullshit from his number one fan.
> 
> no democrat has ever suggested cutting and running.



You can not be serious. Your a bald faced liar or an idiot, since I know your not an idiot, how in the hell can you make that statement?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 7, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. Your a bald faced liar or an idiot, since I know your not an idiot, how in the hell can you make that statement?



Oh he is serious

MM does not only drink the DNC Kool Aid - he uses it for bath water


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 7, 2007)

Poor mm.....hes been had more times than a 2 buck whore......nice to see more and more people calling him on some his stupid tapdancin.....
We might just make this site the NO SPIN ZONE FOR DEMOCRATS


----------



## eots (Nov 7, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Poor mm.....hes been had more times than a 2 buck whore......nice to see more and more people calling him on some his stupid tapdancin.....
> We might just make this site the NO SPIN ZONE FOR DEMOCRATS



here's the no spin .....Cheney and crew deceived and lied the country in to war to execute the pnac plan and at min orcastrated the events of 911 to be the  helpful new pearl harbour they said would be required to win support .then through the controlled media spoon feed you little catch phrases and made up Jessica lynch type storeys and program you to run around shouting islamofascist Islamofascist and believing it is anti American to not invade other country's for the profit of the elite


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

eots said:


> here's the no spin .....Cheney and crew deceived and lied the country in to war to execute the pnac plan and at min orcastrated the events of 911 to be the  helpful new pearl harbour they said would be required to win support .then through the controlled media spoon feed you little catch phrases and made up Jessica lynch type storeys and program you to run around shouting islamofascist Islamofascist and believing it is anti American to not invade other country's for the profit of the elite



Take your delusions else where.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Take your delusions else where.



The Twilight Zone would be a good place to start


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. Your a bald faced liar or an idiot, since I know your not an idiot, how in the hell can you make that statement?



find a quote from a democrat who suggests "CUTTING" and "RUNNING".

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> find a quote from a democrat who suggests "CUTTING" and "RUNNING".
> 
> I'll wait.



The legacy of Bill Clinton lives on with MM

He will lie, duck, dodge, and hide from what his party says and does


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> find a quote from a democrat who suggests "CUTTING" and "RUNNING".
> 
> I'll wait.



Already been done in this thread, but then you are weak on reading comprehension now aren't you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> "Our country desperately needs a new vision for strengthening our national security, and it starts by redeploying U.S. forces from Iraq," Feingold explained.
> 
> Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.
> 
> ...



I guess you just "missed" this post, ehh Maineman?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I guess you just "missed" this post, ehh Maineman?



Hot at all. He read it, then acts like it was never posted - then tries to dismisses it since it does not contain the words "cut and run"


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I guess you just "missed" this post, ehh Maineman?




if Bush talks with Palestinian leaders, he is "negotiating".  When Clinton did it, he was "coddling" terrorists.  

Words have meanings and connotations.  That is what spin is all about.  
"Cutting and running" is republican spin for what democrats suggest.  nothing less.  

I merely point out that it is not what democrats said, but how republicans spin it.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> if Bush talks with Palestinian leaders, he is "negotiating".  When Clinton did it, he was "coddling" terrorists.
> 
> Words have meanings and connotations.  That is what spin is all about.
> "Cutting and running" is republican spin for what democrats suggest.  nothing less.
> ...



No, you are trying to lie about what your party has siad and done. If libs had their way, the surge would not be successful - they would have pulled the troops out long before it started

Now Dems are trying to run for cover and you are circling the wagons around them


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> No, you are trying to lie about what your party has siad and done. If libs had their way, the surge would not be successful - they would have pulled the troops out long before it started
> 
> Now Dems are trying to run for cover and you are circling the wagons around them




I am not lying about anything.  I am pointing out that republicans spin.... and willingly admit that democrats do too.... but "cut and run" is republican spin.  that's a fact.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am not lying about anything.  I am pointing out that republicans spin.... and willingly admit that democrats do too.... but "cut and run" is republican spin.  that's a fact.



Yea, the same way Clinton tried to say what the meaning of is - is


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I guess you just "missed" this post, ehh Maineman?



And for further clarification, now that I did what Maineman asked and proved a quote for him and his claim no Democrats ever called for us to cut and run, he neg repped me. Not only doesn't he appreciate being shown being wrong he wants to claim anyone doing so is insulting him.

My neg rep hurts him more than his neg rep hurts me.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And for further clarification, now that I did what Maineman asked and proved a quote for him and his claim no Democrats ever called for us to cut and run, he neg repped me. Not only doesn't he appreciate being shown being wrong he wants to claim anyone doing so is insulting him.
> 
> My neg rep hurts him more than his neg rep hurts me.



not one democrat called for us to "cut and run".  fact.


saying otherwise is, as I said earlier, just republican spin.

::yawn::


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And for further clarification, now that I did what Maineman asked and proved a quote for him and his claim no Democrats ever called for us to cut and run, he neg repped me. Not only doesn't he appreciate being shown being wrong he wants to claim anyone doing so is insulting him.
> 
> My neg rep hurts him more than his neg rep hurts me.



He does act like a small child having a temper tantrum


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> not one democrat called for us to "cut and run".  fact.
> 
> 
> saying otherwise is, as I said earlier, just republican spin.
> ...



Yet you get to define a lie as what ever you want? Right. The dems DID vote to remove troops from Iraq before we had succeeded in the mission ( otherwords cut and run).


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you get to define a lie as what ever you want? Right. The dems DID vote to remove troops from Iraq before we had succeeded in the mission ( otherwords cut and run).



Stop hitting MM with facts - his head will explode


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you get to define a lie as what ever you want? Right. The dems DID vote to remove troops from Iraq before we had succeeded in the mission ( *otherwords* cut and run).



not *"other"* words....*YOUR* words.  NOT democrat's words.  get it????

and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does.  and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is *"something intended or serving to convey a false impression".*  Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> not *"other"* words....*YOUR* words.  NOT democrat's words.  get it????
> 
> and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does.  and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is *"something intended or serving to convey a false impression".*  Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.



You are ingoring (once again) your beloved Dems said Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get nukes, and what a threat


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is a FACT that in the nmonths leading up to the invasion of Iraq, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had planned 9/11.
> 
> Since he DIDN'T plan 9/11, how does the right explain the fact that 70% of Americans had come to believe that he HAD?


Its your position that the Bush administration lied to the American people to think this.  Its a position that you, after numerous attempts to get you to do so, have completely refused to support.

At BEST you're arguing correlation = causation, and as such, all you have to stand on is your partisan bigotry.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> You are ingoring (once again) your beloved Dems said Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get nukes, and what a threat



got any democratic quotes that attempted to convey the false impression that Saddam was assisting AQ?

I'll wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> not *"other"* words....*YOUR* words.  NOT democrat's words.  get it????
> 
> and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does.  and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is *"something intended or serving to convey a false impression".*  Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.



Your opinion, not based in fact. Your words.  Bush spoke of WMD'S that EVERYONE believed Saddam had, he spoke of programs that Saddam had had before and after the invasion was proven he was going to return to once sanctions were lifted. He talked of Saddam Hussein trying to make a deal with Al Qaeda something also proven before and after the invasion. NO your OPINION is not supported by facts, while mine is. I provided you a quote to back it up.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion, not based in fact. Your words.  Bush spoke of WMD'S that EVERYONE believed Saddam had, he spoke of programs that Saddam had had before and after the invasion was proven he was going to return to once sanctions were lifted. He talked of Saddam Hussein trying to make a deal with Al Qaeda something also proven before and after the invasion. NO your OPINION is not supported by facts, while mine is. I provided you a quote to back it up.



So did your Dems 

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.Bill Clinton in 1998

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.Tom Daschle in 1998

Saddam Husseins regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

I share the administrations goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.Al Gore, 2002
http://basilsblog.net/2006/12/08/if-bush-lied-about-wmd-so-did-these-democrats/


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> find a quote from a democrat who suggests "CUTTING" and "RUNNING".
> I'll wait.


Find a quote form the Bush administration that says "Iraq was involved in 9/11".
I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Find a quote form the Bush administration that says Iraq was involved in 9/11.
> I'll wait.



The naval convoy just took a direct hit


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A48970-2004Jun17?language=printer

I could go on, but you get the point....


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
> 
> ...



There are MANY links to Saddam and al Queda, but the administartion never said Saddam was involved with 9-11

That is what you were asked to show


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
> 
> ...



Yet none of them provide any link to actual 9/11 talk. In fact the Government was clear that they had NO such links. Did Bush et al talk of a link between al Quaeda and Iraq? Yes BUT not in regards 9/11. Of course that distinction is lost on someone that can not even figure out that voting to abandon an ally in a fight is cutting and running.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-06-16-al-qaeda-comments-by-bush_x.htm
> 
> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293
> 
> ...



Yes - that you cannot provide a quote from the bush administration that claims Iraq was involved with 9/11.

Thanks foir proving what we already knew.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes - that you cannot provide a quote from the bush administration that claims Iraq was involved with 9/11.
> 
> Thanks foir proving what we already knew.



You REALLY did not expect him to back up his claim, did you?


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet none of them provide any link to actual 9/11 talk. In fact the Government was clear that they had NO such links. Did Bush et al talk of a link between al Quaeda and Iraq? Yes BUT not in regards 9/11. Of course that distinction is lost on someone that can not even figure out that voting to abandon an ally in a fight is cutting and running.



and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11???? 

And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70&#37; of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?

and wouldn't that fall under the category of something intended or serving to convey a false impression?  And given the fact that Bush needed to get America behind his plan to forget all about OBL and go after Saddam, that false impression certainly served a useful purpose, did it not?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11????
> 
> And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70% of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?



Provide a link where Pres Bush said Saddam was involved in 9-11

You made the charge - back it up or retract it


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> and when America thinks about AQ, they think about it in terms OTHER than 9/11????
> 
> And when team Bush continually connected Saddam and AQ, you think that had NOTHING to do with the fact that 70% of America then thought that Saddam had planned 9/11?


Correltation vs causation, Skippy.

Even if you were able to prove the former, you need to prove the latter for your claim to mean anything.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Correltation vs causation, Skippy.
> 
> Even if you were able to prove the former, you need to prove the latter for your claim to mean anything.




I don't need to PROVE anything.  I am voicing my OPINION.  You got a different one?  good for you.  Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't need to PROVE anything.  I am voicing my OPINION.  You got a different one?  good for you.  Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?



Translation - you can't prove your rant so now you do into defense mode

Typical


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't need to PROVE anything.  I am voicing my OPINION.


Which, of course, gets us back to the idea that you believe what tiy WANT to believe, regardless what sort of evidence you have to substantiate that belief.

Translation:
Partisan bigotry is all Skippy needs.



> Can you PROVE that I am incorrect in MY opinion?


Yes.  You continue to refuse to support your "opinion" in any meaningful way.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Translation - you can't prove your rant so now you do into defense mode
> 
> Typical



no.  translation:  I am stating my opinion.  you are stating yours.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Provide a link where Pres Bush said Saddam was involved in 9-11
> 
> You made the charge - back it up or retract it



wrong.  I have never said that Bush ever stated that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.  

Too subtle for you?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> wrong.  I have never said that Bush ever stated that Saddam was involved in 9/11.
> 
> I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.
> 
> Too subtle for you?



you were asked to provide a quote from Pres Bush saying Saddam was involvred in -11, and your links fell flat

Much like most of your "facts"


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> you were asked to provide a quote from Pres Bush saying Saddam was involvred in -11, and your links fell flat
> 
> Much like most of your "facts"



I have never said that Bush directly linked Saddam to 9/11.

I have always opined that Bush created the false impression that there was a link between them....and the quotes bear that out...as does the fact that 70% of Americans believed Saddam planned it.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never said that Bush directly linked Saddam to 9/11.
> 
> I have always opined that Bush created the false impression that there was a link between them....and the quotes bear that out...as does the fact that 70% of Americans believed Saddam planned it.



Your own words MM


not "other" words....YOUR words. NOT democrat's words. get it????

and I don't get to define what a lie is, the dictionary does. and the dictionary says that one definition of a lie is "something intended or serving to convey a false impression". Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have stated that he created the false impression that Saddam was involved.


Prove this.  

Please note that the statement "he created the false impression that Saddam was involved" is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Remember that you will need to show causation, not correlation.
Hopefully that's not too subtle for you, Skippy

Its pretty clear that you're only interested in believing what you want to believe, regardless if you know why you believe it.

Partisan bigotry at its finest.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Your own words MM
> 
> 
> not "other" words....YOUR words. NOT democrat's words. get it????
> ...



and where, in those words of mine do I ever state that Bush directly linked Saddam and 9/11?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> and where, in those words of mine do I ever state that Bush directly linked Saddam and 9/11?



Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.

Still can't back up your statemnt? Then retract it


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2007)

From the March 14, 2003 edition of the Christian Science Monitor:



> The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
> American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
> 
> By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
> ...


 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

Or you could go for Cheney as recently as April 6, 2007:



> WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein&#8217;s Iraq on Thursday *as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.*
> 
> Cheney contended that al-Qaida was operating in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion led by U.S. forces and that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was leading the Iraqi branch of al-Qaida. Others in al-Qaida planned the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
> 
> ...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17975678/

But they weren't intentionally trying to mislead or lie or anything like that. *rolls eyes*


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> From the March 14, 2003 edition of the Christian Science Monitor:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD. 

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies. 

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis. 

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq." 

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors." 


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Bush's statements about WMD's and Saddam and Al Qaeda demonstrably served to convey a false impression.
> 
> Still can't back up your statemnt? Then retract it



creating a false impression of a link between the two is not the same as directly linking the two.

for example:

News reporter:  *"We're here at RSR's farm.  Several barnyard animals have been sodomized by someone.  There is RSR over there.  The only human around.  We are not sure who exactly did have sex with all these animals, but some reports claim that the perpetrator was wearing a red shirt.  There is RSR standing over there. The only human around.  and, you'll note, he is wearing a red shirt.  The investigation continues.  Back to you at the studios."*

Now....did I create the impression that you had fucked some sheep?  yes
Did I directly state that you had fucked sheep?  no.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> But they weren't intentionally trying to mislead or lie or anything like that. *rolls eyes*


You might be able to show correlation.
You cannot show causation, nor intent.
So, you'll simply believe what you want to believe, regardless of how poorly that belief is supported.

The question is:  why?


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
> 
> The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.
> 
> ...



the Feith memo has been pretty soundly discredited.... but that wouldn't stop the cut and paste king!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> Now....did I create the impression that you had fucked some sheep?  yes
> Did I directly state that you had fucked sheep?  no.


OMFG -- Are ewe STILL sore that RSR stole your favoriate lay?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> creating a false impression of a link between the two is not the same as directly linking the two.
> 
> for example:
> 
> ...



Have you given up making jokes about my chemo?

BAck to personal attacks when you are backed into a corner


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2007)

Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....

hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?

Too bad the psychotic right has problems with the concept of sourcing.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Have you given up making jokes about my kemo?
> 
> BAck to personal attacks when you are backed into a corner



I am not making a personal attack. I was creating an analogy.

and kemo is spelled with a CH.

How's it going, by the way?  My best friend just got done with his a month or so ago.  He lost all the hair on his entire body.  but it is growing back now!  good luck.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....
> 
> hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?
> 
> Too bad the psychotic right has problems with the concept of sourcing.



To the left, facts never matter - only what their talking points lay out

The 9-11 report did list several links to Saddam in the 1990's - as the Weekly Standard published


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> To the left, facts never matter - only what their talking points lay out
> 
> The 9-11 report did list several links to Saddam in the 1990's - as the Weekly Standard published



contacts.  not links.  America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war.  I personally served with soviet officers.  we were not allies.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> Gee... the 9/11 Report and our department of defense... or the weekly standard....
> hmmmmmmmmmmm.... which is more credible?


I guess that depends on whether or not -you- like what the DoD has to say.
If you do, then you call it credible;
If you don't then you dismiss it.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> contacts.  not links.  America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war.  I personally served with soviet officers.  we were not allies.



There were contacts

Another facilitator of the relationship during the mid-1990s was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim (a.k.a. Abu Hajer al-Iraqi). Abu Hajer, now in a New York prison, was described in court proceedings related to the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as bin Laden's "best friend." According to CIA reporting dating back to the Clinton administration, bin Laden trusted him to serve as a liaison with Saddam's regime and tasked him with procurement of weapons of mass destruction for al Qaeda. FBI reporting in the memo reveals that Abu Hajer "visited Iraq in early 1995" and "had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence. Sometime before mid-1995 he went on an al Qaeda mission to discuss unspecified cooperation with the Iraqi government." 

Some of the reporting about the relationship throughout the mid-1990s comes from  
a source who had intimate knowledge of bin Laden and his dealings. This source, according to CIA analysis, offered "the most credible information" on cooperation between bin Laden and Iraq. 


This source's reports read almost like a diary. Specific dates of when bin Laden flew to various cities are included, as well as names of individuals he met. The source did not offer information on the substantive talks during the meetings. . . . There are not a great many reports in general on the relationship between bin Laden and Iraq because of the secrecy surrounding it. But when this source with close access provided a "window" into bin Laden's activities, bin Laden is seen as heavily involved with Iraq (and Iran).
Reporting from the early 1990s remains somewhat sketchy, though multiple sources place Hassan al-Turabi and Ayman al Zawahiri, bin Laden's current No. 2, at the center of the relationship. The reporting gets much more specific in the mid-1990s: 

8. Reporting from a well placed source disclosed that bin Laden was receiving training on bomb making from the IIS's [Iraqi Intelligence Service] principal technical expert on making sophisticated explosives, Brigadier Salim al-Ahmed. Brigadier Salim was observed at bin Laden's farm in Khartoum in Sept.-Oct. 1995 and again in July 1996, in the company of the Director of Iraqi Intelligence, Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti. 

9 . . . Bin Laden visited Doha, Qatar (17-19 Jan. 1996), staying at the residence of a member of the Qatari ruling family. He discussed the successful movement of explosives into Saudi Arabia, and operations targeted against U.S. and U.K. interests in Dammam, Dharan, and Khobar, using clandestine al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia. Upon his return, bin Laden met with Hijazi and Turabi, among others.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=2


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> contacts.  not links.  America had contacts with the soviet union throughout the cold war.  I personally served with soviet officers.  we were not allies.





red states rule said:


> There were contacts




duh.  I think I said there were contacts...not links.... 

there was no operational alliance between them.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I guess that depends on whether or not -you- like what the DoD has to say.
> If you do, then you call it credible;
> If you don't then you dismiss it.




aren't you doing the same thing?  who do YOU think is more credible in this instance?  the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> duh.  I think I said there were contacts...not links....
> there was no operational alliance between them.



 

And no one ever claimed there was.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> aren't you doing the same thing?  who do YOU think is more credible in this instance?  the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?



If it goes against what you want to believe you dismiss it and attack the messenger


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> aren't you doing the same thing?


Um...  no.  I'm not.
I haven't credidted/discredited anyone's source on the basis of the source itself.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And no one ever claimed there was.



no.  but it is my opinion that the administration went to great lengths to create the false impression that there was.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Um...  no.  I'm not.
> I haven't credidted/discredited anyone's source on the basis of the source itself.



that's odd.  you seem to have forgotten to answer the question:

who do YOU think is more credible in this instance? the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> that's odd.  you seem to have forgotten to answer the question:
> 
> who do YOU think is more credible in this instance? the 9/11 Commission and the DoD or the Weekly Standard?



Kets see... names, dates, and places. What flimsy eveidence the Weekly Standard published

So far, I am not aware any iof what they published has been proven wrong


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> that's odd.  you seem to have forgotten to answer the question:


That's because the question isnt addressed to me as I havent questioned the credibility of a source based on the source itself, Skippy.

And as far as not answering questions, YOU still havent told us if you're still mad at RSR for stealing your favorite lay.  That's ba-a-a-a-d form.

Nor have you supported your statements of fact, BTW.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> o


And an intellectually honest person would leave it at that.

But, the partisan bigot would follow it up with:



> but it is my opinion that the administration went to great lengths to create the false impression that there was



Bigotry.  It -used- to be considered a terrible thing.  
Now, for the Loony Left, its the norm.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Kets see... names, dates, and places. What flimsy eveidence the Weekly Standard published
> 
> So far, I am not aware any iof what they published has been proven wrong



so.  you place more credibility on the Weekly Standard than you do on our department of defense??  and here I thought you supported the troops!


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And an intellectually honest person would leave it at that.



so, people who express opinions are intellectually dishonest?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> so, people who express opinions are intellectually dishonest?



No.  YOU are.

You ADMIT that the administration NEVER claimed there was an oiperational alliance-- indeed, that it stated specifically that Iraq was NOT involved -- and then you continue on with your unsupported, unproven, bigoted claims that 'administration went to great lengths to create the false impression that there was'.

That, Skippy, is inetllectual dishonesty.

Not that such a thing bothers you (and your ewe).


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No.  YOU are.
> 
> You ADMIT that the administration NEVER claimed there was an oiperational alliance-- indeed, that it stated specifically that Iraq was NOT involved -- and then you continue on with your unsupported, unproven, bigoted claims that 'administration went to great lengths to create the false impression that there was'.



I ask you again:  when people in America think of Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, what do you think is the very first thing that comes to mind?

It is MY OPINION that 9/11 is what comes to mind.

So...if the administration goes to great lengths to create the false impression that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ, it is my OPINION that most people would consider that to be a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

And the fact that 70% of America believed exactly that tends to support my OPINION.

What do you have, other than YOUR OPINION, that would tend to discredit MY OPINION?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I ask you again:  when people in America think of Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, what do you think is the very first thing that comes to mind?
> It is MY OPINION that 9/11 is what comes to mind.


I would hope so, given that, as you admit,  the administration has said that Iraq was not involved.



> So...if the administration goes to great lengths to create the false impression that there was a connection between Iraq and AQ....


For the 1,365,961st time: 
Prove this to be the case.
Since you have laid this out as an if-then statement, your -entire- argument rests on it.



> And the fact that 70&#37; of America believed exactly that tends to support my OPINION.


You really dont understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you?

You're arguing that because people die after the sun goes down, the sun going down kills people.



> What do you have, other than YOUR OPINION, that would tend to discredit MY OPINION?


Oh wait -- is this you stating X, not supporting X, and then demandiing that I prove X to be wrong?
Yes, yes it is.  
This is a tactic used by stupid 4th graders, Skippy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

I have posted numerous links detailing administration statements that suggested links between AQ and Iraq.  I really have no intention of doing so again.  google it like I did.

I have only stated that it is my opinion that the main reason that people came to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 was the continual linking of AQ and Saddam by the administration.  Obviously, at this point in time, proving that the administration's statements were the primary factor is impossible.  That is why it is only my opinion.  Would you have an opinion as to why the administration's statements would NOT have been the primary factor?  Do you have a suggestion as to what else might have caused that shift in public opinion?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have posted numerous links detailing administration statements that suggested links between AQ and Iraq.


Yes you have.  
But this doesnt prove what you claim.
Especially as you have admitted that the administration has said that there Iraq was NOT in on 9-11.



> I have only stated that it is my opinion that the main reason that people came to believe that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 was the continual linking of AQ and Saddam by the administration.


Yes.  And has been stated about a zillion times:
Your opinion is unproveable and unsupportable.
But, since you're a intellectually dishonest partisan bigot that believe what he wants to believe regardless of how little there is to support that belief, it doesnt matter to you that your opinion is unproveable and unsupportable.



> Would you have an opinion as to why the administration's statements would NOT have been the primary factor? Do you have a suggestion as to what else might have caused that shift in public opinion?


As recently noted, this you stating X, not supporting X, and then demandiing that I prove X to be wrong.
This is a tactic used by stupid 4th graders, and its just another example of your intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

Or put another way:

on 9/15/01, nearly everyone in America was clearly aware of who OBL was, and what his organization had done - he had planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.

in January of '03, nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.

It is my opinion that the repeated speeches made by administration officials that suggested a link between Saddam and AQ had a major impact in that shift of opinion.  You apparently do not agree.

Fine.  Could you give me YOUR opinion as to why, in the space of 16 months, Americans went from thinking that OBL had planned and executed 9/11 to thinking that Saddam had done so?

I would LOVE to hear your ideas on this.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

i tellya... 


it's pretty rich seeing righties distance themselves from the war drum leading into iraq..  Next thing you know they will be claiming that bill clinton was the guy insisting that iraq had WMDs..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> Or put another way:
> 
> on 9/15/01, nearly everyone in America was clearly aware of who OBL was, and what his organization had done - he had planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.
> 
> in January of '03, nearly 70&#37; of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.


You really dont understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you?



> Fine.


Somehow, I doubt it.



> Could you give me YOUR opinion as to why, in the space of 16 months, Americans went from thinking that OBL had planned and executed 9/11 to thinking that Saddam had done so?


I havent made any assertion to this effect and so I am under no obligation whatsoever to back it up -- and in any event, Skippy, your logic 101 class should have taught you that absence of a counter to theory A does not prove theory A.

Or did you miss that part while you were out qualifying with your M1?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Next thing you know they will be claiming that bill clinton was the guy insisting that iraq had WMDs..


Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days over their WMDs and WMD programs.


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

we're having a discussion here.  I have given you my opinion. I have asked for yours.  I have tried not to be disrespectful of you, yet you continue to be disrespectful of me.  Why not make this less of a school yard taunting session and more of a polite discussion?  I would enjoy that.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> we're having a discussion here.  I have given you my opinion. I have asked for yours.  I have tried not to be disrespectful of you, yet you continue to be disrespectful of me.  Why not make this less of a school yard taunting session and more of a polite discussion?  I would enjoy that.



Does being repsectful mean posting that someone is having sex with animals, or joking about someone's chemo treatments?


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Does being repsectful mean posting that someone is having sex with animals, or joking about someone's chemo treatments?



I posted an analogy.  did you understand what that meant?  I never said that you were having sex with animals.  you missed the point, obviously. 

I am not joking about your chemo treatments at all.  I asked you how they were going.  I told you that my best friend just got done with his, and that he is doing fine.

It is good to see that you are, at least, spelling it correctly now.  See?  You DID learn something from me!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> we're having a discussion here.  I have given you my opinion. I have asked for yours.  I have tried not to be disrespectful of you, yet you continue to be disrespectful of me.  Why not make this less of a school yard taunting session and more of a polite discussion?  I would enjoy that.


Oh.  So you're taking back and apoligizing for all the disrespectful schoolyard taunts that you leveled at me?  Fair enough.

You -have- given me your opinion.

You have also been shown that your opinion isnt supported and is unproveable.  Its based on faulty logic (correlation = causation) and doesnt have any factial evidence to support it -- indeed, the factual evidence runs COUNTER to your opinion.

And so, MY opinion, one that IS supportable, is that YOUR opinion doesnt hold a bit of water, and that you clinging to it regardless of any of the things previously noted is very strong evidence of partisan bigotry and intellectual dishonesty.

And THAT is not a taunt.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I posted an analogy.  did you understand what that meant?  I never said that you were having sex with animals.  you missed the point, obviously.
> 
> I am not joking about your chemo treatments at all.  I asked you how they were going.  I told you that my best friend just got done with his, and that he is doing fine.
> 
> It is good to see that you are, at least, spelling it correctly now.  See?  You DID learn something from me!



MM you are shit on the other board after your "respectful" posts about my treatments

Typical of the "compassonate" left

I caught the spelling error and changed it as you were posting your "respectful" reply


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

your thoughts?



maineman said:


> Or put another way:
> 
> on 9/15/01, nearly everyone in America was clearly aware of who OBL was, and what his organization had done - he had planned and executed the attacks of 9/11.
> 
> ...


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Bill Clinton bombed Iraq for 4 days over their WMDs and WMD programs.



THERRREE it is!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> THERRREE it is!


What's your point?

Anyone that supported Cliton's argument for the danger posed by WMD/WMD programs had no place whatesoever to opose Bush's.

Not that it stopped them...


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

how many dems were whipped into the manic phantom WMD frenzy again?


to the point of invading iraq for the sake of circle and arrowed mobile chem labs?


oh yea... thats not what happened because clinton never tried to sell the phantom bullshit as fact in the run up for an excuse to invade...


 


but keep on trying to pass that shit off, dude!  it's GREAT fun watching your kind scramble this side of the 06 election..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> how many dems were whipped into the manic phantom WMD frenzy again?


Beats me.  Point is there were few, if any, that doubted thei rexistence or the danger posed by them.

In fact, the only person that seems to doubt they were there in 1998 is...  you.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

you are full of shit.


if there were any ACTUAL threat it would have been brought up and dealt with.  As it is, even your ponies were busy telling us how benign iraq was until 9/11... which, ironically, had nothing to do with iraq.


Have fun trying to shirk the last 7 years of your very own political fuckups, dude!  screaming Clinton won't help you live down your own LEGACY!


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> I ask you again:  when people in America think of Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden, what do you think is the very first thing that comes to mind?
> 
> It is MY OPINION that 9/11 is what comes to mind.
> 
> ...



MM, you put alot of emphasis on the 9/11 report....so lets look at it...
..................................
From the 9/11 Commission Report...Page 70

(U) In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present. several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.

*Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to the war...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)*

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U) The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship."  The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

*This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship......(20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking)*
...................................
The facts show what was believed to be true before the war is what the Clinton and Bush Administrations rightly believed before the war.....they relied on the CIA to be the "experts" on the issue....

and what the Commission concluded later.....AFTER the invasion and after what was learned on the ground in Iraq....so use a little logic here, consider what was believed before and what was learned later....it matters if you really want to understand the truth, instead of cherry picking conclusions and distorting history to agree with your left-wing bias.....
I don't really care if 99.9% of America believes what you believe, it would only prove the effectiveness of the Democratic propaganda machine, wrong in wrong,


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2007)

That is *not* what pages 70 and 71 of the 9-11 report say as far as I can tell. Would you care to link to the misspelled document that you're citing? And on't be put off by the pagination, but the report pages are properly labeled.


http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-87.html

http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-88.html


----------



## maineman (Nov 8, 2007)

meetings mean nothing.  As I have said, the US and USSR had meetings all thgoughout the cold war.  I served with soviets.  We were not allies.  We certainly would not have given them any WMD's.  

The fact remains:  in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11.  Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion.  No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> you are full of shit.



You keep believing that.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Its not the page numbers on your pdf document...

Its the page number on the actual report....bottom of each page....

I'm using a saved copy of the 9/11 report PDF file, don't have a link, but you should be able to find it pretty easily....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> The fact remains:  in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11.  Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion.  No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.


Yes.  This is your opinion.

You have also been shown that your opinion isnt supported and is unproveable. Its based on faulty logic (correlation = causation) and doesnt have any factial evidence to support it -- indeed, the factual evidence runs COUNTER to your opinion.

And so, MY opinion, one that IS supportable, is that YOUR opinion doesnt hold a bit of water, and that you clinging to it regardless of any of the things previously noted is very strong evidence of partisan bigotry and intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

This is it....


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You keep believing that.



I will, thanks.

aww come on, dude!  don't run away!  it's so much fun watching your kind try so hard to blame clinton for those phantom WMDs!


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> I will, thanks.
> 
> aww come on, dude!  don't run away!  it's so much fun watching your kind try so hard to blame clinton for those phantom WMDs!



You must have miised the post where Dems said the same things about Saddam and his WMD's as Pres Bush did


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

"dems" equal the clinton presidency all of a sudden?

HA!  

I'd have no problem kicking every dem who voted for the war to the curb.  Every one of them.  However, the FACT remains that throwing the iraq fuckup onto Clintons shoulders is wildly entertaining now that we are on the verge of another presidential campaign and conservatives start to get the impression that their record since 2000 is pretty laughable.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> "dems" equal the clinton presidency all of a sudden?
> 
> HA!
> 
> I'd have no problem kicking every dem who voted for the war to the curb.  Every one of them.  However, the FACT remains that throwing the iraq fuckup onto Clintons shoulders is wildly entertaining now that we are on the verge of another presidential campaign and conservatives start to get the impression that their record since 2000 is pretty laughable.



Libs love to say Bush lied about WMD's - but give their fellow Dems a pass. 
Bill, Hillary, Albright, Gore, Pelosi,and many others said many times Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get nukes, and was a threat

I hop0e Iraq is the top issue in 08. With the surge working very well, Dems will have to esplain how we are winning when for years they were saying we were losing


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
> 
> This is it....



That isn't the 9-11 Report first off. 

Second that's the report where they, talk about how unreliable an informant curveball was. And page 73 talks about how Saddam Hussain kept rejecting the advances of AQ. You really want to go into that report?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

maineman said:


> meetings mean nothing.  As I have said, the US and USSR had meetings all thgoughout the cold war.  I served with soviets.  We were not allies.  We certainly would not have given them any WMD's.
> 
> The fact remains:  in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11.  Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion.  No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.



I don't give a shit if 90% of the American people believed it....the only conclusion that can be made from you "fact" is that 70% of American are ignorant....did you believe it,.....probably not....nor did I....
If I mentioned peanuts and rabbit shit in the same sentence, do you come to the conclusion that rabbit shit is made of peanuts.....so spare me the strawman crap.....

As I've proven from the 9/11 Report, the CIA claimed at least 8 meetings between AQ and Iraqi representatives.....because collaboration might have been assumed is no surprise....


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Libs love to say Bush lied about WMD's - but give their fellow Dems a pass.
> Bill, Hillary, Albright, Gore, Pelosi,and many others said many times Saddam had WMD's, was trying to get nukes, and was a threat
> 
> I hop0e Iraq is the top issue in 08. With the surge working very well, Dems will have to esplain how we are winning when for years they were saying we were losing




trust me.. I hope it's the main issue too.  I'd bet jacks, joes and domineos that it's a liability rather than a bonus.


and what did I tell you about generalizing liberals?  Did I NOT just say i'd scrap every dem that voted for the war?


however, blaming the dems on bush's CRUSADE is clearly going to come to haunt you in little under a year.  We've already won in disposing saddam.  Acting like iraq is our new colony is what will sink your side in 08.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> trust me.. I hope it's the main issue too.  I'd bet jacks, joes and domineos that it's a liability rather than a bonus.
> 
> 
> and what did I tell you about generalizing liberals?  Did I NOT just say i'd scrap every dem that voted for the war?
> ...



Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave

I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning

The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> That isn't the 9-11 Report first off.
> 
> Second that's the report where they, talk about how unreliable an informant curveball was. And page 73 talks about how Saddam Hussain kept rejecting the advances of AQ. You really want to go into that report?



  Your absolutely right Jillian...I was quoting the Intelligence Report.....I stand corrected......in my haste, I admit I got the name of the report wrong.... my mistake......thanks

but the pertinent facts stand.....this report tells of what was believed at specific times....the time is what is important....


----------



## jillian (Nov 8, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Your absolutely right Jillian...I was quoting the Intelligence Report.....I stand corrected......in my haste, I admit I got the name of the report wrong.... my mistake......thanks
> 
> but the pertinent facts stand.....this report tells of what was believed at specific times....the time is what is important....



Actually, the report says the OPPOSITE of what you said... it says that the intel given by curveball was unreliable and that Saddam Hussain kept rebuffing AQ.

I know that must be unimportant to you.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave
> 
> I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning
> 
> The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news




I'll believe that we'll leave when we do just that.  Building a beachhead in Baghdad isn't convincing.  It doesn't matter if we dont use the nomenclature Colony. Hell, you are familiar with how we dance around terms in order to skirt their meaning, eh rendition?

You say WINNING as if, by next year at this same time, there will be any discernable difference than what we see today.  You use victory as some carrot to dangle in front of America for the sake of political identity.  Again, are there ANY statements you want to say now and won't dance around in 6 months?  You know, like predicting when green zones and flak jackets will no longer be required..

You remind me of the scene in the movie Full Metal Jacket where Joker is told to make shit up for morale purposes.  Empty wishful thinking won't solve this giant fuckup, dude.  Trust me, if there were actual discernable changes taking place IT WOULD BE PRETTY FUCKING OBVIOUS.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

jillian said:


> Actually, the report says the OPPOSITE of what you said... it says that the intel given by curveball was unreliable and that Saddam Hussain kept rebuffing AQ.
> 
> I know that must be unimportant to you.



Are you telling me that what I read on Page 70 and 71 isn't there ?

I didn't mention "curveball" or any other source...I pointed out what the CIA was concluding from their intell. before the war, and what the commission concluded through Monday morning quarterbacking.....its not relevant that the CIA was right or wrong....its what they believed and reported at that particular time....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Its like insisting to your doctor that your arm is broken and when an xray proves its not, blaming the doctor for giving you an unnecessary xray....


----------



## Shogun (Nov 8, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Its like insisting to your doctor that your arm is broken and when an xray proves its not, blaming the doctor for giving you an unnecessary xray....



HA!

uh huh...


----------



## Big_D (Nov 8, 2007)

red states rule said:


> Shogun, you are better then this. We do not consider Iarq a colony. When they can take care of their own security - we leave
> 
> I want to see Dems explain how after 4 years of saying the war was lost, openly wanting to cut and run from Iraq, and the smearing of the troops - try to explain how we are winning
> 
> The troops have turned this around 180 degrees - and the liberal media hates it. they try to bury or ignore the good news



Why do you believe that we have turned a corner in this war?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 8, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You might be able to show correlation.
> You cannot show causation, nor intent.
> So, you'll simply believe what you want to believe, regardless of how <b>poorly</b> that belief is supported.




You think that at one stage 70% of Americans thought that Sadman had something to do with 9/11 is "poorly" supported? What do you do for an encore, say Bush's current polling shows that America loves the dude? 

Answer this question M14 - if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck is it a duck or a polar bear?


----------



## eots (Nov 8, 2007)

Bush: If I Were Iraqi, I'd Be Saying, ?God, I Love Freedom' 

Think Progress | November 8, 2007 

This afternoon, President Bush held a joint press conference with French President Nicholas Sarkozy. A reporter asked Bush where he stood ?on Iraq and your domestic debate on Iraq,? and whether he had a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops. In response, Bush insisted that ?freedom's happening? and Iraq isn't in a ?quagmire?: 

I don't ? you know quagmire is an interesting word. If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying: God, I love freedom, because that's what's happened. 

And there are killers and radicals and murderers who kill the innocent to stop the advance of freedom. But freedom's happening in Iraq. And we're making progress. 




In June, Gen. David Petraeus said that U.S. troops had been in Iraq ?long enough to become liberators again,? echoing Vice President Cheney's infamous pre-war prediction that the United States would ?be greeted as liberators.? 

Almost five years, 3857 U.S. troop deaths, and more than 76,000 Iraqi civilian deaths later, Bush can't figure out why Iraqis aren't jumping around rejoicing in their freedom. (Maybe it's because they've all left the country.)


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 9, 2007)

What a GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!

Do the right wingers consider ignorance a virtue?


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 9, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> What a GREAT CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!
> 
> Do the right wingers consider ignorance a virtue?



More likely a pre-requisite.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 9, 2007)

More bad news for the left


November 06, 2007
Ten Months of Opinion Change on War and More

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ten_mo...n_change_o.php



Pollster.com: 'Remarkable' Positive Opinion Change on Iraq 
By Mark Finkelstein | November 9, 2007 - 06:59 ET 
Being against the war after she was for it, could it be soon be time for Hillary to be for it again?

The question arises in light of the findings by Charles Franklin [pictured here] at Pollster.com. According to his November 6th Pollster.com analysis, there has been a "remarkable" shift, in a positive direction, in public opinion on the war in Iraq.

Excerpts from Franklin's Ten Months of Opinion Change on War and More 

Some interesting changes have taken place in opinion about the war, the president, congress and the country. It is too early, and the changes too modest, to declare this a "turning point" in opinion, but the changes are consistent enough to take a hard look and ponder if there is still potential for significant shifts over the next 52 weeks until Election Day 2008. 

The single most striking shift is the change in opinion about how the war in Iraq is going. After four and a half years of steady downward trends, there has been a reversal of direction since July. 

From January through June, the long running collapse in positive evaluation of the war (especially in the second half of 2006) halted. The flattening now appears to have clearly coincided with the change in command and troop levels. 

This flattening didn't signal rising opinion on the war-- but after dropping over 13 percentage points in six months, simply arresting the collapse was a major plus for the administration. And this is a particularly striking thing given that the spring of 2007 was a focal point for critiques of the war in Congress, with Democratic leadership repeatedly pushing votes that would have required changes in Iraq policy of various kinds. And this flattening came at the same time that casualties rose. 

The second phase of opinion change started in early July, when positive evaluations of the war took their first upturn since late 2003 (around the time of the capture of Saddam Husein). The trend estimate has turned up some 8 percentage points since July 1, still not back to early 2006 levels, but remarkable this late in an unpopular war and with a weak leader and determined opposition. 

Republicans (including the president) have made real progress in swaying opinion to their side, while 10 months of Democratic efforts have failed to persuade citizens that the war continues to be a disaster. The war of partisan persuasion has tilted towards the Republicans and away from the Democrats, at least in this particular aspect. 

How will the MSM cover this news? The New York Times didn't exactly splash it across the front page, but a discussion of the Pollster report did turn up yesterday in the Times's "Opinionator" blog. Opinionator Tobin Harshaw, after describing the Pollster report, offered a critique of it by Kevin Drum of the liberal "Washington Monthly." Observed Harshaw: "Its a good point, but I suspect some will feel Mr. Drum shows a bit too much pleasure in making it."

Pollster.com is anything but a GOP front. Head honcho Mark Blumenthal logged 20 years as a Dem consultant, and Franklin is a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin, hardly a hotbed of pro-Republican activism. Judging from this bio, Franklin is a highly-respected polling expert, not a partisan. He is is the past president of the Society for Political Methodology, and works as an ABC election-night consultant.

Perhaps most notable is Franklin's finding that the best efforts of the Dems -- abetted by their MSM allies -- to persuade Americans that the war is a disaster failed. There's a long way to go from now till election day. But couple this news with yesterday's report that our forces have completely rid Baghdad of al-Qaeda-in-Iraq. 

Do we detect the sound of Hillary's flip . . . flopping?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...on-change-iraq


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You think that at one stage 70% of Americans thought that Sadman had something to do with 9/11 is "poorly" supported?


No...  as I have said about 100 times, the "poorly supported" part comes in when attributing this change to anything the Bush administration did -- correlation v causation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> More likely a pre-requisite.



I'll take that over the blatant stupidity and intellectual dishonesty of the left, any day.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No...  as I have said about 100 times, the "poorly supported" part comes in when attributing this change to anything the Bush administration did -- correlation v causation.



and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.

Do you have any thoughts on that at all?????


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on that at all?????



Americans believe lots of things that are not true in large numbers. Doesn't then mean that a President that STATED FOR THE RECORD over and over that Saddam Hussein was NOT linked to 9/11 somehow convinced them otherwise.

Again the Admin claimed Saddam Hussein was searching out terrorists to attack us. Proven by documents obtained after the invasion. One of those groups was Al Quaeda. Stating that does not then mean one is saying Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Especially when the Admin makes specific statements that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Americans believe lots of things that are not true in large numbers. Doesn't then mean that a President that STATED FOR THE RECORD over and over that Saddam Hussein was NOT linked to 9/11 somehow convinced them otherwise.



yes.  it does.  I think he stated it for the record a few times and only after he had insinuated exactly the opposite for months on end.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> yes.  it does.  I think he stated it for the record a few times and only after he had insinuated exactly the opposite for months on end.



Link please?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I have asked you over and over and over again to suggest some other explanation for how 70% of America came to believe something that wasn't true.


And, as I said to you over and over and over:
-This isnt my argument, so its not my responsibility to explain it
-Absence of an aternative to your explanation doesnt prove your explanation.

YOU lay some importance on all of this, because YOU think this is part of some sinister plan by the Bush administation.  -I- do not.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And, as I said to you over and over and over:
> -This isnt my argument, so its not my responsibility to explain it
> -Absence of an aternative to your explanation doesnt prove your explanation.
> 
> YOU lay some importance on all of this, because YOU think this is part of some sinister plan by the Bush administation.  -I- do not.




I am simply asking for your opinion. do you have one?  Are you not at all concerned about how 70% of AMericans came to believe a lie when that belief was integral in their support for the initiation of a war????


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am simply asking for your opinion. do you have one?  Are you not at all concerned about how 70% of AMericans came to believe a lie when that belief was integral in their support for the initiation of a war????


There you go again...  claiming a lie that you cannot prove...

You're also assuming that the belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was "intergral" for the public support of the war.  I won't bother asking your to even -try- to prove that.

You keep believing what you want to believe.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> There you go again...  claiming a lie that you cannot prove...
> 
> You're also assuming that the belief that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was "intergral" for the public support of the war.  I won't bother asking your to even -try- to prove that.
> 
> You keep believing what you want to believe.



do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?  

And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here.  Are you at all concerned as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was not true?


----------



## red states rule (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?
> 
> And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here.  Are you at all concerned as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was not true?



No yiou are pushing a kook left conspiracy theory that has long ago been proven to be a lie


----------



## Shogun (Nov 9, 2007)

oh yes.. it is fucking hilarious to see how quickly they distance themselves from their past rally cry......


rich, indeed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you honestly think that the fact that a large percentage of America believed that Saddam had been behind 9/11 did not contribute to public support for the invasion of Iraq?


That YOU cannot come up with any other explanation doesn't in any way mean no other explanation exists, or that your explanation is correct.



> And again.... I am trying to have a discussion here.


All you're doing is creating straw men for you to knock down.
On that, there's no discussion worth having.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> That YOU cannot come up with any other explanation doesn't in any way mean no other explanation exists, or that your explanation is correct.
> 
> 
> All you're doing is creating straw men for you to knock down.
> On that, there's no discussion worth having.



I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.

And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70&#37; of America came to believe something that was incorrect.


Yes.  You are.  
And I don't care about your pet conspiracies, given that's all they are.


----------



## red states rule (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.
> 
> And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?



Your worn out kook left conspiracy theories?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am asking if YOU can come up with an explanation as to how 70% of America came to believe something that was incorrect.
> 
> And I am asking you if you are even the least bit bothered that so many Americans could have been mistaken about something so important?



Are you worried that a lot of people believe the Government was involved in 9/11? It is as relevant a question as the one your asking. Your insistance that because people believed something means the Admin conned them into believing it fails miserably when one can google up time after time that every senior member that ever talked about Iraq STATED for the record over and over Saddam Hussein had no links to 9/11.

I have a better question, why did all those powerful Democrats support the war? Did they to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? Why did our Congress vote to allow the invasion? Were they too convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?

Last I checked we did not hold a popular vote to go to war, we used our Congress to approve it. Are you saying that every member that voted for war was hoodwinked into believing Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11?

The Intelligence was clear, now trot out your other tired lie about how Bush got every intelligence agency in the world to lie for him, how he gor Clinton to lie for him... on and on.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> *ONE*Are you worried that a lot of people believe the Government was involved in 9/11? It is as relevant a question as the one your asking. Your insistance that because people believed something means the Admin conned them into believing it fails miserably when one can google up time after time that every senior member that ever talked about Iraq STATED for the record over and over Saddam Hussein had no links to 9/11.
> 
> I have a better question, *TWO*why did all those powerful Democrats support the war? *THREE*Did they to believe Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? *FOUR*Why did our Congress vote to allow the invasion? *FIVE*Were they too convinced that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?
> 
> ...



you seem to have a lot of questions but can't find the cojones to answer one.

I will now answer all of yours and maybe that will cause a similar response.

ONE.  Yes.  I do not believe the government had any involvement and pity those who do.  But wacko conspiracy theorists have always been a part of American politics.  And as I have said over and over again.  Administration officials denied the connection lamely and lately.  For months and months in the fall of 2002, speech after speech referred to Al Qaeda, 9/11, WMD's and Saddam...over and over and over again.  But hey....if that had nothing to do with 70% of America getting it wrong, show some stones and offer up YOUR suggestion as to how and why they were deceived.

TWO.  First.... a majority of democrats elected to congress voted AGAINST the war...the rest caved into the brilliant posturing of the Rove Team that made the vote one about patriotism... I was upset with all of them.

THREE.  No.  They believed that they would lose their seats in congress if the public perceived them as being soft on Saddam..the guy who most of them felt was responsible for 9/11.

FOUR and FIVE.  Asked and answered above.

SIX.  Like I have said.  Democrats voted to keep their seats.  THey were aware of the 70% figure like everyone else.  They felt that if they voted against the war, that their constituents would consider that they had voted against a war designed to get the guy who planned 9/11.  They caved. I was and remain furious with all who did.


SEVEN. The intelligence was far from "clear".  It was loaded with caveats and qualifiers.  There was certainly plenty of indications that Saddam might have been involved with weapons of mass destruction... but there was ZERO intell that he was involved with 9/11....yet 70% of America believed he had been...which provided the political leverage to convince job security conscious congressmen and women to vote to give Bush the authority to use force as a last resort rather than risk the wrath of their constituencies.


----------



## Big_D (Nov 9, 2007)

Mr. Red states Rule, why didnt you answer my question?


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

Big_D said:


> Mr. Red states Rule, why didnt you answer my question?



don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Big D.  RSR never answers ANYBODY's questions.  He just cuts and pastes long winded oped pieces and calls them facts, or he posts pithy little one-liners from Rush Limbaugh which is about all his minuscule intellect can remember.

pistol whipping him with words is a guilty pleasure...but after a while it gives you a feeling of what it must be like to physically assault a retarded kid in a wheelchair.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> you seem to have a lot of questions but can't find the cojones to answer one.
> 
> I will now answer all of yours and maybe that will cause a similar response.
> 
> ...


*
Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, 

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.

These are just some of the BIG NAME leaders in the Democratic Senate that helped pass the War Resolution....


What I find disturbing is the blame game played so skillfully by the left....

Those infamous Dem. quotes, over 6 years, on the subject of Saddam, Iraq, and WMD seem to be forgotten as playing no part in the events that ensued... show me the same level of saber rattling from the other side, during THAT time....

And mm will insist on playing word games and parsing those quotes until he can convince others the words didn't really mean what they say....like it depends on what the meaning of "know" is...or they didn't specifically use the word 'invade'...spin till the end....

The fact that Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc. helped pass the resolution that gave the President the authority to invade Iraq is now spun to say, "well, most Democrats voted against it", as if it matters.....so now the Democrats accept no responsibility

That when the going got tough, the Dems just put their tails between their legs and wanted to run home....with inane accusations like, "Bush just caused more terrorists"....or because Bush uttered 9/11 and Saddam in the same speech, he was saying Iraq was behind 9/11, it never happened....that idea came directly from the Democrats and took hold and began a life of its own....a lie repeated over and over does become the truth for some....

like I said in another post...if I use rabbit shit and candy in the same sentence, mm would say I was implying the candy was made from rabbit shit...
maybe those 70% he keeps talking about were mostly liberals....

Instead of the blame game, it would have been to our advantage to come together as one Nation, so some unity and resolve....instead of crying over  spilled milk and playing the lame blame bullshit game....but we know that ain't gonna happen.....

Yes...we have met the enemy, and they seem to be mostly Dimocrats.....
----------------------
*


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> *
> Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,
> 
> Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Toricelli, etc.
> ...




the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.  

but DO keep tap dancing, it is rather droll!

oh, and FYI, I was fully supportive of Bush in the wake of 9/11.  I volunteered to go back on active duty.  I was quite pleased with everything he did up until Tora Bora...and then he lost me....and then he quit talking about OBL and started talking about Saddam and he REALLY lost me.  But he had me at one time.  I was totally supportive of this president until he acted so irresponsibly that he lost my support.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.
> 
> *Quite IRRELEVANT....like most of you rants...but I'll venture you actually think your logic is reasonable in some twisted way...try a little cheap gin that kool-ade....*
> 
> ...



*I'm ecstatic you didn't get back on active duty...personally, in my foxhole, I'd feel safer with a KKK member on my right and a Black Panther on my left...
*
You almost sound like you might think Bush was giving the orders at Tora Bora...(you do don't you ?)
And long before Bush publicly mentioned Saddam, your Dims were continually mouthing the infamous quotes...as a matter of fact they had been for the previous 4 years of so....they sure weren't on the Senate floor ranting about AQ in those years.....


----------



## Annie (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> the fact remains, and you cannot escape it, that a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution while the republicans were all but uninimous in their support of it.
> 
> but DO keep tap dancing, it is rather droll!
> 
> oh, and FYI, I was fully supportive of Bush in the wake of 9/11.  I volunteered to go back on active duty.  I was quite pleased with everything he did up until Tora Bora...and then he lost me....and then he quit talking about OBL and started talking about Saddam and he REALLY lost me.  But he had me at one time.  I was totally supportive of this president until he acted so irresponsibly that he lost my support.



Funny thing, I was 'cashed out' on Bush by the time of 9/11. He got me immediately after, again. I'd written him off, after working on his campaign. I must say, at this late date, my pre-9/11 take was more correct. I guess that is why I don't fit in the molds.


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> *I'm ecstatic you didn't get back on active duty...personally, in my foxhole, I'd feel safer with a KKK member on my right and a Black Panther on my left...
> *
> You almost sound like you might think Bush was giving the orders at Tora Bora...(you do don't you ?)
> And long before Bush publicly mentioned Saddam, your Dims were continually mouthing the infamous quotes...as a matter of fact they had been for the previous 4 years of so....they sure weren't on the Senate floor ranting about AQ in those years.....



you. of course, would not be caught anywhere near a foxhole, so your initial statement is pretty hollow and meaningless rhetoric.

I do NOT think that Bush gave orders at Tora Bora.  I do think that he decided to shift targets.... he DID promise to look in every cave and under every rock until he caught OBL and then, not too long after that admitted that he hardly ever thought of him anymore.

and I notice you can't quite bring yourself to admit that a majority of democrats voted against the use of force.  

I understand...it is rather embarrassing for you, I am sure.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> you. of course, would not be caught anywhere near a foxhole, so your initial statement is pretty hollow and meaningless rhetoric.
> 
> I do NOT think that Bush gave orders at Tora Bora.  I do think that he decided to shift targets.... he DID promise to look in every cave and under every rock until he caught OBL and then, not too long after that admitted that he hardly ever thought of him anymore.
> 
> ...



Embarrassing?  Surely you jest....

Only the big names....4 actually running for President next year....

 Biden, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin,

Hollings, Kerry, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, 

Toricelli, etc.

and its still irrelevant .... its was more than enough, nobody really gives a shit about clowns like Kennedy and admitted socialists like the boys from your neck of woods....

I'd prefer a few hundred dead AQ in Baghdad than one old figurehead...his 10 minutes of infamy is long past.....but hell, thats just me....
Clinton didn't get him and Bush didn't get him.....sounds like a tie to me...


----------



## maineman (Nov 9, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I'd prefer a few hundred dead AQ in Baghdad than one old figurehead...his 10 minutes of infamy is long past.....but hell, thats just me....
> Clinton didn't get him and Bush didn't get him.....sounds like a tie to me...




a tie?  Well...he had not killed 3K Americans on Clinton's watch...but even so...if it is a "tie", why do you continually pillory Clinton while simultaneously adoring Bush?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 9, 2007)

And just to set the story right....I'm spent a few nights in a foxhole, a few in some shitty bunkers.....unlike you...

I was issued my combat boots, helmet, greens, 45 handgun,  ammo and M1,( in those days ), 30 minutes after I got off the ship in Cuba....I know Gitmo quite well....though I admit, I'm damn glad nobody was shooin' at me there .....
at lease I didn't have to share my hole with any suspected Castro sympathizers....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 9, 2007)

maineman said:


> a tie?  Well...he had not killed 3K Americans on Clinton's watch...but even so...if it is a "tie", why do you continually pillory Clinton while simultaneously adoring Bush?



  I don't pillory Clinton, nor do I adore Bush.....in live in the real world....facts are facts.....

No...OBL didn't kill 3K Americans at that particular time...but Clinton plainly said he was after him...tryed to kill him didn't he, or so he says now....or is that just a myth....anyway, he missed...

He and his comrades were responsible for a couple of embassies, USS Cole, and if I had to guess, I'd venture he or his followers had a hand in a few other attacks against US interests in the region....Clinton..Bush, yeah, a tie....neither got him...

The 3K just shows OBL had a little more success after dodging Clintons lame attempts on his life.......too bad he was still alive to realize his success....


----------



## Annie (Nov 9, 2007)

The Hamilton Beach ad renders it impossible. Advertising here sucks. It's intrusive. 

Offer differences between paying and non.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 10, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  You are.
> And I don't care about your pet conspiracies, given that's all they are.



No conspiracy. It is a fact that 70&#37; of Yanks believed, as one stage, Sadman had something to do with 9-11. Why? If you can't answer, or don't have an opinion, that is fine. But don't come spouting on THIS board about FACTS every other post, when one is pointed out, you dismiss it out of hand or refuse to give an opinion on it. 

My opinion is that Bush (more importantly, one of his puppet masters Cheney) pushed that theory. Maybe your theory is the "left" leaning media pushed it. Maybe 70% of Americans are just dumbfucks and can't tell the difference between different actions of different peoples/countries/terrorist organisations.

Whatever the reason, YOU must have an opinion as to why that 70% figure came up. And that is what you are being asked. If you have no idea, no foul, but a lot of your cred just went out the window because 90% of your posts consist of making demands of others to back up their opinions or facts. All we're doing is asking the same. If you want to set a tone to your debate standards, then live up to them, or risk being marginalised as an arrogant ass at best, or a troll at worst.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

maineman said:


> you seem to have a lot of questions but can't find the cojones to answer one.
> 
> I will now answer all of yours and maybe that will cause a similar response.
> 
> ...



People believe what they want to believe. Blaming the President or his Administration is idiotic. HE and others REPEATEDLY stated Saddam was not involved in 9/11. To then make the ignorant statement he secretly lied to everyone is amazing. How do you convince people of something when you openly repeatedly say the opposite?

You have no proof of any of this, just your opinion. And you don't want anyone elses opinion unless it agrees with you. We did not invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, this administration did not EVER say we did. In fact it repeatedly said he had nothing to do with 9/11. I guess Clinton believed that too? We have quotes from him in 2002 supporting the President and his position. Stating for the record that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had Chemical and Biological weapons and an active program. Now do your sparky dance and demand that the quote be resupplied .


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> People believe what they want to believe. Blaming the President or his Administration is idiotic. HE and others REPEATEDLY stated Saddam was not involved in 9/11. To then make the ignorant statement he secretly lied to everyone is amazing. How do you convince people of something when you openly repeatedly say the opposite?
> 
> You have no proof of any of this, just your opinion. And you don't want anyone elses opinion unless it agrees with you. We did not invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, this administration did not EVER say we did. In fact it repeatedly said he had nothing to do with 9/11. I guess Clinton believed that too? We have quotes from him in 2002 supporting the President and his position. Stating for the record that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had Chemical and Biological weapons and an active program. Now do your sparky dance and demand that the quote be resupplied .




Boston.com / News / Nation / Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challengedEvidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda ...
www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911
Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged
By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec - 
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]


Cheney Lies To High Schoolers About Debunked Iraq/al Qaeda Connection
&#8220;Addressing about 100 wide-eyed Wyoming high school students learning about government and the political process,&#8221; Vice President Cheney yesterday repeated one of the key fabrications that helped send the United States into war.

During the question and answer session, one student asked, &#8220;I was wondering &#8212; I&#8217;m not trying to start a debate, or anything, but do you still think that the Iraq war can be won?&#8221; Cheney immediately answered &#8220;yes,&#8221; adding, &#8220;I think we&#8217;re making significant progress now.&#8221; 

He then launched into a justification of the war, citing the September 11 attacks. &#8220;The fact of the matter is Iraq is part of the global war on terror,&#8221; he told the students. &#8220;And you&#8217;ve got to go back and look at what happened on 9/11.&#8221; Cheney recounted the tale of the late al-Qaeda operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, one of the administration&#8217;s great pre-war myths:


CHARLESTON AIR FORCE BASE, South Carolina (CNN) -- President Bush insisted that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are part of the same terrorist network, during a speech Tuesday at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina.


President Bush said Tuesday that al Qaeda in Iraq is part of Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.

 "Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror," Bush said. "They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon -- that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and it's not interested in attacking America. That would be news to Osama bin Laden."

 YouTube - Bush has to admit to Iraq connection with 9/11
Blithering fool makes up jibber-jabber on the spot; 
2 min 5 sec - 
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-c8Bf8LWWk[/ame]



there is many more of these deceptive statements but I'm sure you got the point or are you going to go on one of your crazy conspiracy theory's about how they are made up web sites or look a like actors or the work of the terrorist


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

And yet he never said they were involved, your supposed prove does not say he said anything of the sort. It just says he didn't discount it, provide me a direct quote from Cheney saying " Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11" You keep linking to things tat do not even say what your spin claims they said.


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet he never said they were involved, your supposed prove does not say he said anything of the sort. It just says he didn't discount it, provide me a direct quote from Cheney saying " Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11" You keep linking to things tat do not even say what your spin claims they said.



he said Iraq and said the terrorist that killed 3000 on Sept 11 none of which is any more true than Saddam did it ,so the implication was clearly made on many occasions and in many forms as well as a lie by omission and regardless of what intelligence said during Clinton all the new Intel said little or no wmd threat and it was withheld and far to many lies where told to ever post them all


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> he said Iraq and said the terrorist that killed 3000 on Sept 11 none of which is any more true than Saddam did it ,so the implication was clearly made on many occasions and in many forms as well as a lie by omission and regardless of what intelligence said during Clinton all the new Intel said little or no wmd threat and it was withheld and far to many lies where told to ever post them all



WELL except for that tiny matter that the President can NOT withhold information from the different intel agencies from Congress. Congress gets independent briefings from said organizations. 

But wait, I forgot, you think a secret organization ( so secret you and all your buddies know about it) actually runs the Government, they must have told those Congressman and Senators to not read the reports they received independently from the CIA, FBI and every other 3 letter intel agency we have. Or wait, no thats not it. This secret cabal just ordered all these agencies to write what they wanted. Wait, maybe you have another theory, please enlighten us ignorant deluded hicks on how this works.


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> WELL except for that tiny matter that the President can NOT withhold information from the different intel agencies from Congress. Congress gets independent briefings from said organizations.
> 
> But wait, I forgot, you think a secret organization ( so secret you and all your buddies know about it) actually runs the Government, they must have told those Congressman and Senators to not read the reports they received independently from the CIA, FBI and every other 3 letter intel agency we have. Or wait, no thats not it. This secret cabal just ordered all these agencies to write what they wanted. Wait, maybe you have another theory, please enlighten us ignorant deluded hicks on how this works.





Shortly after 9/11 President Bush issues order asking CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, and Cabinet members to restrict clearances greatly and limit all information to 8 members of Congress, effectively eliminating 92 clearances. The Presidential order can be found at Think Progress.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> Shortly after 9/11 President Bush issues order asking CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, and Cabinet members to restrict clearances greatly and limit all information to 8 members of Congress, effectively eliminating 92 clearances. The Presidential order can be found at Think Progress.



Ahh so now your just claiming the 8 members of Congress were either in on it or lied to? What happened to your insistance that the secret cabal can do anything they want with the full knowledge and acceptance of all members of any party in Congress?


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ahh so now your just claiming the 8 members of Congress were either in on it or lied to? What happened to your insistance that the secret cabal can do anything they want with the full knowledge and acceptance of all members of any party in Congress?




No you ignorant man ,I'm not claiming anything IT IS IN PUBLIC RECORD
Originally Posted by eots  

Shortly after 9/11 President Bush issues order asking CIA, FBI, DOD, NSA, and Cabinet members to restrict clearances greatly and limit all information to 8 members of Congress, effectively eliminating 92 clearances. The Presidential order can be found at Think Progress.

(The rest of the statement is your own crazy ramblings and distortions)'

"What happened to your insistance that the secret cabal can do anything they want with the full knowledge and acceptance of all members of any party in Congress?"


----------



## Gunny (Nov 10, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> No conspiracy. It is a fact that 70&#37; of Yanks believed, as one stage, Sadman had something to do with 9-11. Why? If you can't answer, or don't have an opinion, that is fine. But don't come spouting on THIS board about FACTS every other post, when one is pointed out, you dismiss it out of hand or refuse to give an opinion on it.
> 
> My opinion is that Bush (more importantly, one of his puppet masters Cheney) pushed that theory. Maybe your theory is the "left" leaning media pushed it. Maybe 70% of Americans are just dumbfucks and can't tell the difference between different actions of different peoples/countries/terrorist organisations.
> 
> Whatever the reason, YOU must have an opinion as to why that 70% figure came up. And that is what you are being asked. If you have no idea, no foul, but a lot of your cred just went out the window because 90% of your posts consist of making demands of others to back up their opinions or facts. All we're doing is asking the same. If you want to set a tone to your debate standards, then live up to them, or risk being marginalised as an arrogant ass at best, or a troll at worst.



Bull.  It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs.  I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing.  The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11.

This is just another myth the left insists on attempting to perpetuate regardless the facts.  Again, I haven't seen one person on this board making such a claim except liberals.  

Y'all must be easily misled.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Bull.  It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs.  I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing.  The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11.
> 
> This is just another myth the left insists on attempting to perpetuate regardless the facts.  Again, I haven't seen one person on this board making such a claim except liberals.
> 
> Y'all must be easily misled.



Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force.


----------



## maineman (Nov 10, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> And just to set the story right....I'm spent a few nights in a foxhole, a few in some shitty bunkers.....unlike you...
> 
> I was issued my combat boots, helmet, greens, 45 handgun,  ammo and M1,( in those days ), 30 minutes after I got off the ship in Cuba....I know Gitmo quite well....though I admit, I'm damn glad nobody was shooin' at me there .....
> at lease I didn't have to share my hole with any suspected Castro sympathizers....



Gitmo.  now that is one hell of a fucking war zone.  wow. you're the man.


----------



## maineman (Nov 10, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I don't pillory Clinton, nor do I adore Bush.....in live in the real world....facts are facts.....
> 
> No...OBL didn't kill 3K Americans at that particular time...but Clinton plainly said he was after him...tryed to kill him didn't he, or so he says now....or is that just a myth....anyway, he missed...
> 
> ...



Clinton WAS after him.  By our current president's own admission, he rarely ever even THINKS of him anymore.  But he is YOUR man, so you really don't get all that critical of what HE says or does, or does not do.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force.



Your research is faulty. Gee, why am I surprised...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Your research is faulty. Gee, why am I surprised...
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm



Perhaps english is not your first language? Let me provide the date for your article...



> Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM



Now lets see what I said.... 



> Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force.


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Bull.  It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs.  I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing.  The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11.
> 
> This is just another myth the left insists on attempting to perpetuate regardless the facts.  Again, I haven't seen one person on this board making such a claim except liberals.
> 
> Y'all must be easily misled.




WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.


YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec - 
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]




YouTube - Bush has to admit to Iraq connection with 9/11
Blithering fool makes up jibber-jabber on the spot; 
2 min 5 sec - 
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-c8Bf8LWWk[/ame]


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.
> 
> Evidence of a connection, if any exists, has never been made public. Details that Cheney cited to make the case that the Iraqi dictator had ties to Al Qaeda have been dismissed by the CIA as having no basis, according to analysts and officials. Even before the war in Iraq, most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.
> 
> ...



Except no where in the story does he say what the opening paragraph claims. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y , myabe then you will get it.

Claiming Saddam Hussein had or was trying to make connections with Al Quaeda does not mean that someone said he was involved in 9/11. Provide a QUOTE of Cheney actually saying Saddam Hussein was or may have been involved in 9/11. This article is a nice hit piece but it does not support what it claims.


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Except no where in the story does he say what the opening paragraph claims. Let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y , myabe then you will get it.
> 
> Claiming Saddam Hussein had or was trying to make connections with Al Quaeda does not mean that someone said he was involved in 9/11. Provide a QUOTE of Cheney actually saying Saddam Hussein was or may have been involved in 9/11. This article is a nice hit piece but it does not support what it claims.



YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
1 min 2 sec - 
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k[/ame]

ya he does 911 , Iraq etc all in the same short sentence it is intentionally a little murky..but the very strong implication is clearly made..as was my point about withholding and distorting wmd Intel to congress


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> YouTube - Cheney: I never linked Iraq with 9/11. Oh really?
> Content of this nature is not necessarily prohibited on ...
> 1 min 2 sec -
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k
> ...



Whats murky?  The VP said there was some evidence of contacts between Iraqi representatives and AQ.....according to the CIA, there was that belief...

----------------------------------------------

From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U)* In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:*

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that *at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present.* several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.
-------------------------------------------
Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to 9/11...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)
1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U)* The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's* but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship....


******************************************


The President said in no uncertain terms that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11......a different subject altogether...

Nothing murky at all....unless your brain is a mite murky to start with....

 You're shown the facts time after time, and like MM can't seem to grasp what the truth is.....you need less koolade, to let your mind clear....


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Whats murky?  The VP said there was some evidence of contacts between Iraqi representatives and AQ.....according to the CIA, there was that belief...
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> 
> ...




Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A01

Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.


The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the report's declassification, said in a written statement that the complete text demonstrates more fully why the inspector general concluded that a key Pentagon office -- run by then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith -- had inappropriately written intelligence assessments before the March 2003 invasion alleging connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq that the U.S. intelligence consensus disputed.

The report, in a passage previously marked secret, said Feith's office had asserted in a briefing given to Cheney's chief of staff in September 2002 that the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda was "mature" and "symbiotic," marked by shared interests and evidenced by cooperation across 10 categories, including training, financing and logistics.

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

"Overall, the reporting provides no conclusive signs of cooperation on specific terrorist operations," that CIA report said, adding that discussions on the issue were "necessarily speculative."

The CIA had separately concluded that reports of Iraqi training on weapons of mass destruction were "episodic, sketchy, or not corroborated in other channels," the inspector general's report said. It quoted an August 2002 CIA report describing the relationship as more closely resembling "two organizations trying to feel out or exploit each other" rather than cooperating operationally.



9/11 panel sees no Iraq-al-Qaida link - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/ - 70k  

BBC NEWS | UK | Leaked report rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda linkThere are no current links between Iraq and the al-Qaeda network, ... Denying any connection with al-Qaeda, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727471.stm - 57k - Cached - Similar pages 



CNN.com - Selling an Iraq-al Qaeda connection - Mar. 11, 2003Bottom line: U.S. officials claim there is evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection -- but there is no "smoking gun." New York Times columnist Paul Krugman ...
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/11/Iraq.Qaeda.link/ - 40k -


----------



## Gunny (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
> Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
> 
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> ...




Sheer genius.  Why would anyone think a secular ruthless dictator would be in cahoots with wahabbi fanatics?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 10, 2007)

eots said:


> Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted
> Pentagon Report Says Contacts Were Limited
> 
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> ...



So whats your point.....you're talking about what was said in Sept. of 2003 and what was eventually found out later, June of 2004.....and as noted in you post, 2007...four years later....
What the CIA reported in 2003 was later found out to be incorrect, so what...

from you own link in 3/2003....

_During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."_

The CIA was still making claims that later was found out there was no real proof for.....this has absolutly nothing to do with what was believed to be the facts in September of 2003.....does the time line confuse you.....?


----------



## maineman (Nov 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Bull.  It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs.  I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing.  The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11.
> 
> This is just another myth the left insists on attempting to perpetuate regardless the facts.  Again, I haven't seen one person on this board making such a claim except liberals.
> 
> Y'all must be easily misled.




yeah.  right.  the 70% of the people who believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 were all liberals....most of whom were against the war in Iraq...and the 30% who disbelieved it were all conservatives who nonetheless were FOR the way in Iraq.  What color is the sky in your world?

That doesn't make any sense.  And seriously.... after they realized that they had come to believe something as stupid as that, why would any proud conservative ever admit to it after it had been proven to be bullshit?

"70%??? Hell!  I sure wasn't one of them!"


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Sheer genius.  Why would anyone think a secular ruthless dictator would be in cahoots with wahabbi fanatics?



It doesn't make sense that he would be.  Saddam knew religious fanaticism was a potential problem for his secular state, he would hardly want them there.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 10, 2007)

maineman said:


> yeah.  right.  the 70% of the people who believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11 were all liberals....most of whom were against the war in Iraq...and the 30% who disbelieved it were all conservatives who nonetheless were FOR the way in Iraq.  What color is the sky in your world?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  And seriously.... after they realized that they had come to believe something as stupid as that, why would any proud conservative ever admit to it after it had been proven to be bullshit?
> 
> "70%??? Hell!  I sure wasn't one of them!"


http://tinyurl.com/39eo2

Camp David, Maryland
September 16, 2001

The Vice President appears on Meet the Press with Tim Russert 


*MR. RUSSERT: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?(9/11)

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. 
*

5 days after the WTC attack.....


----------



## eots (Nov 10, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> It doesn't make sense that he would be.  Saddam knew religious fanaticism was a potential problem for his secular state, he would hardly want them there.



stop being logical...there all islamofascist, they all live over there what more is there to know..there are two connections right there


----------



## maineman (Nov 10, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> http://tinyurl.com/39eo2
> 
> Camp David, Maryland
> September 16, 2001
> ...


what does this link have to do with what I posted?

Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam  - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????


----------



## Nevadamedic (Nov 10, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does this link have to do with what I posted?
> 
> Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam  - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????



Your being rather rabid latley.......................


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 10, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does this link have to do with what I posted?
> 
> Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70&#37; of America came to believe that Saddam  - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????



11-08-2007, 01:25 PM
maineman's Avatar 	
maineman maineman is online now
Yellowdog Democrat


The fact remains: in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11. Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion. No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.
__________________

You seem obsessed that 70% believe what they believe....
so for the record....both Bush and Cheney are on the record saying that there was no proof, and is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11
Cheney, 5 days after the WTC attacks....
---------------
and for clarity...saying there was a connection between Saddam and AQ is nowhere even close to saying they were partners in 9/11.....

It was the Democrats that tryed to make that mis-characterization over and over and over, with the co-operation of the media, that led to many actually believing the bullshit.....that, IMHO, is how 70% came to that erroneous conclusion....and surprisingly, over 40% still believe it, even after both Bush and Cheney said there is no proof of a Saddam/9.11 connection....

Its STILL being perpetuated by the left...and still has legs...


----------



## Diuretic (Nov 11, 2007)

eots said:


> stop being logical...there all islamofascist, they all live over there what more is there to know..there are two connections right there



I'm confused.  I thought Islam o' Fascist was a naturalised Irishman born in the Middle East


----------



## eots (Nov 11, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> I'm confused.  I thought Islam o' Fascist was a naturalised Irishman born in the Middle East



your absolutely correct a islamofascist could very well be a naturalized Irishmen born in the middle east..but your confusion is understandable as fox news just recently invented the word to describe a vague shadowy enemy , kind of like a terrorist but not really...its kind of a way to describe anyone of the Muslim faith that opposes the invasion of Iraq or Iran  and does not greet us as the great liberators. it also comes in useful for labeling anyone who opposes the regime as, aiding the islamofascist.... and its catchy and fun to say !


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Perhaps english is not your first language? Let me provide the date for your article...
> 
> 
> 
> Now lets see what I said....



And where in MY original post did I mention dates?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 11, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> And where in MY original post did I mention dates?



Lets see, you claimed I was wrong and as proof provided an article a year later. Yup that is relevant indeed.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lets see, you claimed I was wrong and as proof provided an article a year later. Yup that is relevant indeed.




Er, let's see...I mentioned a 70% figure. No date, no nothing. You brought up the "votes to allow force" issue, not I. I wasn't talking at that time, therefore you point is irrelevent, unless you want make a DIFFERENT point. If I had started MY point by saying "at the time of votes to allow force 70 percent of Yanks believed Sadman was involved with 9-11", your point would be on the money. I didn't. My sole point was 70% of Yanks believed that Sadman was responsible for 9-11. I provided a link to prove my point. I never stated whether it was a year later, two years later, or three years later. Not only that, you claimed the figure might be made up, which I proved incorrect (if we were using the limited sphere or YOUR post, again you may be correct, but as I made the ORIGINAL post without any time limits as to when the figure was introduced, you have moved the goalposts. Again, that is fine, but stop pretrending you have made a valid point. Moving goalposts does not a valid point make - debating 101)...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 11, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Er, let's see...I mentioned a 70% figure. No date, no nothing. You brought up the "votes to allow force" issue, not I. I wasn't talking at that time, therefore you point is irrelevent, unless you want make a DIFFERENT point. If I had started MY point by saying "at the time of votes to allow force 70 percent of Yanks believed Sadman was involved with 9-11", your point would be on the money. I didn't. My sole point was 70% of Yanks believed that Sadman was responsible for 9-11. I provided a link to prove my point. I never stated whether it was a year later, two years later, or three years later. Not only that, you claimed the figure might be made up, which I proved incorrect (if we were using the limited sphere or YOUR post, again you may be correct, but as I made the ORIGINAL post without any time limits as to when the figure was introduced, you have moved the goalposts. Again, that is fine, but stop pretrending you have made a valid point. Moving goalposts does not a valid point make - debating 101)...



Absolute horse shit. YOU quoted MY statement and then said I was wrong. Your the one that is wrong. You do not get to claim MY explanation is some how wrong by changing what was said. Shall I quote MY statement and then yours?

Maineman has made the claim that the Democrats in congress voted for the war because 70 percent of the people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Simply not true. At the time of the vote to authorize force there was no 70 percent believing any such thing. Further he has claimed as have you that Bush caused the people to believe that, when in fact they probably believed it because the press and the left kept claiming thats what Bush said when he did not.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute horse shit. YOU quoted MY statement and then said I was wrong. Your the one that is wrong. You do not get to claim MY explanation is some how wrong by changing what was said. Shall I quote MY statement and then yours?
> 
> Maineman has made the claim that the Democrats in congress voted for the war because 70 percent of the people believed Saddam was involved in 9/11. Simply not true. At the time of the vote to authorize force there was no 70 percent believing any such thing. Further he has claimed as have you that Bush caused the people to believe that, when in fact they probably believed it because the press and the left kept claiming thats what Bush said when he did not.



Absolute total bollocks. Your statement was made as a result of MY statement, which came first! Here it is in B&W, just so you can follow:

My statement, post 285:
<i>"No conspiracy. It is a fact that 70&#37; of Yanks believed, at one stage, Sadman had something to do with 9-11. Why? If you can't answer, or don't have an opinion, that is fine. But don't come spouting on THIS board about FACTS every other post, when one is pointed out, you dismiss it out of hand or refuse to give an opinion on it. "</i>

Nowhere is a date mentioned.

Then Gunny answers my post 294:
<i>"Bull. It is a fact that 70% of whoever got polled was ignorant enough to beleive that crap, and they had to be libs. I've not heard ANY conservatives say such a thing. The administration came out and made a point of stating that there was no evidence to support Saddam being involved in 9/11."</i>

To which you reply to Gunny's post 295:
<i>"Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force"</i>?

Care to spin anymore? Where in my original post did I mention a date? You were DIRECTLY responding to Gunny's post who was DIRECTLY responding to mine. I have not read any interaction between yourself and Maineman, and I hate to break it to you Sparky, but I ain't Maineman. I quoted YOUR statement as a direct result of you quoting Gunny, who was quoting me. If you cannot follow a simple quotes in a thread then maybe you better head back to debate school. You clearly state that you thought the 70% figure was made up, then you qualify it. So what about MY 70% figure mentioned FIRST, was that made up, too, or is my link - which not only states the number, but give the date of the poll and the margin of error - made up too? 

Let's also address your 50% point, which you seem to have trouble understanding is DIFFERENT from mine, can you provide a link to support your POV?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 11, 2007)

Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.

Need some help with your OWN quote?



> To which you reply to Gunny's post 295:
> "Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure may in fact be made up. The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force"?



Are you really to stupid to even read what you posted and quoted? My response is clear as a bell. I stated that 70 percent did not believe this at the time the vote to authorize force occurred. You claim I am lying or mistaken. Prove it. Can't be to hard. provide a poll from the time period of the Vote IN 2002 that substantiates the claim. Stop trying to pretend I did not say what i said.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 11, 2007)

_Further from my recent research I discovered the 70 percent figure *may in fact be made up.* The number was closer to just over 50 percent at the time of the votes to allow force"?_


*Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link*

WASHINGTON (AP)  Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 11, 2007)

BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:




> GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "you *can't distinguish *between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. ..."
> 
> DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that *Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence* in Prague"
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (Nov 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.
> 
> Need some help with your OWN quote?
> 
> ...



Maybe you should try to actually read what he said and respond to that instead of trying to change the convo when you've been proven wrong? You still haven't shown where IN HIS POST, he said a thing about the timeframe for the 70&#37;.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 11, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:



*And what we see here is what the CIA and Tenet were testifying to at the Senate Intell. Committee....under oath....in 2002-2003*
----------------------------------------------

From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U)* In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:*

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that *at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present.* several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.

Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to the war...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U)* The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's* but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship......(20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking)

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added,* "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."*

-----------------------


So....were Cheney and Bush just saying what they had been led to believe by the CIA......


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 11, 2007)

AND...both Cheney and Bush are ON THE RECORD saying that Saddam had no part in 9/11....there IS NO PROOF...
Cheney in 2001 and Bush in 2003....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 11, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Reread my post numnuts, it clearly states what I meant. You don't like it? To damn bad. you don't get to pretend i said something else WHILE quoting what I actually said.
> 
> Need some help with your OWN quote?
> 
> Are you really to stupid to even read what you posted and quoted? My response is clear as a bell. I stated that 70 percent did not believe this at the time the vote to authorize force occurred. You claim I am lying or mistaken. Prove it. Can't be to hard. provide a poll from the time period of the Vote IN 2002 that substantiates the claim. Stop trying to pretend I did not say what i said.



It's not a case of whether I like or dislike what you said, your post changed the fucking goalposts by bringing in a time frame. I wasn't pretending Jack Shit, turdface, it is all there in black and white for all to see. Even a dyslexic amoeba can see that. My post that you responded to via Gunny did NOT mention a time frame. YOU brought that into the conversation. I have even REPOSTED it for you and ALL To see. Go to MY original quote and see where there is a time frame mentioned? Hint: there isn't. Gunny and I were not discussing the 70% figure with regard to the vote to use force. You were trying to validate your point by bringing that up. YOU brought that particular nugget into the convo. What is wrong with your reading comprehension? 

I have even given you the benefit of the doubt in that you can't read or comprehend for shit and asked you to prove the 50% figure (which is COMPLETELY unrelated to my point)...still waiting..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 12, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> It's not a case of whether I like or dislike what you said, your post changed the fucking goalposts by bringing in a time frame. I wasn't pretending Jack Shit, turdface, it is all there in black and white for all to see. Even a dyslexic amoeba can see that. My post that you responded to via Gunny did NOT mention a time frame. YOU brought that into the conversation. I have even REPOSTED it for you and ALL To see. Go to MY original quote and see where there is a time frame mentioned? Hint: there isn't. Gunny and I were not discussing the 70% figure with regard to the vote to use force. You were trying to validate your point by bringing that up. YOU brought that particular nugget into the convo. What is wrong with your reading comprehension?
> 
> I have even given you the benefit of the doubt in that you can't read or comprehend for shit and asked you to prove the 50% figure (which is COMPLETELY unrelated to my point)...still waiting..



You can wait till the cow turds come in. I made a statement that you have tried to change, to bad for you. Once again Maineman stated that  the vote to support force was made and supported by the democrats while they feared for their  seats because of 70 percent of the people believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  Simply not true, not with standing your and Jillians and Deadcandances insistances other wise. My statement is clear as a bell. You do not like it because it damages your claim.

Further the implication is that Bush  somehow conned the people into believing what they did,when the facts are he and his admin stated for the record that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11. Claiming that Saddam wanted ties to AL Quaeda or helped them does not mean anything about 9/11. It is not misleading nor is it designed to make a non existant connection.

The fact his more people believed that after the invasion BECAUSE the left leaning press, aided and abetted by the Democrats said it over and over.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 12, 2007)

A little context since you seem to think this is all about you.

post 230  by Maineman



> The fact remains: in early 2003, 70% of America believed that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11. Yet no one can explain how they all came to that conclusion. No one is willing to admit that maybe the Bushies constant claims of connections between Saddam and AQ might have had something to do with it.



post 272 by Maineman



> TWO. First.... a majority of democrats elected to congress voted AGAINST the war...the rest caved into the brilliant posturing of the Rove Team that made the vote one about patriotism... I was upset with all of them.
> 
> THREE. No. They believed that they would lose their seats in congress if the public perceived them as being soft on Saddam..the guy who most of them felt was responsible for 9/11.
> 
> ...



Your post comes long after these and just happen to be when I had finally realized the information was incorrect. I was responding to GunnyL to tell him 70 percent did NOT believe the information at the time of the vote as claimed by MAINEMAN.

But of course you and Jillian and Dead never saw these posts right?


----------



## eots (Nov 12, 2007)

So is the mission complete or not?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 12, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can wait till the cow turds come in. I made a statement that you have tried to change, to bad for you. Once again Maineman stated that  the vote to support force was made and supported by the democrats while they feared for their  seats because of 70 percent of the people believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.  Simply not true, not with standing your and Jillians and Deadcandances insistances other wise. My statement is clear as a bell. You do not like it because it damages your claim.
> 
> Further the implication is that Bush  somehow conned the people into believing what they did,when the facts are he and his admin stated for the record that Saddam Hussein was NOT involved in 9/11. Claiming that Saddam wanted ties to AL Quaeda or helped them does not mean anything about 9/11. It is not misleading nor is it designed to make a non existant connection.
> 
> The fact his more people believed that after the invasion BECAUSE the left leaning press, aided and abetted by the Democrats said it over and over.



Bush couldn't con his way out of a wet paper bag. I have always said, and honestly believe he is nothing but a puppet....

As you are right, as I have already stated, I did not read the exchange between yourself and Maineman..


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 13, 2007)

No.  I think "yior" the kook here, rsr.



red states rule said:


> No yiou are pushing a kook left conspiracy theory that has long ago been proven to be a lie



What about the left wing conspiracy?  Your accusation as has many others long been proven lies, innuendo and otherwise political bullshit.

Links to disprove my observation will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Claiming Saddam Hussein had or was trying to make connections with Al Quaeda does not mean that someone said he was involved in 9/11.


You are absolutely correct.  

But the liberal left isn't interested in what was actually said, they're only interested in what they can make people believe was said.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> what does this link have to do with what I posted?
> Do YOU have any ideas as to how 70% of America came to believe that Saddam  - in 2003, not 9/16/01 - was responsible for 9/11????


Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?



Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote  the number was no where near 70 percent.

Also recall that he dismisses that democrats would ever be swayed by temporary poll numbers, then claims they were forced by polls to vote for a war they did not want.

He can not explain how it is that Clinton in 2002 was saying EXACTLY what Bush was saying. He has not responded to the opinion I provided that his 70 percent a year later was the result of the Press and the Dems constantly making the claim that Bush and Company said it. Par for the course.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> BushCo. attempts to link Iraq, to the attacks of 9/11:


These are statements linking Saddam and AQ, not Saddam and 9/11.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Are you STILL trying to sell this horseshi'ite?



you really can stop practicing your "annoying irrelevant twit" routine.  You have it down pat!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> These are statements linking Saddam and AQ, not Saddam and 9/11.



Totally lost on our intellectual superiors.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote  the number was no where near 70 percent.


His entire argument is based on correlation, not causation, and ignores the fact that the Administration stated clearly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 -- a fact HE admits to.

MM is simply a useful idiot, helping his masters propogate The Big Lie.  
Its very sad.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

Notice he can not respond to the claim he made that the vote to authorize force was made by Democrats fearful for their seats, since his 70 percent is a year later and the vote  the number was no where near 70 percent.

*the fact that the poll indicating 70% belief in a lie happened after the vote does not change the fact that. at the time of the vote, Rove&Co. had done a masterful job of framing the debate as being about patriotism.  It had been framed such that a vote against the use of force in Iraq was viewed as tantamount to a vote for al qaeda.*

Also recall that he dismisses that democrats would ever be swayed by temporary poll numbers, then claims they were forced by polls to vote for a war they did not want.
*I don't think I have ever suggested that ANY politician was immune to the power of poll numbers.  And please recall, only a minority of congressional democrats succumbed to the pressure from those polls.*

He can not explain how it is that Clinton in 2002 was saying EXACTLY what Bush was saying. He has not responded to the opinion I provided that his 70 percent a year later was the result of the Press and the Dems constantly making the claim that Bush and Company said it. Par for the course.

*Bill Clinton never sent 150K ground troops into battle to invade, conquer, and occupy a sovereign nation, nor did he ever advocate doing so.  Hillary was one of the ones who was cowered by polls... and that is the single biggest reason why I am not supporting her run for my party's nomination.  

And your "opinion" that the 70% was as a result of the press is just that - an opinion...and what do you think the press was reporting on that allowed 70% to be deceived?  Do you think they were making up the stories or were they reporting on the speeches made by administration talking heads?*


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Totally lost on our intellectual superiors.



and you cannot imagine how american citizens who KNEW who Osama was and KNEW what he had done would not connect those dots if they were told that Saddam and OBL were butt buddies BEFORE 9/11?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> *Bill Clinton never sent 150K ground troops into battle to invade, conquer, and occupy a sovereign nation, nor did he ever advocate doing so.
> *


*
So..  its OK to lie about the reasons to go to war, and actually go to war, so long as you don't spend too much money, take too much time, or kill too many people?




			And your "opinion" that the 70% was as a result of the press is just that - an opinion...
		
Click to expand...

And is at LEAST as sound as yours.*


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> His entire argument is based on correlation, not causation, and ignores the fact that the Administration stated clearly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 -- a fact HE admits to.
> 
> MM is simply a useful idiot, helping his masters propogate The Big Lie.
> Its very sad.



I do not ignore anything.  Bush made one announcement, when asked at a press conference if there were a connection between Saddam and 9/11, that he knew of none.  CHeney did a similiar one-timer earlier.  Contrast that with speech after speech after speech by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, et al. that inferred that very connection.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So..  its OK to lie about the reasons to go to war, and actually go to war, so long as you don't spend too much money, take too much time, or kill too many people?
> 
> 
> And is at LEAST as sound as yours.



No...it is never OK to lie about the reasons to go to war.

and of course his opinion is as good as mine.... I have never suggested otherwise.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> and you cannot imagine how american citizens who KNEW who Osama was and KNEW what he had done would not connect those dots if they were told that Saddam and OBL were butt buddies BEFORE 9/11?


That's a claim you yourself admit that you cannot support.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> I do not ignore anything.  Bush made one announcement, when asked at a press conference if there were a connection between Saddam and 9/11, that he knew of none.  CHeney did a similiar one-timer earlier.


So, you admit that the Administration said, in plain language, that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11.

Why then do you continue to spread The Big Lie?


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> That's a claim you yourself admit that you cannot support.




it's my opinion, you fucking moron.  

OPINION.  Got a different one?  great.  I explained why I held my OPINION.... if you disagree.... great.

that's how OPINIONS work.

idiot.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, you admit that the Administration said, in plain language, that Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11.
> 
> Why then do you continue to spread The Big Lie?



because if Bush says:  *SADDAM...9/11... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...AL QAEDA.... 9/11.... GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.... SADDAM...9/11... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...AL QAEDA.... 9/11.... GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.... *saddam has no known connection to 9/11...*SADDAM...9/11... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...AL QAEDA.... 9/11.... GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.... SADDAM...9/11... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION...AL QAEDA.... 9/11.... GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE.... *

the plain language is sort of lost in the midst of the heated rhetoric.  Is that really that hard for you to understand?  Bush denies it once, and reaffirms his inferences over and over and over again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> because if Bush says:


Yes.  Keep repeating the big lie.  

Tell me:
YOU were not "duped" by this.
Why do you think you're so much brighter than 70% of the people of the US?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> it's my opinion, you fucking moron.


Yes, Skippy, it is.

And as has been shown over and over and over -- you don't care what the facts are, you simply believe what you want to believe.

Just like the good little partisan bigot yo' momma raised you to be.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.  Keep repeating the big lie.
> 
> Tell me:
> YOU were not "duped" by this.
> Why do you think you're so much brighter than 70% of the people of the US?



You're correct.  I was not duped by this.

and why do I think I am brighter than 70% of Americans?  Oh, I dunno.  because I am pretty smart.  I went to a really great school.  I have worked in politics professionally and have written speeches for politicians that say one thing and infer another... I have a really big IQ, and I have more education than the vast majority of Americans.  

Do you consider yourself to be less bright than 70% of Americans?


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes, Skippy, it is.
> 
> And as has been shown over and over and over -- you don't care what the facts are, you simply believe what you want to believe.
> 
> Just like the good little partisan bigot yo' momma raised you to be.



Of course I care what the facts are.  I understand that Bush has disavowed it....once.  I understand that he and all of his minions had inferred it hundreds of times.  those are facts that YOU seem to want to avoid.

and keep family members out of the discussion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> Of course I care what the facts are.  I understand that Bush has disavowed it....once.


And so, you argue that what the administration DID say means less tham what it DIDN'T say.

What a maroon.      



> I understand that he and all of his minions had inferred it hundreds of times.


Oh, poor Skippy.  Doesn't know what "inferred" means.  So much for being so smart.

What you MEAN to say is that you THINK that Bush and all his minions IMPLIED it hundreds of times, and from that, 70&#37; of the people made the INFERENCE that Saddam was involved with 9/11.



> *Those are facts *that YOU seem to want to avoid.


And this is something that you havent shown to be a fact.

But now that you claim it to be a fact, rather than your opinion, its up to you to *prove* it.  

Get busy, Skippy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> You're correct.  I was not duped by this.
> 
> and why do I think I am brighter than 70% of Americans?  Oh, I dunno.  because I am pretty smart.  I went to a really great school.  I have worked in politics professionally and have written speeches for politicians that say one thing and infer another... I have a really big IQ, and I have more education than the vast majority of Americans.


Of course you do, Skippy -- you're SO much smarter than the average bear!
After all - you say so yourself!!!   

That's why you have to resort to name calling and profanity to make your point -- because that's what REALLY smart people do!!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> and keep family members out of the discussion.





> *Latest Reputation Received:*
> maineman
> keep family members out of the discussion



What's the matter, Skippy -- you can dish it out but can't take it?
Are you really that much of a priss?

Big bad Skippy, can lay out all the insutls HE wants, but can't take it when someone lays one on him.

Or did I strike a little too close to the truth about yo' momma?


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

And so, you argue that what the administration DID say means less tham what it DIDN'T say.What a maroon.

*close, but no cigar.  I am saying that what the administration IMPLIED over and over and over and over again means more than one small denial of that implication* 

and from that, 70&#37; of the people made the INFERENCE that Saddam was involved with 9/11.  And this is something that you havent shown to be a fact.  But now that you claim it to be a fact, rather than your opinion, its up to you to _prove_ it.  


*I have never claimed I knew the factual basis for how 70% of the American population came to believe the administration's implications.  I stated my opinion.  You are welcome to disagree..... but I would, as I have said many times before, welcome your opinion as to how they came to believe a lie.  Oddly enough, you don't seem to have one.*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> close, but no cigar.  I am saying that what the administration IMPLIED over and over and over and over again means more than one small denial of that implication


Yes,  you ARE arguing that what the administration DID say means less tham what it DIDN'T say -- unless, of course, you can PROVE that the administration IMPLIED over and over and over and over again that Iraq was incolved in 9/11.

Please note, Skippy, that to prove that the administration implied X means you need to prove that for people to believe X was the intent behind making the statements.



> I have never claimed I knew the factual basis for how 70&#37; of the American population came to believe the administration's implications.  I stated my opinion.


Wow.  This is pathetic.
Its not a suprise, but it IS pathetic.

You said:


> *I understand that he and all of his minions had inferred it hundreds of times*. those are facts that YOU seem to want to avoid.


*This* is a statement of fact, Skippy, not an opinion.  
YOU say so yourself.

So:
PROVE that "[Bush] and all of his minions had inferred [that Saddam was involved in 9/11] hundreds of times".

I'm LAUGHING at your superior intellect, Skippy.
Your partisan bigotry, too.  Yo' momma learned you real good.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> And so, you argue that what the administration DID say means less tham what it DIDN'T say.What a maroon.
> 
> *close, but no cigar.  I am saying that what the administration IMPLIED over and over and over and over again means more than one small denial of that implication*
> 
> ...



Yeah...we understand your opinion....but the truth of the matter is that 
the Dimocrats seized an opportunity to mis-state and mis-characterized Bush and Cheney and perpetuated the lie for months and months. And with the help of a liberal media, convinced many people of the falsehood....

The propaganda machine of the left is awesome...telling the folks not what Bush and Cheney actually said, but what the left thinks they implied.....

This is the same tactic used with Hillary, Kerry, Durbin, etc....don't believe what they actually said, believe what we tell you they mean, not what you actually hear with your own ears.....and you pull that same shit on this board with limited success for the Dim lemmings ....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Yeah...we understand your opinion....but the truth of the matter is that the Dimocrats seized an opportunity to mis-state and mis-characterized Bush and Cheney and perpetuated the lie for months and months. And with the help of a liberal media, convinced many people of the falsehood.


The question MUST be asked:
Is MM one of the useful idiots duped by the liberal left's Big Lie, or, if he is as edumucated and self-important as he says he is, is he one of the liberals that CREATED that Big Lie for consumption BY the Useful Idiots??



> The propaganda machine of the left is awesome...telling the folks not what Bush and Cheney actually said, but what the left thinks they implied.....


And THEN they display their intellectual dishonesty by claiming that they need not PROVE their accusation, as its just their OPINION.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The question MUST be asked:
> Is MM one of the useful idiots duped by the liberal left's Big Lie, or, if he is as edumucated and self-important as he says he is, is he one of the liberals that CREATED that Big Lie for consumption BY the Useful Idiots??
> 
> 
> And THEN they display their intellectual dishonesty by claiming that they need not provide any PROOF for their accusation, as its just their OPINION.



I am sorry.  I read the last couple of pages of posts, but didn't want to spend all day reading when I could just ask a question.  Is this debate merely about whether the Administration attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 in the lead-up to the war?   Does anyone doubt that there was at least some attempt like this made, even if it was made in good faith?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Is this debate merely about whether the Administration attempted to draw a connection between Iraq and 9/11 in the lead-up to the war?


That's MM's position. 



> Does anyone doubt that there was at least some attempt like this made, even if it was made in good faith?


IF you think there was an attempt to do this, please show where the Administration claimed there was such a connection, THEN reconcile that with the direct statements by the administration to the contrary.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> IF you think there was an attempt to do this, please show where the Administration claimed there was such a connection, THEN reconcile that with the direct statements by the administration to the contrary.



Cheney made the connection on Meet the Press, and MM is right that a connection was implied on numerous occasions.  (I am guessing this has already been quoted elsewhere on the thread, but so be it).



> On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."
> 
> A few weeks later, in April, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III told a San Francisco audience, "We ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on, from flight reservations to car rentals to bank accounts." The FBI, he said, could find no evidence that Atta left or returned to the United States at the time.
> 
> ...





> Earlier this month, on his most recent "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney once again used Atta to subtly suggest a connection between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001.
> 
> "With respect to 9/11, of course, we've had the story . . . the Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we've never been able to develop anymore of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it."



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

It is true that nowhere he does Cheney directly say that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11.  However, by recounting a meeting between Iraqi officials and the lead hijacker just months before the hijacking, that pretty well implies a connection.  

It is also true that the Administration (on one occasion that I am aware of) said that there was no evidence of a connection.  However, I don't think that there is anything to "reconcile."  The Administration said one thing and suggested another, and in the lead-up to war, wanted a possible connection to be in the minds of the people.  They couldn't definitely state that they had definite evidence of a connection, so they suggested that a connection was possible/probable. They were successful in this.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

This also implies a connection.



> Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."



http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml

If the statement is parsed, it need not be interpreted to mean that the base of the 9/11 terrorists was Iraq.  However, I don't think that most people upon hearing this would fail to believe that a connection is being implied here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Cheney made the connection on Meet the Press, and MM is right that a connection was implied on numerous occasions.  (I am guessing this has already been quoted elsewhere on the thread, but so be it).
> 
> It is true that nowhere he does Cheney directly say that Iraq was involved in planning 9/11.  However, by recounting a meeting between Iraqi officials and the lead hijacker just months before the hijacking, that pretty well implies a connection.


This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11.  Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.

Anyone with half a brain can see this and can see thru any such attept at said implication; to argue that the American people heard these statements and inferred a conecction between Iraq and 9/11 is to argue that the American people are just plain stupid.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
> In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11.  Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.
> 
> Anyone with half a brain can see this and can see thru any such attept at said implication; to argue that the American people heard these statements and inferred a conecction between Iraq and 9/11 is to argue that the American people are just plain stupid.



Now you are just being silly.  

1) AQ is responsible for 9/11.

2) Atta is a member of AQ

3) Atta was the lead hijacker

4) Atta met with Iraqi intelligence just prior to carrying out the attack

How is this not implying a connection?  I am not at all surprised that people began to connect 9/11 to Iraq.  And yes, perhaps we were stupid.

By your logic, Afghanistan shouldn't have been invaded either.  After all, we knew that Afghanistan was connected to AQ and harboring them, but we don't know (as far as I know) that the Taliban was directly involved in the planning of 9/11.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> What's the matter, Skippy -- you can dish it out but can't take it?
> Are you really that much of a priss?
> 
> Big bad Skippy, can lay out all the insutls HE wants, but can't take it when someone lays one on him.
> ...



are you married?  got kids?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you married?  got kids?



Why?  

You gonna be a Real Big Man(tm) and attack them, after whining about keeping family members out of it?

If you can't stand getting dirty, you little priss, don't sling mud.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11.



Actually, I think this...



> Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."



implies a more direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> How is this not implying a connection?


How IS this implying a connection?

A is related to B.  B is realted to C. 
That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Actually, I think this...
> implies a more direct connection between 9/11 and Iraq.



It says that AQ was 'based' (to whatever degree) in Iraq.

This doesnt in any way imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> How IS this implying a connection?
> 
> A is related to B.  B is realted to C.
> That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.



To imply is to suggest without explicitly stating.  

Stating that AQ is based in Iraq suggests Iraqi support for AQ and its aims.

Stating that the lead hijacker met with Iraqi intelligence prior to the hijacking suggests that the Iraqis were either aware of or supported the hijackers.  

If I tell you that Barry Bonds used a reputed trafficker in steroids as his personal trainer, this implies that Barry Bonds is taking steroids.  Does it necessarily make it so?  No, but it suggests it.

Perhaps we just disagree with what is implied in these actions (to some extent, it is a question of intent).  However, what would most people infer?  What was the attitude of the public about a connection between 9/11 and Iraq in the lead up to the war?  What is the attitude of most of the population about Barry Bonds and possible steroid use?

The proof is in the pudding.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> It says that AQ was 'based' (to whatever degree) in Iraq.
> 
> This doesnt in any way imply that Iraq was involved in 9/11.



If it said any more than it does, it wouldn't be an implication at all.  It would be a direct statement.

I think the implication in this statement is clear.  I don't know how you can't see it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 13, 2007)

Your fuzzy logic fills your head with fuzzy fantasies .....

Each statement stands alone on its own merits....they 'imply' nothing...they mean exactly what was said....

Each statement is either a fact or what was believed to be fact at the time the statement was made.....


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> A is related to B.  B is realted to C.
> That A is related to B in no way necessitates that A is related to C.



It does not necessitate it, but it does suggest it.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Your fuzzy logic fills your head with fuzzy fantasies .....
> 
> Each statement stands alone on its own merits....they 'imply' nothing...they mean exactly what was said....



We will just have to disagree.



Alpha1 said:


> Each statement is either a fact or what was believed to be fact at the time the statement was made.....



That may or may not be the case, but is irrelevant to the question at hand.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> To imply is to suggest without explicitly stating.


It also necessitates a deliberate action with intent to deceive.
Can you show a deliberate intention to convey the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11?



> Stating that AQ is based in Iraq suggests Iraqi support for AQ and its aims.


Yes.  
But again, supporting AQ and its aims doesnt in any way mean there was involvement in 9/11.  That's a leap in logic that is impossible to make with any degree of intellectual honesty.



> The proof is in the pudding.


Only if you beleive that correlation = causation.

The administration stated for the record that Iraq was not involved with 9/11.  Given that, any argument to the contrary is unsupportable.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 13, 2007)

it's so funny to watch the right distance themselves from the 04 election rhetoric!

more MORE!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> It does not necessitate it, but it does suggest it.


You and I have a common cousin.
I tell someone that you and I have a common cousin.
Am I suggesting that you and I are related?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> If it said any more than it does, it wouldn't be an implication at all.  It would be a direct statement.
> 
> I think the implication in this statement is clear.  I don't know how you can't see it.


http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/19/182128.php

Learning To Read - Fallacies And Misleading Language

Cheney:

    [Iraq has]...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Now that was well scripted. Did you miss it? Yeah, I know. Alot of people did, including the news agencies. Lets break it down.

    "Iraq had a geographic base of terrorists that have had us under assault for some time now."


This does not imply that the terrorists came from Iraq. Lets split this up another way:

    ...the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.


Hey! What happened to Iraq? Where did they go from the statement? Yeah, many people still don't get it. *sigh*

Cheney made a tie between the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda and Iraq. He then made a separate tie between Al-Qaeda and 9/11. He did NOT make a direct tie between Iraq and 9/11. If that's what you thought you have been used and abused by the English language.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I think the implication in this statement is clear.


No, that;s your rinferrence.
Unless, of course, you can show that there was intent.

The question is, of course:
Why would someone with at least a basic understanding of reason and logic infer such a thing, rather than take it at face value?


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> It also necessitates a deliberate action with intent to deceive.
> Can you show a deliberate intention to convey the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11?



An implication doesn't suggest dishonesty.  Cheney may very well have believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.




M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.
> But again, supporting AQ and its aims doesnt in any way mean there was involvement in 9/11.  That's a leap in logic that is impossible to make with any degree of intellectual honesty.



You are talking about logic, and this isn't a circumstance of logic.  Saying Iraq was connected to AQ and Atta doesn't necessitate anything.  It suggests it.  It isn't a logic argument.  It only opens the door to further speculation of a kind that the Adminstration favored.




M14 Shooter said:


> The administration stated for the record that Iraq was not involved with 9/11.  Given that, any argument to the contrary is unsupportable.



It said that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved with 9/11.  It never ruled out the possibility.  The other statements it made suggested that this possibility was a viable one.  People believed what they wanted to believe, and the Administration did little (one statement aside) to convince them otherwise.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You and I have a common cousin.
> I tell someone that you and I have a common cousin.
> Am I suggesting that you and I are related?



It depends on how it is said.  If I say "our cousin is a doctor," many people will jump to the conclusion that we are related.  I don't know if this qualifies as an implication (as there would clearly be no intent), but the conclusion that many people would draw would be a natural one, even if it were wrong.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, that;s your rinferrence.
> Unless, of course, you can show that there was intent.
> 
> The question is, of course:
> Why would someone with at least a basic understanding of reason and logic infer such a thing, rather than take it at face value?



Because it was not a time of reason and detached logic.  People were upset and angry about 9/11 and wanted to exact vengeance for the act on the perpetrators.  If you give them a target, they will react to it.  The Adminstration gave them a target, and I believe that the Adminstration knew how people would interpret what they were hearing and would react accordingly.

If the Adminstration didn't want this connection to be made, there was plenty of time in the lead up to the war to address the lack of connection between Iraq and 9/11.  The Adminstration (with one statement aside) did not avail itself of that opportunity.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> An implication doesn't suggest dishonesty.


Yes, you're right - but it -does- necessitate intent.  If you are implying something, then you are deliberately trying to indirectly convey an idea.
To argue that they made the implication means you need to show intent. 



> Cheney may very well have believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.


He stated exactly the opposite, for the record.



> You are talking about logic, and this isn't a circumstance of logic.  Saying Iraq was connected to AQ and Atta doesn't necessitate anything.  It suggests it.  It isn't a logic argument.


It IS if you reach a conclusion froim that supposed suggestion, because you MUST have used some form of logic to reach that conclusion.
And its pretty clear that -some- people here HAVE reached that conclusion.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/19/182128.php
> 
> Learning To Read - Fallacies And Misleading Language
> 
> ...




I realize that the language can be parsed, but the fact that it need be is what leads to the conclusion that an implication was being made.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Because it was not a time of reason and detached logic.  People were upset and angry about 9/11 and wanted to exact vengeance for the act on the perpetrators.  If you give them a target, they will react to it.  The Adminstration gave them a target, and I believe that the Adminstration knew how people would interpret what they were hearing and would react accordingly.


Of course you do.
Its great to hold an opinion that doesn't require any shred of support.

But, as noted before, the argument is one of intentional implication by the administration, a notion you CANNOT support.

And so you believe what you want to believe, regardless of what facts you have to support it.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes, you're right - but it -does- necessitate intent.  If you are implying something, then you are deliberately trying to indirectly convey an idea.
> To argue that they made the implication means you need to show intent.



I agree with this.




M14 Shooter said:


> He stated exactly the opposite, for the record.



Cheney stated definitively before the war that Iraq was not involved in 9/11?  Not just that there is a lack of evidence, but that we know this to be the case?  

I would be surprised if this were the case, but even if it were, it comes down to a question of noise.  What messages are being sent out?  What is the frequency and volume of those messages?  What messages are people hearing?




M14 Shooter said:


> It IS if you reach a conclusion froim that supposed suggestion, because you MUST have used some form of logic to reach that conclusion.
> And its pretty clear that -some- people here HAVE reached that conclusion.



No, you need not use logic at all.  It is not an A=B and B=C, so A=C sort of endeavour.  People can even reach different conclusions from the same suggestion, none of which need be illogical.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course you do.
> Its great to hold an opinion that doesn't require any shred of support.
> 
> But, as noted before, the argument is one of intentional implication by the administration, a notion you CANNOT support.
> ...



I guess if what you require is a memo from Cheney saying that it was important to make the people believe that 9/11 and Iraq were related, then you are right that I don't have that kind of proof.  What do we have?  We have statements from the adminstration that to many listeners (not yourself obviously) implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq.  We have a large percentage of the population that believed that there was a connection (where did they get that idea?).  We have minimal attempts by the Administration to persuade people otherwise.

From this, I form one conclusion.  You see it a different way.  In the end, history will make its own judgment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I agree with this.


So, can you show that the administration deliberatly acted to imply there was a relationship?



> Cheney stated definitively before the war that Iraq was not involved in 9/11?  Not just that there is a lack of evidence, but that we know this to be the case?


Logical fallacy.  You cannot prove a negative.
You can aruge that 'maybe he did believe it but could not prove it' all you want, but then you need to show that there was such a belief.



> No, you need not use logic at all.  It is not an A=B and B=C, so A=C sort of endeavour.  People can even reach different conclusions from the same suggestion, none of which need be illogical.


If you dont use logic, then your conclusion is necessarily unsound.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I guess if what you require is a memo from Cheney saying that it was important to make the people believe that 9/11 and Iraq were related, then you are right that I don't have that kind of proof.


And so, you refuse to give up on the notion that the administration implied that relationship. because...?
Remember that implication necessitates intent.



> We have a large percentage of the population that believed that there was a connection (where did they get that idea?).


Ths is correlation = causation.  Unsound reasoning.



> We have minimal attempts by the Administration to persuade people otherwise.


Given that the administration clearly stated there was no involvement, why keep stating what's already been stated?  



> From this, I form one conclusion.


Which is based on unsupported terms and locial falacies.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, can you show that the administration deliberatly acted to imply there was a relationship?



Definitively prove, like with the Cheney memo example?  No.



M14 Shooter said:


> Logical fallacy.  You cannot prove a negative.
> You can aruge that 'maybe he did believe it but could not prove it' all you want, but then you need to show that there was such a belief.



You are right, you cannot prove a negative (well, actually you can, but it is very hard).  However, this isn't a math problem.  It is a question of people's perceptions and how they obtained those perceptions, and whether they should have been disillusioned as to those perceptions, were the government acting responsibly.



M14 Shooter said:


> If you dont use logic, then your conclusion is necessarily unsound.



Only if we are talking about issue of logic.  See above.

I can't prove to you that the Adminstration intended for people to conflate 9/11 with Iraq.  I think only a few select people could tell you with certainty what their intentions were, and I don't trust their honesty a great deal in any event.  All I can do is show you how many people inferred a relationship between the two, and point out the statements by the Adminstration that would have led to such an inferrence.  Taken with singular lack of effort (one or two statements aside) on the part of the Administration to set the record straight in the face of these misperceptions, I draw a certain conclusion.  You draw another.  I think this is where we reach an impasse.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Definitively prove, like with the Cheney memo example?  No.


So, how do you support the position that the connection was implied?



> You are right, you cannot prove a negative (well, actually you can, but it is very hard).


And so, it would have been logically impossible for Cheney to say anything other than he did.  Right?



> I can't prove to you that the Adminstration intended for people to conflate 9/11 with Iraq.
> All I can do is show you how many people inferred a relationship between the two,


AHA!!
So, we'e talking about INFERENCES, not IMPLICATIONS.
That is, an action taken on the part of the audience, not the speaker.

You probably didnt see this part of the discussion as it happened 20+ pages ago, but the issue was that the administration LIED about the connection between Iraq and 9/11, as evidenced by the factthat 70&#37; of the people believed there was a connection.

OBVIOUSLY if the sentiment was drawn from inference rather than implication, the claim that the administration lied is unsupportable.

Thank you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 13, 2007)

maineman said:


> No...it is never OK to lie about the reasons to go to war.
> 
> and of course his opinion is as good as mine.... I have never suggested otherwise.



Actually that is not true. You have on several occasions made just such a claim, in fact I have one quoted in my signature line.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> AHA!!
> So, we'e talking about INFERENCES, not IMPLICATIONS.
> That is, an action taken on the part of the audience, not the speaker.
> 
> ...



No, I don't think the Adminstration lied (with the possible exception of one Cheney statement that it appears he should have known was groundless).  I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case.  I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist.  I think the Administration, knowing that a misperception existed, declined to correct (at least vigorously correct) that misperception.

As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent.  If one is talking about a person, intent might be necessary.  If one is talking about a statement, obviously no intent would be necessary (as a statement cannot possess intent).


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> No, I don't think the Adminstration lied


Great!  We are in agreement!



> I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case.  I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist.


There you go with the implication thing again.
Unless you can show intent...



> As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent.


Implication, in this context at the very least, is a deliberate act, as you are -trying- to suggest something rather than state it explicitly.  
Deliberate acts require intent.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> There you go with the implication thing again.
> Unless you can show intent...
> 
> Implication, in this context at the very least, is a deliberate act, as you are -trying- to suggest something rather than state it explicitly.
> Deliberate acts require intent.



I thought that at first too, but now I don't think so.  Definitely not as to statements and probably not as to people.

If to imply is to suggest, why need there be a deliberate intent?  Surely, I can unintentionally imply something.

If I say "I had never had Mexican food before I went to Mexico," surely the implication is that I had Mexican food in Mexico.  However, this need not be the case - logically speaking.  Regardless of my intent in making the statement, either I am implying such, or my statement implies such.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This describes a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq qnd 9/11.
> In fact, ALL the statements describe a connection between Iraq and AQ, not Iraq and 9/11.  Describing the relationship between Iraq and AQ no more necessiates a relationship between Iraq and 9/11 than describing the relationship between Germany and Japan necessitates that Germany was involved 12/7.



The more I think about this argument, the dumber it seems to me.  If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities.  If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities.  It is silly to say that Iran and Syria support a terrorist organization, but suggest that this implies no support for terrorism.  Support of a terrorist organization in its goals implies support for the specific terrorist actions, whether one is briefed on them or not.


----------



## jillian (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> No, I don't think the Adminstration lied (with the possible exception of one Cheney statement that it appears he should have known was groundless).  I do think that the people inferred something that was not the case.  I think that inference stemmed from statements by the Administration implying a connection that did not exist.  I think the Administration, knowing that a misperception existed, declined to correct (at least vigorously correct) that misperception.
> 
> As a side note, upon further thought, I don't know if an implication necessarily requires intent.  If one is talking about a person, intent might be necessary.  If one is talking about a statement, obviously no intent would be necessary (as a statement cannot possess intent).



I understand your argument. Where I think I have trouble with it is that I'm not sure I see a significant difference between a lie and a refusal to correct a "misimpression" that resulted from a false inference, particularly when that false inference seems to have been intentionally fostered.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why?
> 
> You gonna be a Real Big Man(tm) and attack them, after whining about keeping family members out of it?
> 
> If you can't stand getting dirty, you little priss, don't sling mud.



no...just curious.  

do you have any more insults to direct at my parents?  my mom is 84 and in a wheelchair and my dad died in March, but feel free to dump on either one of them.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually that is not true. You have on several occasions made just such a claim, in fact I have one quoted in my signature line.



I am disappointed that you would deliberately mischaracterize my statements like that.  really disappointed.

the quote from me in your signature line had nothing to do with my saying, in any way, that my opinion was more valid than yours...only that your opinion as to a matter of law settled at the supreme court has no real value.

I really thought you were more principled than that.

live and learn, I guess.


----------



## maineman (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> The more I think about this argument, the dumber it seems to me.  If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities.  If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities.  It is silly to say that Iran and Syria support a terrorist organization, but suggest that this implies no support for terrorism.  Support of a terrorist organization in its goals implies support for the specific terrorist actions, whether one is briefed on them or not.



bingo


----------



## actsnoblemartin (Nov 13, 2007)

Well for what its worth, im sorry about your dad. my sincere condolences  



maineman said:


> no...just curious.
> 
> do you have any more insults to direct at my parents?  my mom is 84 and in a wheelchair and my dad died in March, but feel free to dump on either one of them.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> The more I think about this argument, the dumber it seems to me.  If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities.  If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities.  It is silly to say that Iran and Syria support a terrorist organization, but suggest that this implies no support for terrorism.  Support of a terrorist organization in its goals implies support for the specific terrorist actions, whether one is briefed on them or not.



_ If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities. _

Where did you learn logic?

If I say that organized crime is based in the US, am I implying that the US supports organized crime activities???

_ It is silly to say that Iran and Syria support a terrorist organization, but suggest that this implies no support for terrorism. _

That doesn't even make sense....

_ If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities. _

If I say Bernie Sanders (a self described Socalist) is connected to the Democrats....does that mean that Democrats are Socialists...?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 13, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> These are statements linking Saddam and AQ, not Saddam and 9/11.




I get the sense that you voted for Bush twice, and are one of the last remaining dead enders - the 24&#37; - who still think he's doing a good job. 

This isn't rocket science.  Follow closely.

Bu$hCo. said that Iraq was an ally of al qaeda (false by the way), that Iraq was the "geographic base" of al qaeda operations, and that the lead 9/11 hijacker *met with Iraqi Intelligence agents before the attack on 9/11*


Any reasonable person can conclude what the inference here is. 

But, perhaps not the 24% dead enders.     Its a simple matter of how much in love with Bush one is.


----------



## CorpMediaSux (Nov 13, 2007)

> If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities.
> 
> Where did you learn logic?



Um, from the Bush admin who invaded Afghanistan because Osama Bin Laden was based there....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 13, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> If it said any more than it does, it wouldn't be an implication at all.  It would be a direct statement.
> 
> I think the implication in this statement is clear.  I don't know how you can't see it.



He can. He is being obtuse.

This is how M14 debates:
In 1933 a former corporal in the German Army had a big say in that country's politics. He spent some time in prison. While there he wrote a manifesto of sorts. He wore a funny moustache and was born in Austria. He did not like Jewish people, blacks or homosexuals.

Me:
You must be talking about Hitler.

M14:
Where did I mention Hitler?

That is the kinda debating tactics you are dealing with here. You have to say exactly what you mean. You are not allowed to read anything into what is being said, which is particularly hard when discussing politics. How many politicians actually say what they mean?

He is also of the "I never back down, I am always right" persuasion. He is slowly becoming tiresome with his Holier Than Thou approach. It would help if he even offered a smidgen of an opinion (even if it is "I don't know") as to why 70&#37; of the population at one stage or another thought Iraq was somehow related to 9-11.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> That is the kinda debating tactics you are dealing with here. You have to say exactly what you mean. You are not allowed to read anything into what is being said, which is particularly hard when discussing politics. How many politicians actually say what they mean?


Apparently, you dont understand the difference between implication and inference, how implication is a deliberate act, and therefore to show that there is implication, you must show intent.  Your ignorance is your problem.

You and your ilk want to run around making whatever accusations you want and not have to back them up -- and then you get all upset and self-righteous when someone won't let you get away with it.

Cry me a river.   



> He is also of the "I never back down, I am always right" persuasion.


As the desert said to the grain of sand...



> He is slowly becoming tiresome with his Holier Than Thou approach.


See above.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I thought that at first too, but now I don't think so.  Definitely not as to statements and probably not as to people.
> 
> If to imply is to suggest, why need there be a deliberate intent?  Surely, I can unintentionally imply something.


Yes.   But that's not the context here.
Unless you're willing to say that the administration unintentionally implied the Iraq/911 link.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> no...just curious.
> do you have any more insults to direct at my parents?  my mom is 84 and in a wheelchair and my dad died in March, but feel free to dump on either one of them.


Awwww...  did the fucking moron take offense at the stab at his momma?

Is he gonna cry now?   Awwww.....

Since you seem perfectly happy to lay out whatever insults you like, I'll feel perfectly free to to the same, Skippy.

If you want to be a man and apologize, I'll stop.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> The more I think about this argument, the dumber it seems to me.  If I say that Iran is connected to Hezbollah, I am implying that Iran is connected to their terrorist activities.  If I say that Hezbollah is based in Syria, I am implying that Syria supports their terrorist activities.


No.  Thats your inference from those statements, as the statements in and of themselves create no necessary relationship.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Awwww...  did the fucking moron take offense at the stab at his momma?
> 
> Is he gonna cry now?   Awwww.....
> 
> ...



I am unaware of anything I have ever written to you that would require an apology...so hey...keep it up.  I think folks who feel compelled to insult other people's mothers earn the tacit reputation they deserve.

and your adolescent schoolyard taunts help to solidity it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am unaware of anything I have ever written to you that would require an apology...so hey...keep it up.


Really?

So this:



> *maineman  *
> it's my opinion, you fucking moron.
> OPINION. Got a different one? great. I explained why I held my OPINION.... if you disagree.... great.
> that's how OPINIONS work.
> idiot.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=623273&postcount=347

Doesnt require an apology?

You remember this post -- its the one where you attacked me from out of the blue after I accepted your apology from the LAST round of insults you threw at me.

I see yo' momma not only taught you to be a partisan bigot, but didn't teach you any manners, either.

Keep crying, Skippy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Really?
> 
> So this:
> 
> ...



you want an apology for being called a moron?  and you think that insulting someone's mother is proportional retaliation for being called a moron?

Even though you are, in fact, a moron, I do sincerely apologize for rubbing it in your face.  I will try really hard not to refer to you as the moron that you are, going forward. 

but in any case... don't stop.... say whatever the hell you want to about my mother.  She has never once surfed the net and never will so she is a perfect target for your abuse.  It really is a great style choice for you.  I am sure you are winning friends and influencing people all over cyberspace with your kinder and gentler debating approach!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> you want an apology for being called a moron?  and you think that insulting someone's mother is proportional retaliation for being called a moron?
> 
> Even though you are, in fact, a moron, I do sincerely apologize for rubbing it in your face.  I will try really hard not to refer to you as the moron that you are, going forward.


You're the one whining about childish behavior like a spoiled little priss while perpetuating the same, Skippy, not me.   

Tell me -- how proud is yo' momma for having raised such a fucking moron?


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're the one whining about childish behavior like a spoiled little priss while perpetuating the same, Skippy, not me.
> 
> Tell me -- how proud is yo' momma for having raised such a fucking moron?



my mom is quite proud of me.  

And again...I am certainly not whining.  I urge you to continue to make my mother the butt of your insults.  Like I said, I am certain that your approach is winning friends and influencing people with each passing minute!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> my mom is quite proud of me.


I have NO doubt, as your idiot ass is likely the smartest your family has ever produced. 



> And again...I am certainly not whining


 

This is you whining about me being disrespectful of you:


> Originally Posted by maineman
> we're having a discussion here. I have given you my opinion. I have asked for yours. *I have tried not to be disrespectful of you, yet you continue to be disrespectful of me. Why not make this less of a school yard taunting session and more of a polite discussion? I would enjoy that*.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621895&postcount=217

These are your "respectful" posts preceeding this:


> creating false impressions IS lying.
> go check out a fucking dictionary sometime.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621525&postcount=90



> attempting to have a discussion with someone whose command of the english language was apparently arrested at the "My Weekly Reader" level is really quite tedious


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621529&postcount=94



> am I getting through to you or do I need to dumb it down to the DICK and JANE level?


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621534&postcount=98



> for you to suggest that I am mouthing off with partisan rhetoric while you continue to excuse the misleading done by this administration is pretty funny, young fella.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621540&postcount=102

And after all that, I respond with:


> Yes, Skippy, that exactly the sort of thing you should be providing.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621543&postcount=105

Your retort:


> and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=621545&postcount=106

And THEN you have the audacity to post in my reputation feedback:


> bad form.... you should learn to show a
> little more respect for your elders, sonny.
> Let's not make a habit of this.



As I said:

Skippy can dish it out but he can't take it.

What a priss.   

If yo' momma had the capacity to do so, she'd be embarassed -- that she is proud of you speaks far more that needs to be said.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2007)

if only this much energy were put into finding amicable solutions instead...


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I have NO doubt, as your idiot ass is likely the smartest your family has ever produced.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wow.  finding all these quotes.... obsessing a bit, aren't we?  LOL

again...keep it up big shooter.... you are winning friends and influencing people.  You might try to concentrate on my mother's affirmities that keep her in a wheelchair next, that would make for some great theater!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> wow.  finding all these quotes.... obsessing a bit, aren't we?  LOL


Exactly the response I thought I'd get.

Cry a little more, Skippy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> wow.  finding all these quotes.... obsessing a bit, aren't we?  LOL
> 
> again...keep it up big shooter.... you are winning friends and influencing people.  You might try to concentrate on my mother's affirmities that keep her in a wheelchair next, that would make for some great theater!



Wait? Aren't you the one that DEMANDS links to things you claim you never said? And if we do not go find them you deny you did say them? He provides the links and your response is not " ohh I am wrong" it is" your obsessed"?


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wait? Aren't you the one that DEMANDS links to things you claim you never said? And if we do not go find them you deny you did say them? He provides the links and your response is not " ohh I am wrong" it is" your obsessed"?




showing up late to a gunfight armed with your fingernail clippers again, I see???

what a little bitch you are, RGS.... like my ex.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> showing up late to a gunfight armed with your fingernail clippers again, I see???
> 
> what a little bitch you are, RGS.... like my ex.



Pardon me while I laugh at your superior intellect.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 14, 2007)

Please stop. Oh... Oh... please...no more.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> Please stop. Oh... Oh... please...no more.



Yea.. Im with ReillyT.


just stop.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 14, 2007)

Shogun said:


> Yea.. Im with ReillyT.
> 
> 
> just stop.



I agree maineman should quit while he is ahead. He had a point bitching about having his mother called names. He has NO point and no ground to stand on claiming he does not insult, belittle or name call other posters.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I agree maineman should quit while he is ahead. He had a point bitching about having his mother called names. He has NO point and no ground to stand on claiming he does not insult, belittle or name call other posters.




now...if you could find a quote from me that claimed that, that would be real nice.

I'll wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am unaware of anything I have ever written to you that would require an apology...so hey...keep it up.  I think folks who feel compelled to insult other people's mothers earn the tacit reputation they deserve.
> 
> and your adolescent schoolyard taunts help to solidity it.



There we go, now spin away.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There we go, now spin away.



no spinning necessary.  As I said to you in a PM, IF I had said to M14 some comment that was derrogatory about someone, let's say, hypothetically, his wife, let's say, and her oral prowess, let's say, and how I found it pleasing, let's say....THAT would certainly be something that would deserve an apology.  I have no intention of ever apologizing to anyone for calling them anything on an internet message board..... I get called things every day here.... and am not demanding apologies left and right.  He crossed the line when he brought family members into the discussion.  I crossed no such line.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have no intention of ever apologizing to anyone for calling them anything on an internet message board.....


But Skippy will certainly whine and cry when someone does it to him.  



> and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.





> bad form.... you should learn to show a little more respect for your elders, sonny. Let's not make a habit of this.



 

What a maroon.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> But Skippy will certainly whine and cry when someone does it to him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




did I ask you to apologize for calling me skippy?

you and your buddy RGS really need to take an ESL course, I would think!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> did I ask you to apologize for calling me skippy?


Nope - though your prissy ass has been whining and crying about ever since I started.

What's the matter, Big Man?  Can't handle a little name calling?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2007)

Is anyone on topic anymore or is the shit talking ripe for replanting in the taunting area?

Please, gentlemen.


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nope - though your prissy ass has been whining and crying about ever since I started.
> 
> What's the matter, Big Man?  Can't handle a little name calling?



I can handle name calling all day and all night, and I can name call for the same period.

Bringing mothers in is not good.  I haven't brought your mother into the discussion, or your wife,  so really.... get over it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> I can handle name calling all day and all night


Then tell me, princess, why did you post:



> and don't call me skippy. asshole. I was getting my expert rifleman medal with an M1 when you were still in the fucking womb.





> bad form.... you should learn to show a little more respect for your elders, sonny. Let's not make a habit of this.



Sounds like whining to me.   

Obviously, you dont have the basic metal capacity to even be honest with yourelf.  It must be that chronic cranial-rectal inversion you suffer from.
I hear that's genetic -- one wonders how yo' momma manages to get around in that wheelchair.



> Bringing mothers in is not good.


Cry me a river.  
Yo' momma obviously neglected you, else you wouldn't be so maladjusted and loathe your own existence to the point where you need to come here to so very mindlessly self-sodomize your credibility as sentient being.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 14, 2007)

I might be new to the scene here but...


The last batch of posts are off topic and belong in the Taunting forum.  Please, gentlemen.  Neither of you are impressing anyone by acting childish in this forum.  I'm a big fan of free speech and have no problem letting you both choke each other.....  in the correct forum.


por favore?  with sugar and cherries on top?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Apparently, you dont understand the difference between implication and inference, how implication is a deliberate act, and therefore to show that there is implication, you must show intent.



I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove. Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are. Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so. Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that. You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything. There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70&#37; of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.

BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists. Why? I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.



M14 Shooter said:


> As the desert said to the grain of sand...
> 
> 
> See above.



There are quite a few posts on this board where I have admitted to being wrong or compliemented a poster from another political persuasion on their point. Why do I get the impression if I trolled through your 450+ posts I won't find ONE occasion where you have done the same? Having posted on messageboards for the best part of six years I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 14, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove.


Hopefully not.



> Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are.


You can argue that all you want.
But, again, if you are arguing that they are -deliberately- suggesting something with what they say, then you need to show that they -intended- to make that suggestion.



> Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so.


Except that there was physical evidence to contradict their statements.
Whoops.



> Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that.


Of course I do.  -I- can read, and what -I- read shows that the Administration tried to link Iraq and AQ.  

And why do I believe that, other than the fact that I can read?

Simple:  Its not necessary to link Iraq and 9/11 to justify going after Iraq in terms of the greater war on terror, which is what the Administration was doing at the time.



> You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything.


Except that it proves you cannot show that they ever intendeed to imply the Iraq-9/11 link.

Remember:
The claim was that Bush lied about the Iraq-9/11 link.
To prove a 'misleading' lie, you need to prove that the administration intentionally suggested something it knew was not true.

You can't do that.  Period.



> There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70% of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.


Except, of course, the evidence that shows this was implied by the administration rather than inferred by the population



> BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists.


That's right - because its not my claim that the people believed it for any reason whatsoever.  In forcing you to prove your theory, I'm not required to provide an altrenate theory to replace yours.. 



> I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.


As opposed to your "Its my opinion that Bush lied, even thought I cannot prove it, and I hate having to defend my opinion especially when I know I can't prove it" attitude?
Spare me YOUR holier-than-thouness.



> I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...


Look in the morror, bub.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 14, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You can argue that all you want.
> But, again, if you are arguing that they are -deliberately- suggesting something with what they say, then you need to show that they -intended- to make that suggestion.



No I don't. I'm offering my opinion. That is my opinion. No proof is necessary. Having seen how this admin operates over the past seven years, I believe they deliberately manipulated the situation. Can I prove that? No. Doesn't mean I am wrong. Doesn't mean I am right either...



M14 Shooter said:


> Except that there was physical evidence to contradict their statements.
> Whoop.



And I believe there is enough anecdotal evidence to support my opinion in that they tried to connect AQ with Iraq, which vicariously connects Iraq with 9-11. And if you can't see that connection, you are being deliberately obtuse (this is NOT an opinion it is a fact).



M14 Shooter said:


> Of course I do.  -I- can read, and what -I- read shows that the Administration tried to link Iraq and AQ.



See above.



M14 Shooter said:


> Simple:  Its not necessary to link Iraq and 9/11 to justify going after Iraq in terms of the greater war on terror, which is what the Administration was doing at the time.



I disagree. Iraq had absolutely no connection with any terrorist organisation that was threatening the US. The Admin knew that, so had to draw an analogy that would back up their actions in Iraq because they knew the US public would not buy it.



M14 Shooter said:


> Except that it proves you cannot show that they ever intendeed to imply the Iraq-9/11 link.



I have never said otherwise. Mine is an opinion....



M14 Shooter said:


> Remember:
> The claim was that Bush lied about the Iraq-9/11 link.
> To prove a 'misleading' lie, you need to prove that the administration intentionally suggested something it knew was not true.



I need to prove no such thing with an opinion. I think maybe, just maybe, Cheney might have honestly thought Iraq might have had something to do with 9-11, but in reality and think the man is a cynic, coward and warmonger, whose only God is the almight greenback.



M14 Shooter said:


> Except, of course, the evidence that shows this was implied by the administration rather than inferred by the population.



Never said otherwise..



M14 Shooter said:


> That's right - because its not my claim that the people believed it for any reason whatsoever.  In forcing you to prove your theory, I'm not required to provide an altrenate theory to replace yours.



I'm asking you for your opinion, which is above and beyond the current scope of our argument. I am asking you why you thought that figure came about. If you CAN'T answer, no harm, no foul. Does make me wonder if you truly believe in what you are arguing about though...



M14 Shooter said:


> As opposed to your "Its my opinion that Bush lied, even thought I cannot prove it, and I hate having to defend my opinion especially when I know I can't prove it" attitude?.



This is a messageboard, not a court of law. When it comes to politics most posts are on opinions - what was said, what was meant by a statement, how one statement relates to a previous statement etc. Politicians are surrounded by spindoctors, so to think they are actually ever going to come out and admit to wrongdoing is simply naive to the max. I base my opinions on former and current actions of politicians - how they have handled certain situations and whether they are trustworthy.



M14 Shooter said:


> Look in the morror, bub.



As stated, I have in the past admitted mistakes and complimented opposition posters on their posts. Can you say the same? If so, I retract my statement, if not I stand by it. I think I'm on the money. As said, I have come across your type before. Everybody else is wrong, and I am right....


----------



## maineman (Nov 14, 2007)

well said, Dr. Grump...

this argument with M14 long ago became some form of macho mental masturbation for him.... your opinions are as well founded as the next guy's, and I share them.  We both have explained them all we need to.  Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.


----------



## Annie (Nov 14, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> ...
> 
> As stated, I have in the past admitted mistakes and complimented opposition posters on their posts. Can you say the same? If so, I retract my statement, if not I stand by it. I think I'm on the money. As said, I have come across your type before. Everybody else is wrong, and I am right....



If so, when? I have, many a time. I recognize that sometimes I can be overly self-righteous, I've missed your posts on the same...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 14, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> If so, when? I have, many a time. I recognize that sometimes I can be overly self-righteous, I've missed your posts on the same...



They are sprinkled here and there. Not often, but they are there...not just on this board, but on other boards I post on.


----------



## Annie (Nov 14, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> They are sprinkled here and there. Not often, but they are there...not just on this board, but on other boards I post on.



Can you give us a hint? I'm not asking for a link. As to myself, it was that GW was a 'conservative' I ate lots of crow on that one. Still pulling feathers out of my throat.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 14, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Can you give us a hint? I'm not asking for a link. As to myself, it was that GW was a 'conservative' I ate lots of crow on that one. Still pulling feathers out of my throat.



Wouldn't have a clue where they are. I know I've eaten crow on a couple of occasions with Gunny.....much to his amusement and my chargin. Mind you, there are other people I'd much rather NOT eat crow...

There is one particular board that I puruse where I've had to on a couple of occasions with somebody I'd usually walk over broken glass in bare feet than admit he was right, but it happens on occasion I guess..


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 14, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> Wilful blindndess.  The Democrats knew about the lies but it suited them politically to go along with them.  Only a few stood on principle and opposed the invasion because they knew of the lies.  Those who went along with it for political purposes are hypocrites and undeserving of public office.




HAHHAHAHHA, rationLIESing?? If what you say is true, then what a bunch of spineless whimps you guys have elected in your party.

Funny thing is the one with the most principle in the DEMS is Lieberman, who is gun ho for supporting the war.

One last thing, your buddy Clinton and his wife were already screaming about kicking saddam out without claimiing anything about oil, but did talk up WMD's and saddams threatening posistion globally. So, if it is lies, then it started with you guys. OUCH !!!!


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 14, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> How?  By asking nicely?.


Pretty much. If we offered market price or even a bit more, he would have gladly sold to us



The region was stable, he invasion has made the region unstable..[/QUOTE]
The region is stable? Kuwait? Palestinians shooting bombs into Israel? Civil ware in Lebanon? Iran threatening to get nukes, and Israel blowing up one of Irans attempts to get nukes. You call that stable?




Diuretic said:


> Can you clear this up, it doesn't make sense - not having a shot at you but I don't understand your point.
> Bush lied.  He is still lying.  He has no credibility with most of the American people and certainly the world has an extremely low opinion of him.


BLah, blah, blah. It has never been proven he lied.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 14, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you really suggesting that Bush did not convey the impression that Saddam had links to 9/11, or that he did not have stockpiles of WMD's that he would give to AQ?



Did he actually say it or just convey the impression? The "conveyed impression" is merely your OPINION, which does not constitute a lie. Me suggests you go back and learn the definition of LIE, and how to prove it was done. Hint, an OPINION proves NOTHING>


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 14, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. ...



So President Bush is stupid, but his VP is smart? Werent you on board with saying they are running the war badly, ineptly? So, are the smart, or stupid? Please make up your mind.


Dr Grump said:


> They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove. Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are.
> 
> That they implied something is strictly your opinion, which is worthless anyways, especially since you are motivated by bitterness towards the right.
> 
> Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so....



What a stupid, STUPID analogy. Saddam or OBL are the culprits, not President BUsh. Clinton and the brothers were the perps, denying their own involvement. Did they state that YES, they did the crime, and then insuate later that they didnt? That would be idiotic, course that doesnt slow you done in the slightest.


Dr Grump said:


> Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. ...



Which means he didnt lie. WOW, we finally got one of you to admit defeat !!!
Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that. You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything. There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70% of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.



Dr Grump said:


> BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists. Why? I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few posts on this board where I have admitted to being wrong or compliemented a poster from another political persuasion on their point. Why do I get the impression if I trolled through your 450+ posts I won't find ONE occasion where you have done the same? Having posted on messageboards for the best part of six years I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...



Well, someone has to be the smartest. 

By the way, President BUsh didnt even need to lie, much less do it, as you admit above, the legal reason for invading was provided by Saddam breaking the cease fire/treaty agreement. He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 15, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> So President Bush is stupid, but his VP is smart?



Yep.



LuvRPgrl said:


> Werent you on board with saying they are running the war badly, ineptly? So, are the smart, or stupid? Please make up your mind.



One does not necessarily lead to the other. Politicians should let generals run wars....



LuvRPgrl said:


> What a stupid, STUPID analogy. Saddam or OBL are the culprits, not President BUsh. Clinton and the brothers were the perps, denying their own involvement. Did they state that YES, they did the crime, and then insuate later that they didnt? That would be idiotic, course that doesnt slow you done in the slightest.



No being the brightest bulb in the socket, you would think it stupid. My point is that the brothers nor Clinton admitted their guilt. The only evidence in both cases was circumstantial. Good circumstantial, but circumstantial nonetheless..



LuvRPgrl said:


> Which means he didnt lie. WOW, we finally got one of you to admit defeat !!!



Didn't he? Can you prove that?



LuvRPgrl said:


> By the way, President BUsh didnt even need to lie, much less do it, as you admit above, the legal reason for invading was provided by Saddam breaking the cease fire/treaty agreement.



Israel and North Korea break UN resolutions all the time. When do you invade them?



LuvRPgrl said:


> He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,



Well, if he didn't have them it's pretty hard to provide proof. As for your last statement - and you call me stupid....lol...


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Did he actually say it or just convey the impression? The "conveyed impression" is merely your OPINION, which does not constitute a lie. Me suggests you go back and learn the definition of LIE, and how to prove it was done. Hint, an OPINION proves NOTHING>



clearly, it is my opinion that he lied.  I cannot prove that he lied anymore than you can prove he told the truth.

the definition of lie I am operating with is: *something intended or serving to convey a false impression;*  Now if you want to believe that the false impression that WAS conveyed, the false impression that was essential if there was to be the preponderance of public support necessary to launch a major war, was conveyed unintentionally, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> No I don't. I'm offering my opinion. That is my opinion. No proof is necessary.


Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.  All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.

And why are you doing that?  Because you know you cannot prove it.
It does make me wonder why you believe what you are arguing about though...
But then, its clear that you simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.
> 
> Give it an honest thought, OK?



As I recall the mission that that ship was on was accomplished with stunning success, and is likely to become a training manual for future missions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.  All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.
> 
> And why are you doing that?  Because you know you cannot prove it.
> You simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.



Wait, they will post their "opinion" in another thread and word it so it is taken as fact and it will be another 20 pages before you finally get them to admit they are "just" saying an opinion. Book mark this admission because they will also claim they never said any such thing and demand proof of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wait, they will post their "opinion" in another thread and word it so it is taken as fact and it will be another 20 pages before you finally get them to admit they are "just" saying an opinion. Book mark this admission because they will also claim they never said any such thing and demand proof of it.



They will also demand that -you- prove -your- opinions.

Its a one-way street with these people -- and according to them, its always going their way.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> They will also demand that -you- prove -your- opinions.
> 
> Its a one-way street with these people -- and according to them, its always going their way.



Ya I love that one. They want proof from us when we have an opinion but then claim they don't have to provide any reason for their opinions cause, "they are just opinions"

Further Maineman has stated for the record that other peoples opinions mean nothing to him unless they happen to agree with his.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

> Originally Posted by *Dr Grump *
> 
> 
> > He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,
> ...


He had them in December of 1998.
When did he prove they were destroyed?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya I love that one. They want proof from us when we have an opinion but then claim they don't have to provide any reason for their opinions cause, "they are just opinions"
> 
> *Further Maineman has stated for the record *that other peoples opinions mean nothing to him unless they happen to agree with his.



He's the biggest asshole on any board and has attacked my family, accussing me of being a pedophile against my teen-age son.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

glockmail said:


> He's the biggest asshole on any board and has attacked my family, accussing me of being a pedophile against my teen-age son.


And the he gets all bent out of shape when I call him Skippy.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2007)

There was a kid in middle school that we used to call that name. The story was that he would put peanut butter on his Johnson and have his dog lick it off. 

I think "Skippy" is a fitting nick-name for a pervert like maineman.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

glockmail said:


> There was a kid in middle school that we used to call that name. The story was that he would put peanut butter on his Johnson and have his dog lick it off.


This behavior was likely pioneered by MM, so you're right-- it fits.

maineman-- have you stopped letting your dog lick peanut butter off your johnson?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This behavior was likely pioneered by MM, so you're right-- it fits.
> 
> maineman-- have you stopped letting your dog lick peanut butter off your johnson?




He lets them piss on his rugs and chew on his furniture, so I suspect that the answer would be "no".


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.



if you could prove an opinion, it would no longer be an opinion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you could prove an opinion, it would no longer be an opinion.



According to you:



> Neither of us has ever suggested that we can prove our opinions in a court of law....but we both know what we believe to be the facts.



So, its pretty clear that you're happy to use the term "opinion" and "fact" whenever it suits you.   

In the end, Skippy, you believe whatever you -want- to believe, regardless of what evidence you have to back it up, just like the partisan bigot yo' momma raised you to be.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> According to you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is factual to say that the administration talking heads conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda repeatedly.... it is my opinion that they did so deliberately.... you think it was all just a giant coincidence.  Our opinions differ.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is factual to say that the administration talking heads conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda repeatedly.... it is my opinion that they did so deliberately


Of course they did.

You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.

You then say you KNOW this to be a fact.

What you cannot do is SHOW this to be a fact, even though you claim that it is a fact.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 15, 2007)

*You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.*


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course they did.
> 
> You THEN have the "opinion" that they did this with the intention of leading people to believe that Iraq and 9/11 were connected.
> 
> ...



I KNOW they conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda.  I know that they claimed significant contact between the two BEFORE 9/11.  I know that everyone in America knew that AQ and 9/11 were inseparably linked. I know that most folks are laughing at you for your continued suggestions that those three facts do not inevitably lead to the implied connection between Iraq and 9/11.  As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state.  It is my opinion that they did.  Again... I know some things to be factual...and I have opinions about other things.  DO try to keep up!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> I KNOW they conflated Iraq and Al Qaeda.  I know that they claimed significant contact between the two BEFORE 9/11.  I know that everyone in America knew that AQ and 9/11 were inseparably linked.


None of this is in dispute.  
The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ.  Often.

But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact. 



> As I said...I cannot PROVE that the administration...


So, you must then admit that what you 'know' is NOT a fact, contrary to your claims.

Not that you will, of course.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> None of this is in dispute.
> The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ.  Often.
> 
> But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact.
> ...



can you fucking READ?????? 

_"As I said...I *cannot* PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state. It is my *opinion* that they did. Again... I *know some things *to be factual...and I have *opinions* about *other* things. DO try to keep up!"_


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The administration did ineed link Iraq and AQ.  Often.
> 
> But, you also claim to KNOW that the administration deliberately misled the people to think that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 -- that you know what you believe to be a fact.



but.... for you to continually attack my opinion that the administration repeatedly linking AQ and Iraq and making the case - repeatedly - that that relationship existed before 9/11, caused people to connect those dots is silly.  The fact that I cannot prove their intent is irrelevant... the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to their guilt even if it does not conclusively prove that guilt... and, as I said before, it is just my opinion.  Conclusive proof is for a court of law.  The court of public opinion has much less stringent rules of evidence.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> but.... for you to find my opinion that the administration repeatedly linking AQ and Iraq and making the case - repeatedly - that that relationship existed before 9/11, caused people to connect those dots is silly.  The fact that I cannot prove their intent is irrelevant... the overwhelming circumstantial evidence points to their guilt even if it does not conclusively prove that guilt... and, as I said before, it is just my opinion.



You've made it very clear that you believe what you -want- to belive, regardless of the fact that you dont have the evidence necessary to support that belief, Skippy.

That's why you're a classic example of a partisan bigot.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> can you fucking READ??????
> 
> _"As I said...I *cannot* PROVE that the administration sat down and specifically planned each speech to reinforce an implication that they could not explicitly state. It is my *opinion* that they did. Again... I *know some things *to be factual...and I have *opinions* about *other* things. DO try to keep up!"_



 I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.

-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

--------------------------------------
May I share your sentiments...?


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
> 
> -Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)
> 
> ...



of course.  

my sentiments were specifically in regard to settled law previously decided by the Supreme COurt, however.  I think you would agree that your opinion about the constitutionality of Plessy v. Ferguson was, in fact, worth nothing.

but leave it to RGS to quote me out of context, and leave it to YOU to come following me around like some sort of stalker trying to play cute little "gotcha" games.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You've made it very clear that you believe what you -want- to belive, regardless of the fact that you dont have the evidence necessary to support that belief, Skippy.
> 
> That's why you're a classic example of a partisan bigot.




that is your opinion.  I have made it very clear that I believe what I believe based upon a series of facts that point strongly towards my conclusion.

If I were to repeat over and over again for the media:

"M14 Shooter and Osama bin Laden were repeatedly seen together at planning meetings prior to 9/11", it is perfectly understandable that people would get the idea that you might have had something to do with the attacks.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is your opinion.  I have made it very clear that I believe what I believe based upon a series of facts that point strongly towards my conclusion.


Except for the parts where you can't show the necessary conditions, presume the idiocy of the audience, and rely on faulty logic -- yes, you 'facts' point 'strongly' to your conclusion.

 

What really happened, Skippy, and what you'll never admit to, is that you're a useful idiot that has fallen for The Big Lie, fed to you by your masters.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> of course.
> 
> my sentiments were specifically in regard to settled law previously decided by the Supreme COurt, however.  I think you would agree that your opinion about the constitutionality of Plessy v. Ferguson was, in fact, worth nothing.
> 
> ...



Don't whine and cry now...I might let you win one in the future....


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Don't whine and cry now...I might let you win one in the future....



Plessy v. Ferguson was an example...of settled law decided by the supreme court in Brown v. Board of Education.  the quote you had purloined from RGS in your pathetic attempt to play "gatcha" was specifically in relation to his "opinions" about settled law.  I said, and still say, that he, or you, or anyone else is welcome to have an opinion about Brown or Miranda or any of the other legal issues of our past settled by prior supreme court decisions, but that those opinions were, in fact, worthless.

and regarding you letting me "win" one of your juvenile gotcha games....please please understand that I really will let you "win" them all for as long as you care to chase me around "winning" them.  I really have much better things to do, here and elsewhere, than play your adolescent games.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 15, 2007)




----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

succinct.  pithy.  brief.

I LIKE it!


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 15, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on.



Says who? You?  This is a messageboard Sparky




M14 Shooter said:


> All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.



Can't prove that man landed on the moon either. Just have to believe Nasa and Armstrong and Aldrin. I never witnessed the incident first hand. As stated, there is a thing called circumstantial evidence, and I look at all the evidence. So, according to M14, politicians will always come out and say what they mean. You are no longer M14, from now on you are Mr Naive. What is pissing you off is that you think you can score cheap points by trying to find literal answers to complex questions. Maybe Mr Simple instead...hhmmm



M14 Shooter said:


> And why are you doing that?  Because you know you cannot prove it. It does make me wonder why you believe what you are arguing about though...



How many posts am I going to have to say that it is based on previous actions and the fact that I wouldn't trust this admin as far as I could throw it? There are many things I cannot prove that I believe. I think Bruce Springsteen is the best song writer of his generation. Can I prove it? No. I think Rocky Marciano was the best heavyweight boxer ever. Can I prove it? No.



M14 Shooter said:


> But then, its clear that you simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.



I think there is plenty of evidence this admin can't be trusted, is full of chickhawks, and will go down as one of the worst admins in the history of US politics. You? You're just another neocon apologist who'd defend them til the cows come home..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Says who? You?  This is a messageboard Sparky
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for  years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for  years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.



Hey, if Bush is your hero, more power to you. I don't hate Bush. I just don't think he is competent. I thought Clinton was intelligent, articulate, and oversexed. Give me a guy who's intelligent and likes to bonk like a rabbit over a born-again cokehead who probably has trouble tying his shoelaces together. Hell, he can hardly string a sentence together...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 15, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Hey, if Bush is your hero, more power to you. I don't hate Bush. I just don't think he is competent. I thought Clinton was intelligent, articulate, and oversexed. Give me a guy who's intelligent and likes to bonk like a rabbit over a born-again *cokehead *who probably has *trouble tying his shoelaces together*. Hell, he can *hardly string a sentence together*...


Prove any one of those stupid accusations. Or lose cred.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

Gosh, Grump....you'd better dig up some proof fast!  Losing the credibility of glockmail is really somethin'! 

that's kind of like getting a bad critique of your stew recipe from Jeffrey Dahmer.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for  years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong.


There are many people who happen to believe that conflating Saddam and Al Qaeda was "doing something wrong".  There is certainly plenty of evidence of that!


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Moronic drivel , but hey to be expected from anyone that can chant " I hate Bush" over and over for  years with no EVIDENCE he ever did anything wrong. I bet you loved Clinton and we have plenty of evidence he broke the law, he even admitted it.




Your screen name should be "Bush Lover"

Compare and Contrast:



> GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "you *can't distinguish *between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. ..."
> 
> DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that *Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence* in Prague"
> 
> ...






> **CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence*, September 2006:
> 
> -Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that *Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi*
> 
> ...


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

and one can hear the sounds of crickets chirping ...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> and one can hear the sounds of crickets chirping ...



What one can hear is the continued lies, misstatements and fabrications by the left.  I am STILL waiting for some evidence Bush lied. Bush implied anything. He stated on more than one occasion TO include his State of the Union that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Did he say Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ, sure did and the evidence at the time indicated that. The intelligence was not just American it was from numerous sources outside the US and it is Bolstered by the documents captured after the invasion, where in there are meetings and attempted meetings between the Saddam Government Intelligence services and the AQ operatives in an attempt to come to common grounds.

But just like the lie that Bush told any lies, we have now the claim he just mislead everyone. Also completely unproven. Or are you now going to do what you couldn't do earlier when you insisted it was just your opinion and actually provide proof of the claim?


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What one can hear is the continued lies, misstatements and fabrications by the left.  I am STILL waiting for some evidence Bush lied. Bush implied anything. He stated on more than one occasion TO include his State of the Union that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
> 
> Did he say Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ, sure did and the evidence at the time indicated that. The intelligence was not just American it was from numerous sources outside the US and it is Bolstered by the documents captured after the invasion, where in there are meetings and attempted meetings between the Saddam Government Intelligence services and the AQ operatives in an attempt to come to common grounds.
> 
> But just like the lie that Bush told any lies, we have now the claim he just mislead everyone. Also completely unproven. Or are you now going to do what you couldn't do earlier when you insisted it was just your opinion and actually provide proof of the claim?



I am a little drunk, so I may not be as polite as I normally am.

The statements already provided indicate more than that Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ (which would have been false in any event).  The implications contained therein cannot be proved precisely because they are implications (suggestions, not explicitly stated).  That you can't see the implication when most of the public, and the rabid left-wing media could merely substantiates what I have believed for a very long time - you are a stupid fucking person.  Sorry, I could have tried to argue more articulately, but there is no getting around the fact that you are a fucking moron.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> I am a little drunk, so I may not be as polite as I normally am.
> 
> The statements already provided indicate more than that Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ (which would have been false in any event).  The implications contained therein cannot be proved precisely because they are implications (suggestions, not explicitly stated).  That you can't see the implication when most of the public, and the rabid left-wing media could merely substantiates what I have believed for a very long time - you are a stupid fucking person.  Sorry, I could have tried to argue more articulately, but there is no getting around the fact that you are a fucking moron.



The only moron here is the one that can hear a man say over and over Saddam Hussein has no link to 9/11 and then claim he secretly says he does. A President that CLEARLY stated OFFICIALLY more than once that NO LINK existed, yet we are to believe he really wants us to believe one does. Sure thing.

As for using alcohol as an excuse for your behavior, it does not make you act contrary to what you want, it just removes inhibitions that you may have been applying to your actions. In other words your real feelings are displayed by your previous post.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only moron here is the one that can hear a man say over and over Saddam Hussein has no link to 9/11 and then claim he secretly says he does. A President that CLEARLY stated OFFICIALLY more than once that NO LINK existed, yet we are to believe he really wants us to believe one does. Sure thing.
> 
> As for using alcohol as an excuse for your behavior, it does not make you act contrary to what you want, it just removes inhibitions that you may have been applying to your actions. In other words your real feelings are displayed by your previous post.



You're right.  I always think you are a fucking moron.  The alcohol just allowed me to express it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> What one can hear is the continued lies, misstatements and fabrications by the left.  I am STILL waiting for some evidence Bush lied. Bush implied anything. He stated on more than one occasion TO include his State of the Union that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
> 
> Did he say Saddam wanted a working relationship with AQ, sure did and the evidence at the time indicated that. The intelligence was not just American it was from numerous sources outside the US and it is Bolstered by the documents captured after the invasion, where in there are meetings and attempted meetings between the Saddam Government Intelligence services and the AQ operatives in an attempt to come to common grounds.
> 
> But just like the lie that Bush told any lies, we have now the claim he just mislead everyone. Also completely unproven. Or are you now going to do what you couldn't do earlier when you insisted it was just your opinion and actually provide proof of the claim?




are you capable of reading post 485?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you capable of reading post 485?



Question for ya Maineman? Did you believe or support any of the findings by the Congress in regards activities by Clinton during his Presidency? Am I to assume just because a Congressional panel makes a statement or finding it is gospel? If so I am waiting for your support of the ones that found before 2006 just the opposite. I won't hold my breath waiting though.


----------



## jillian (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Question for ya Maineman? Did you believe or support any of the findings by the Congress in regards activities by Clinton during his Presidency? Am I to assume just because a Congressional panel makes a statement or finding it is gospel? If so I am waiting for your support of the ones that found before 2006 just the opposite. I won't hold my breath waiting though.



You talking about the bogus impeachment? Er... the Senate found him not guilty and Starr had nothing but a blue dress.

The difference is that in addressing the issues surrounding 9/11, Congress tried very hard to be bi-partisan and non-political, almost to a fault, actually. I don't think anyone is seriously questioning the findings regarding Saddam and 9/11.

So, your point? Other than being contentious, I mean.

And we are still waiting to see if you read post 485.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

jillian said:


> You talking about the bogus impeachment? Er... the Senate found him not guilty and Starr had nothing but a blue dress.
> 
> The difference is that in addressing the issues surrounding 9/11, Congress tried very hard to be bi-partisan and non-political, almost to a fault, actually. I don't think anyone is seriously questioning the findings regarding Saddam and 9/11.
> 
> ...



Obviously I read it or I could not have written my question. You libs think if you play enough word games you win. Doesn't work except on the sheep that follow you around.


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Question for ya Maineman? Did you believe or support any of the findings by the Congress in regards activities by Clinton during his Presidency? Am I to assume just because a Congressional panel makes a statement or finding it is gospel? If so I am waiting for your support of the ones that found before 2006 just the opposite. I won't hold my breath waiting though.



Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants and lied about it to protect his marriage.  I have never suggested otherwise.

Now....did you read that post or what?  did you read the quotes by the president and vice president?


----------



## maineman (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obviously I read it or I could not have written my question. You libs think if you play enough word games you win. Doesn't work except on the sheep that follow you around.



"word games"??  explain how one plays "word games" with these:


_GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "*you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam *when you talk about the war on terror. ..."

DICK CHENEY, 2002: "Its been pretty well confirmed that *Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence* in Prague"

DICK CHENY, 2003: "By attacking iraq, we will be attacking *the geographic base, if you will, of those who attacked us on 9/11*"

GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "By removing saddam, we've *removed an ally of Al Qaeda*". _


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants and lied about it to protect his marriage.  I have never suggested otherwise.
> 
> Now....did you read that post or what?  did you read the quotes by the president and vice president?



Are we now going to have a 10 page spree of you asking them same question I already answered over and over causeyou are to STUPID to understand plain english?

Here lets try ONE MORE time for the Naval Officer that is either to stupid or to blind to read english.

I READ THE POST. It has nothing to do with 2002 or 2003. It has nothing to do with the President repeatedly saying "Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11"  You ask why people in late 2003 thought that. The answer is simple, they thought it because you, the left, the press and democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months.


----------



## jillian (Nov 15, 2007)

But YOU are the one who inserted the time frame!! Sheesh...

  

And the ones who made the statements were your boys... the press just covered it.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are we now going to have a 10 page spree of you asking them same question I already answered over and over causeyou are to STUPID to understand plain english?
> 
> Here lets try ONE MORE time for the Naval Officer that is either to stupid or to blind to read english.
> 
> I READ THE POST. It has nothing to do with 2002 or 2003. It has nothing to do with the President repeatedly saying "Saddam Hussein had NOTHING to do with 9/11"  You ask why people in late 2003 thought that. The answer is simple, they thought it because you, the left, the press and democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months.



This is fascinating to me. You think the American public believed there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 because the "democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months?"  Please tell me that I am misunderstanding you.

BTW, how do the posts not have anything to do with 2002-2003 when the quotes are all from 2002-2003?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

ReillyT said:


> This is fascinating to me. You think the American public believed there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11 because the "democrats in Congress said it over and over for 9 months?"  Please tell me that I am misunderstanding you.
> 
> BTW, how do the posts not have anything to do with 2002-2003 when the quotes are all from 2002-2003?



The supposed bipartisan report is from 2006 not 2002 or 2003. And I ask again, provide some EVIDENCE that this report claims Bush lied or even purposefully mislead anyone. Like Maineman says, I will wait.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

maineman said:


> "word games"??  explain how one plays "word games" with these:
> 
> 
> _GEORGE BUSH, 2003: "*you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam *when you talk about the war on terror. ..."
> ...



At the time they were said the intel was there to have one believe that. As to the Geographic location, umm correct me if i am wrong but is not Iraq in the middle East? RIGHT next door to Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia? 2 of those Countries OPENLY support, supply, train and protect terrorists, allowing them free passage, giving them diplomatic immunity , paying them to operate, arming them and allowing their own citizens and foreigners to join therm in their country. The third secretly provides funds and openly provides funds to religious schools that teach the hatred of all non Muslims, you won't get any traction off that one NO MATTER how you spin it.


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The supposed bipartisan report is from 2006 not 2002 or 2003. And I ask again, provide some EVIDENCE that this report claims Bush lied or even purposefully mislead anyone. Like Maineman says, I will wait.



True, the report is from 2006, but the quotations everyone are referring to are from Bush and Cheney in 2002-2003. 

I don't know that they (Bush/Cheney) lied. They may very well have believed everything they were saying.  However, since there was (apparently) little (or no) evidence to support what they were saying, they were reckless and stupid... or lying.

Are you still caught up on the concept of the explicit lie?  Is it any better if they implied something untrue?


----------



## ReillyT (Nov 15, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> At the time they were said the intel was there to have one believe that. As to the Geographic location, umm correct me if i am wrong but is not Iraq in the middle East? RIGHT next door to Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia? 2 of those Countries OPENLY support, supply, train and protect terrorists, allowing them free passage, giving them diplomatic immunity , paying them to operate, arming them and allowing their own citizens and foreigners to join therm in their country. The third secretly provides funds and openly provides funds to religious schools that teach the hatred of all non Muslims, you won't get any traction off that one NO MATTER how you spin it.



Sorry. I didn't realize that when he referred to Iraq as the geographic base, he really just meant that the Middle East is the geographic base, in which Iraq as a country exists.  How could people have misunderstood his meaning there?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 15, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Prove any one of those stupid accusations. Or lose cred.



Here's a link to a whole list of the latter

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

As for the former, there is enough anecdotal evidence Bush had some sort of substance abuse problem..whether it be coke or alcohol. I'm thinking living off the pig's back like he has done all his life that it is hardly surprising..

Apologies about the tying shoelaces. he can most likely do that....probably takes him a month of Sunday's, but the chances of him accomplishing that feat are pretty high I guess...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 15, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Here's a link to a whole list of the latter
> 
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
> 
> ...



In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 16, 2007)

Thanks for keeping this kicked to the top of the page.  No one has yet explained all that "Mission Accomplished" bullshit the lil' one tried to pull on us.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

Psychoblues said:


> No one has yet explained all that "Mission Accomplished" bullshit the lil' one tried to pull on us.



Sure they have.  You just dont like the explanation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.



Those were opinions.  You dont have to prove opinions, and so they can make whatever accusation they want and not have to back it up in any way.
They say so themselves.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 16, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Here's a link to a whole list of the latter
> 
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
> 
> ...


Cred lost.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.



Thanks for disputing my link. <rolls eyes>

Why am I not suprised....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Cred lost.



You asked a question. I provided a link...

actually you asked three questions, but only demanded proof of one...

What's that about credibility again??


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The supposed bipartisan report is from 2006 not 2002 or 2003. And I ask again, provide some EVIDENCE that this report claims Bush lied or even purposefully mislead anyone. Like Maineman says, I will wait.



You can't lie, or mislead people in order to defend your hero by tap dancing around some dates. 

It was known, even back in 2003, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were almost certainly not collaborating, they were not allies, and yet your Hero's were asserting that they were. 




> *Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War*
> 
> Links Were Cited to Justify U.S. Invasion, Report Says
> 
> ...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

This is public knowedge: Bush was told *in 2003* that Saddam was very unlikely to assist al qaeda, yet he and cheney continued to assert the lie that saddam and al qaeda were allies




> The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.
> 
> The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies *unanimously agreed* that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.
> 
> ...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 16, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You asked a question. I provided a link...
> 
> actually you asked three questions, but only demanded proof of one...
> 
> What's that about credibility again??


 I gave you every chance to gain it, and you failed.


----------



## Warner (Nov 16, 2007)

What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.

We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.  In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego.  They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception.  This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.

Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.


----------



## jillian (Nov 16, 2007)

Warner said:


> What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.
> 
> We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.  In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego.  They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception.  This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.
> 
> Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.




All true, not to mention the fact that his advance people made the sign.


----------



## jillian (Nov 16, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I gave you every chance to gain it, and you failed.



I'm sure he'll be crying in his beer tonight over the loss.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

Warner said:


> What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.  *We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.*


No we weren't.  Not even close.  
Only soneone REALLY not paying attention would have EVER thought that, and I DEFY you to show where anyone even remotely  hinted at the idea that the USS Lincoln was off the coast of Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85711,00.html

Both of these stories state that he took off from the NAS in San Diego.


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Warner said:


> What I find hilarious about "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" is how Bush mislead the American people in this PR stunt.
> 
> We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.  In fact it was a few miles off the coast of San Diego.  They even turned the carrier so they could get the landing shot without exposing San Diego in the shot giving away the deception.  This caused a 3-4 hour delay in making port - Bush had no concern for the families waiting for their loved ones to debark.
> 
> Face it, Bush's war in Iraq was a lie and it's become a farce.



in fact, the initial reason that the white house PR gang gave for Bush flying out on an S3 instead of a marine chopper was that the Lincoln would be too far out to see at the time of the event.  By the time the event was ready to commence, the Lincoln had made better than anticipated progress on its track and was only a few miles away from San Diego.  It would have been MUCH easier for the crew to have Bush fly out on a helicopter and not have to totally clear the flight deck and get ready to trap a jet.  Bush didn't care about that.  He needed the photo op so that bloggers could immediately start spreading the story that he "landed the aircraft in a war zone" (which I heard over and over again by posters on politics.com, btw).  It was all a stunt that delayed the arrival of the ship into home port and cost much more than a quick and simple helo ride.  pathetic.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No we weren't.  Not even close.
> Only soneone REALLY not paying attention would have EVER thought that, and I DEFY you to show where anyone even remotely  hinted at the idea that the USS Lincoln was off the coast of Iraq.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/
> ...



Agreed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html



> For Immediate Release
> Office of the Press Secretary
> May 1, 2003
> 
> ...



Note too, he did not declare 'the war over,' nor that it was endless:



> Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike. (Applause.)
> 
> The war on terror is not over; yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory. (Applause.) ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> He needed the photo op so that bloggers could immediately start spreading the story that he "landed the aircraft in a war zone"


You're full of shit.  

And that's a statement of fact, not opinion.  

No one thought he was in a war zone, or off the coast of Iraq, or anywhere other than off the coast of CA as the Lincoln made her way to San Diego.


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You're full of shit.
> 
> And that's a statement of fact, not opinion.
> 
> No one thought he was in a war zone, or off the coast of Iraq, or anywhere other than off the coast of CA as the Lincoln made her way to San Diego.



I guess you missed the parenthetical statement immediately following that sentence.

one renowned poster, who went by the name WilliamRLawrence stated on several occasions that Bush had landed the jet himself on a carrier in the war zone.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I guess you missed the parenthetical statement immediately following that sentence.
> 
> one renowned poster, who went by the name WilliamRLawrence stated on several occasions that Bush had landed the jet himself on a carrier in the war zone.



Funny, I don't remember any such poster. I was reading blogs at the time, big ones did understand the spin at the time, but so many others are now so 'spun' in the opposite direction they've lost any semblance of truth of what happened. 

Um, only a fool would think Bush 'landed' the jet, as you can see from the picture included at this link:

http://instapundit.com/archives/009301.php


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Funny, I don't remember any such poster. I was reading blogs at the time, big ones did understand the spin at the time, but so many others are now so 'spun' in the opposite direction they've lost any semblance of truth of what happened.
> 
> Um, only a fool would think Bush 'landed' the jet, as you can see from the picture included at this link:
> 
> http://instapundit.com/archives/009301.php




WRL is on fullpolitics.com and justplainpolitics.com..... and I never vouched for his intelligence, although I would definitely wager on his lack thereof.

and the facts about the distance Lincoln was away from CA was the initial reason Bush PR folks gave for having to use the S3.... a helo would have been much easier, much cheaper and much safer.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> WRL is on fullpolitics.com and justplainpolitics.com..... and I never vouched for his intelligence, although I would definitely wager on his lack thereof.
> 
> and the facts about the distance Lincoln was away from CA was the initial reason Bush PR folks gave for having to use the S3.... a helo would have been much easier, much cheaper and much safer.



Did you notice the diversity of opinion linked to at the site? Some thought that day the spin was over the top, others differed. The MSM wonders why they are no longer trusted. Find news articles of that day from MSM, no glowing reports, but nothing about the hype. They took their time then started literally spinning it into the unrecognizable and KNEW IT. 

Now you have the sense to look at something and say, 'Ok, you have a point.' So do I. Many of those that 'agree' with us are just sheep, from both sides. It gets tiresome and is dangerous to our country.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

Only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than off the coast of CA.


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> Did you notice the diversity of opinion linked to at the site? Some thought that day the spin was over the top, others differed. The MSM wonders why they are no longer trusted. Find news articles of that day from MSM, no glowing reports, but nothing about the hype. They took their time then started literally spinning it into the unrecognizable and KNEW IT.
> 
> Now you have the sense to look at something and say, 'Ok, you have a point.' So do I. Many of those that 'agree' with us are just sheep, from both sides. It gets tiresome and is dangerous to our country.



everyone spins everything.  both sides are guilty, because the sheep that follow both parties (like RSR, for example) lap up what is fed to them and don't take the time to understand they are being "had".


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> everyone spins everything.  both sides are guilty, because the sheep that follow both parties (like RSR, for example) lap up what is fed to them and don't take the time to understand they are being "had".



Agreed. The MSM certainly may do so on editorial pages, but it's become much more widespread. 

I grant there are bloggers on the right and left that are no more than spin machines, I'm careful in what I take more seriously.


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than off the coast of CA.



I reached the conclusion that some hardcore republican posters said exactly that.

I know for a fact that, once it was known that the Lincoln could be immediately offshore at the time of the event - and that was known at least a day in advance - Bush could have more easily, more safely, (and more efficiently for the crew of the Lincoln) used a helicopter to transit to the carrier.  He did not because he wanted to put on a macho show for voters - at taxpayer expense.  Most dignitaries who fly out to carriers, do so on a modified S3 COD that carries passengers - and they don't have to wear a flight suit!


----------



## glockmail (Nov 16, 2007)

jillian said:


> I'm sure he'll be crying in his beer tonight over the loss.


Either that or pecking away at his keyboard, naked and frustrated. Oh wait, here he is now:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I reached the conclusion that some hardcore republican posters said exactly that.


So, do you classify yourself as truly stupid or truly desperate?


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, do you classify yourself as truly stupid or truly desperate?



neither.  I merely noted that there were many who were both.... and posted accordingly.  I laughed at them, just like I laughed at Georgie getting all dolled up in a flight suit to make a five minute ride on an aircraft that ferries folks all the time in their khakis!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> neither


OK, so you DONT agree with the claim that:



> We were all led to believe he was landing on an Aircraft Carrier off the coast of Iraq.



Right?


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> OK, so you DONT agree with the claim that:
> 
> 
> 
> Right?



that depends on who you suggest was doing the leading.  

I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that the administration ever lead anyone to believe that Bush was landing off the coast of Iraq.

many republican posters certainly did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that the administration ever lead anyone to believe that Bush was landing off the coast of Iraq



Good for you!!


----------



## Warner (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No we weren't.  Not even close.
> Only soneone REALLY not paying attention would have EVER thought that, and I DEFY you to show where anyone even remotely  hinted at the idea that the USS Lincoln was off the coast of Iraq.



But when the event took place the Media did not say that this was off the coast of San Diego.  The implications were that it was in the ME.  It was a well played deception.

Why turn the Lincoln so the California coast would not appear in the landing shot if not to imply the ship was still in hostile waters?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 16, 2007)

Warner said:


> But when the event took place the Media did not say that this was off the coast of San Diego.  The implications were that it was in the ME.  It was a well played deception.


Please:  Cite for me anything that in any way leads to the impression that the USS Lincoln was anywhere BUT off the coast of CA.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

Warner said:


> But when the event took place the Media did not say that this was off the coast of San Diego.  The implications were that it was in the ME.  It was a well played deception.
> 
> Why turn the Lincoln so the California coast would not appear in the landing shot if not to imply the ship was still in hostile waters?



Let's see... the excerpt from the White House site datelined San Diego, as did every news article I saw. So, who are these people that would be 'fooled'? Must be not so bright.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> neither.  I merely noted that there were many who were both.... and posted accordingly.  I laughed at them, just like I laughed at Georgie getting all dolled up in a flight suit to make a five minute ride on an aircraft that ferries folks all the time in their khakis!


 

ferries folks all the time in their khakis?

Is that right ? Your blow hole erupting again, Tinkerbell ???

I see Bush and 2 other pilots...all in flight suits...and I understand there was also a secret service guy aboard the plane, presumably also in a flight suit....an S3B Viking...a Navy, carrier based combat aircraft.....that ferries no one "all the time"....and I'd say never anyone without wearing a flight suit.....

but if you can PROVE otherwise, I'd like to read all about it, Tinker....


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> ferries folks all the time in their khakis?
> 
> Is that right ? Your blow hole erupting again, Tinkerbell ???
> 
> ...



you should read about the US-3A COD variant of the S-3. It ferried folks in khakis all the time.  I rode it three or four times out or back to the Ike while on active duty - each time in khakis.  Do you REALLY want to try to "out-Navy" me?  think about it.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than *off the coast of CA.*



Then why didn't he take Marine One chopper out there, which would be far safer, and standard operating procedure for a president of the United States. 

Do you suppose Bush wanted to cynically play up a dramatic Top Gun image, of a jet carrier landing?   

What a dork.  He dodged service in Vietnam, but wanted to play war hero.


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Then why didn't he take Marine One chopper out there, which would be far safer, and standard operating procedure for a president of the United States.
> 
> Do you suppose Bush wanted to cynically play up a dramatic Top Gun image, of a jet carrier landing?
> 
> What a dork.  He dodged service in Vietnam, but wanted to play war hero.



he wanted good photo ops. Clinton did as close as he could in peacetime. Remember the 'bomber jackets'?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> You can't lie, or mislead people in order to defend your hero by tap dancing around some dates.
> 
> It was known, even back in 2003, that Al Qaeda and Saddam were almost certainly not collaborating, they were not allies, and yet your Hero's were asserting that they were.




 From the Senate Intelligence Report...Page 70

(U)* In January, 2003, the CIA summarized the intelligence reporting contacts with al-Qa'ida:*

We have reporting from reliable clandestine and press sources that *at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present.* several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.

Here we see what the CIA reported PRIOR to the war...they reported at least eight DIRECT meetings between Iraqi representatives and TOP al-Qa'ida operatives,....do they not?....throughout the Clinton admin. to the present(2003)

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U)* The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's* but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.

This is the SSCI conclusion....admitting to the "reasonable assessment" of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida....though they conclude that these meetings do not add us to an "established FORMAL relationship......(20/20 hindsight and Monday morning quarterbacking)

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."

----------------

And so posting shit that from 2006 is irrelevant ....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you should read about the US-3A COD variant of the S-3. It ferried folks in khakis all the time.  I rode it three or four times out or back to the Ike while on active duty - each time in khakis.  Do you REALLY want to try to "out-Navy" me?  think about it.
> 
> http://www.vectorsite.net/avs3.html




Out Navy you? Your a dipshit puke....Now you want to change the subject to a different aircraft?  give it up...your making an ass of yourself....you're not talking a COD flight, this was a carrier based combat aircraft.....you have to change the aircraft to feed your fantasy .....? What an ass.....
Thats even worse than trying to claim the ship was in the Middle East...
Or that Bush claimed HE landed the plane....
Your cake hole just keeps on blowing the shit....


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you?  Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24&#37;, who still think bush is doing a good job?

The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago.  *In 2002*.  CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar.  They warned Bush about it.  But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway. 



> *Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions*
> 
> By DOUGLAS JEHL
> Published: November 6, 2005
> ...


----------



## Annie (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you?  Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24%, who still think bush is doing a good job?
> 
> The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago.  *In 2002*.  CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar.  They warned Bush about it.  But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway.



Would that be this CIA? 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071116/OPINION01/711160334/1068/OPINION



> How were FBI and CIA deceived?
> 
> November 16, 2007
> 
> ...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

We'll have to recap, for the Bush worshippers:



> -DAVID KAY, Bush's Chief WMD Inspector: "At various times Al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there&#8230;*But we simply DID NOT FIND any evidence of extensive links with Al Qaeda, or for that matter any real links at all."*





> **CIA/Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence*, September 2006:
> 
> -Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that *Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi*
> 
> ...





> *Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions*
> 
> WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 -the Bush administration* was warned in February 2002 that its source of knowledge for the claim that Iraq was training al Qaeda in chemical and biological weapons was &#8220;was intentionally misleading the debriefers.&#8221;*
> 
> ...


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Alpha, just HOW deeply in love with Bush are you?  Are you one of the last remaining dead enders, the 24%, who still think bush is doing a good job?
> 
> The claim that Iraq was training al qaeda bomb makers was debunked years ago.  *In 2002*.  CIA warned bushCo. that the allegation was a fabrication, by an iraqi prisoner who CIA determined was a serial liar.  They warned Bush about it.  But, BushCo kept making the claim anyway.



And NONE of what you say changes the FACT that our own CIA was still making claims that  *at least eight direct meetings between Iraqi representatives and top al-Qa'ida operatives took place from the early 1990's to the present.*(the present being Jan. 2003) [/b] several dozen additional direct or indirect such meetings are attested to by less reliable clandestine and press sources during the same period.[/b]

AND, that even as late as 2004....from the SSCI

1. SSCI July 2004 Report Conclusion - Contacts...Page 71

(U)* The Senate Intelligence Committee concluded the the CIA "reasonable assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida throughout the 1990's* but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship." The Committee concluded that
the CIA reasonably noted limitations on the available reporting on contacts and in most cases was only able to confirm a meeting had taken place,
not occurred at the meeting.[/b]

The timeline is important in understanding what our intell. was telling the Pres. and at any given time....including what was being presented to Clinton....
if the CIA was giving bad intell. thats one thing, if they, or Bush actually believed what the they were reporting, thats quite another...they act
on what they believed to be the facts at any given time....In 2002 the CIA says one thing, and in 2003 they report another.......


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

You're letting your Bush worship get the best of you alpha. 

It's now been revealed than many of those "contacts" between iraq and al qaeda were unconfirmed, and the few contacts that were confirmed, were because *Saddam was trying to spy on, and collect intelligence about al qaeda groups*.  He considered them a threat to his regime, and he was trying to keep an eye on them.  He NEVER offered to help or assist them.




> -Conclusion 6: Prewar interactions between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda affiliate group Ansar al-Islam *were attempts by Saddam to spy on the group rather than to support or work with them..* "Postwar information reveals that Baghdad viewed Ansar al-Islam as a threat to the regime and that the IIS attempted to collect intelligence on the group."


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Out Navy you? Your a dipshit puke....Now you want to change the subject to a different aircraft?  give it up...your making an ass of yourself....you're not talking a COD flight, this was a carrier based combat aircraft.....you have to change the aircraft to feed your fantasy .....? What an ass.....
> Thats even worse than trying to claim the ship was in the Middle East...
> Or that Bush claimed HE landed the plane....
> Your cake hole just keeps on blowing the shit....



DIFFERENT aircraft????  it's a fucking S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a fucking flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a fucking pilot...it was pathetic.  Here's a fucking clue:  toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis.  Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a fucking batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.

and you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  

fucking douchebags who try to talk like veterans when all they know is what they fucking read in books or on websites.

you chickenshit chickenhawks...I can't deside whether to laugh or to puke


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> You're letting your Bush worship get the best of you alpha.
> 
> It's now been revealed than many of those "contacts" between iraq and al qaeda were unconfirmed, and the few contacts that were confirmed, were because *Saddam was trying to spy on, and collect intelligence about al qaeda groups*.  He considered them a threat to his regime, and he was trying to keep an eye on them.  He NEVER offered to help or assist them.



I know whats been revealed NOW....and I know that quite a abit of the intell was either unclear, unconfirmed, or just plain bogus.....it just fine we NOW know the truth and facts....fine and dandy.....

but its also important to realize what was being passed anound as truth and intell in the past....thats what drove the policy, knowing it was bogus now doesn't help matters that have already occured....we can't turn the clock back to 2002 or 2003.....

What you keep referring to as Bush worship is nothing but me trying to understand events in the time frame they occurred in...every President, every government must act on the information they have at any given time..... 

IF and when it becomes clear that man-made global is in fact wrong, in latter years or decades more facts come to light,  are we to condemn the actions made in good faith by those that believed it...that were in latter times confirm those actions were useless and  un-necessary?  Quite unfair, no?

And by the same token, if the reverse should prove to be true....

The past will always remain the past....but understanding why actions are or are not taken, and digging for the truth is a noble practice.....its quite useless digging for blame, as you and your comrades are prone to do....

WE all act on what we believe to be the facts, even when those 'facts' turn out later to be wrong.....


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> DIFFERENT aircraft????  it's a fucking S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a fucking flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a fucking pilot...it was pathetic.  Here's a fucking clue:  toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis.  Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a fucking batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.
> 
> and you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> 
> ...





_Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a fucking batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys._

LOL    WTF was wrong with Marine One?  Why couldn't he have choppered out the three miles to the Lincoln.  What was up with the Halloween costume, and the   Top Gun carrier landing.  What a chickenhawk!


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I know whats been revealed NOW....and I know that quite a abit of the intell was either unclear, unconfirmed, or just plain bogus.....it just fine we NOW know the truth and facts....fine and dandy.....
> 
> but its also important to realize what was being passed anound as truth and intell in the past....thats what drove the policy, knowing it was bogus now doesn't help matters that have already occured....we can't turn the clock back to 2002 or 2003.....
> 
> ...




Your Bush worship is really getting quite pathetic. 

I just gave you the link, that the CIA told BushCo *in 2002* that the reports of Saddam training al qaeda in "poisons and bombmaking", were the dreams of a serial liar.  And CIA told BushCo in 2003, that Iraq was unlikely to be helping al qaeda. 

But, your liar president kept saying Iraq was an ally of al qaeda, and cooperating with al qaeda.  He's a liar, and your a liar for continue to run interference for the worst president in history


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

write has always had bush shit on his nose, and bush jism dripping off his chin.

and he thinks that folks cannot SEE that?

lol


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> DIFFERENT aircraft????  it's a fucking S=3....configured as a COD ... Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out...he didn't need to get himself all dolled up in a fucking flight suit to take the three mile trip to the Abe..... he was dressing up...playing like a fucking pilot...it was pathetic.  Here's a fucking clue:  toi the guy with the stick between his legs, the US3-A and the S=3 are exactly the same aircraft...and to the rest of the passengers, unless you are on a real ASW mission, you are passengers....just like I was on a US-3A.... in khakis.  Bush wearing a flight suit for that little three mile hop was no different than my little son wearing a fucking batman outfit on halloween...it was dress up, bullshit, make-believe theater from the kiing of the chickenshit pissant cowboys.
> 
> and you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
> 
> ...



"Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......*No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point?  He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....

So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...

He wound up on a Viking combat aircraft, in a flight suit and after some necessary training for any unforeseen emergency, he flew the damn thing for a few minutes....

You should "deside" to puke for being such as asshole hack.....*


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> "Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......*No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point?  He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....
> 
> So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...
> 
> ...


*


Yeah, but does your president EVER tell the truth?

The white house lied, by initially saying the Lincoln was out of range of choppers.  Turns out it wasn't.  He could have made a chopper trip.   BushCo lied.   He wanted a top gun landing, in a halloween costume.   And he lied about it. 

Do they lie about everything?*


----------



## maineman (Nov 16, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> "Bush could have taken a S-3 COD flight out....he could have taken a helo out"......*No shit, Tinkerbell....he could have swam out or taken a freekin' a submarine or tugboat or yacht like Clinton might have done wearing his new flight jacket for draft dodgers too.....whats your point?  He wanted to take an F-18 Hornet too, but that was squashed....
> 
> So your point, as usual, is ..... you have no freekin' point...
> 
> ...


*

you should wear a halloween costume like your fucking "leader".

"viking combat aircraft"....LOL.... he flew out in an S-3 and it was a fucking show.

he "flew" the aircraft about like I "drove" my daddy's chrysler when I was six...sitting on his lap driving straight and level on a nebraska highway with no one around.  

It was a fucking PR show, and you don't have the fucking balls to admit it.

Shit...you're probably a girl in real life without any fucking real balls.*


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Yeah, but does your president EVER tell the truth?
> 
> The white house lied, by initially saying the Lincoln was out of range of choppers.  Turns out it wasn't.  He could have made a chopper trip.   BushCo lied.   He wanted a top gun landing, in a halloween costume.   And he lied about it.
> 
> Do they lie about everything?




Your so fucking petty, its unbelievable....CNN wrote the report ... not Bush...

When the White House first announced the speech, Fleischer told reporters the president would be going to the Abraham Lincoln in a jet because the carrier would be far off the California coast. But as the day approached, it appeared that no one in the press office had any precise idea of exactly where the carrier would be. On the day of the event,* reporters traveling to San Diego aboard Air Force One asked Fleischer how far off shore the Abraham Lincoln was. "I don't have accurate information on it," Fleischer answered. "I've been asking for it. I don't have it yet."*

While most of the press corps reported on events from San Diego, a small pool of reporters flew to the Abraham Lincoln. As those reporters were getting ready to leave, they asked the pilots how far they would be going, and were told the ship was about 30 miles offshore. Once on board, the pool reporters sent back word that the Abraham Lincoln was well within range of the presidential helicopter.* Navy officials explained that because of good weather, the ship had made faster-than-expected progress and was thus closer to shore than originally planned. The news appeared in some press accounts the next day, with the Associated Press quoting Fleischer as saying that the president "could have helicoptered, but the plan was already in place. Plus, he wanted to see a landing the way aviators see a landing."*

The issue did not stir much controversy until the next week, when Democrats claimed that the White House had lied about the distance to the carrier so the president could star in a photo-op for his 2004 reelection campaign. At the regular White House briefing on May 6, a reporter brought up Fleischer's original statement that the ship would be hundreds of miles offshore. "Were you misled?" the reporter asked.

"No," said Fleischer. "The original planning was exactly as I said." Fleischer explained that the president still wanted to take the jet, even after it became clear that the ship was close enough for a helicopter ride. "The president wanted to land on it, on an aircraft that would allow him to see an aircraft landing the same way that the pilots saw an aircraft landing. And that's why, once the initial decision was made to fly out on the Viking, even when a helicopter option became doable, the president decided instead he wanted to still take the Viking."

Was the story a lie? It appears not. In the days leading up to the flight, Fleischer seemed unsure of how far the carrier would be from shore. On the day of the landing, when reporters learned the actual distance, he quickly conceded that the president could have taken a helicopter but had wanted to fly in the jet  a statement that jibed with statements Fleischer had made earlier that the president had been looking forward to the flight for quite some time.

Moreover, the incident raises the question of why Fleischer would tell a lie that reporters would be able to discover almost immediately  well before the president's speech.* "It would have been foolish from a political standpoint to utter an easily checkable falsehood," says one White House reporter. Adds another journalist on the beat: "If you put the pieces together, I think basically what you had was they designed the trip to allow the president to take the jet, and I think what happened was that the ship had good weather and came in too quickly." Which is what the White House said.*


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 16, 2007)

maineman said:


> you should wear a halloween costume like your fucking "leader".
> 
> "viking combat aircraft"....LOL.... he flew out in an S-3 and it was a fucking show.
> 
> ...




Well...some leaders fly jet fighters and some are draft dodgers that loath the military.....thats just the way it is sometimes.....
Don't let it get to ya.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 17, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you have no proof, thanks for playing though.



huh?  I even had a link...Do you even read links? And did you read his quotes? You think that is articulate??


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 17, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Those were opinions.  You dont have to prove opinions, and so they can make whatever accusation they want and not have to back it up in any way.
> They say so themselves.



Ditto. You read the link too, or are you just piling on?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 17, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Cred lost.



You asked to prove at least ONE. I did...what's that about credibility again?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> "viking combat aircraft"....LOL....


You think the Viking isnt a combat aircraft?



> Shit...you're probably a girl in real life without any fucking real balls.


Says the guy that's in charge of bringing the condoms to the family reunion.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 17, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Then why didn't he take Marine One chopper out there, which would be far safer, and standard operating procedure for a president of the United States.
> 
> Do you suppose Bush wanted to cynically play up a dramatic Top Gun image, of a jet carrier landing?
> 
> What a dork.  He dodged service in Vietnam, but wanted to play war hero.


All of this blatant partisan bigotry is utterly irrelevant to the fact that only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than off the coast of CA.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 17, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> All of this blatant partisan bigotry is utterly irrelevant to the fact that only the truly stupid or the truly desperate would ever reach the conclusion that the Administration led or let anyone believe that Bush landed the jet, or that the carrier was anywhere other than off the coast of CA.



I never said that most people thought he did his top gun gimmick in the persian gulf. 

What is blatantly obvious though, is that your president who went out of his way to dodge service in vietnam (a war he supported), got himself dressed up in a costume, and his handlers stage managed a lame ass Top Gun carrier landing, so he could play war hero, and declare victory in a war that was far from over. 

Pathetic and Moronic.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 17, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I never said that most people thought he did his top gun gimmick in the persian gulf.
> 
> What is blatantly obvious though, is that your president who went out of his way to dodge service in vietnam (a war he supported), got himself dressed up in a costume, and his handlers stage managed a lame ass Top Gun carrier landing, so he could play war hero, and declare victory in a war that was far from over.
> 
> Pathetic and Moronic.



What's pathetic is people posting without a clue.  When you fly aboard a combat aircraft you are REQUIRED to be in uniform; especially, if it's to a warship that is deployed in a combat status.

Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam.  Oh, that's right, there isn't any.

You're dismissed.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What's pathetic is people posting without a clue.  When you fly aboard a combat aircraft you are REQUIRED to be in uniform; especially, if it's to a warship that is deployed in a combat status.
> 
> Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam.  Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> 
> You're dismissed.




He didn't have to do a top gun carrier landing.  The ship was right off of san diego, and he could have choppered over in civilian garb. 

But, he wanted to play Tom Cruise war hero.  He wanted to play Top Gun.  

And the entire production was stage managed, to make it seem like Top Gun


----------



## jillian (Nov 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What's pathetic is people posting without a clue.  When you fly aboard a combat aircraft you are REQUIRED to be in uniform; especially, if it's to a warship that is deployed in a combat status.
> 
> Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam.  Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> 
> You're dismissed.



8,700 members of the national guard were deployed to Vietnam

http://www.ngb.army.mil/About/default.aspx



> During the 15 years of the Vietnam conflict, around 2.4 million troops served there, according to a study of Pentagon data by the Heritage Center for Data Analysis. Some estimates put another 1 million troops in surrounding countries during that time. The U.S. started moving new troops into the Vietnam arena in 1956 and troop levels peaked in Vietnam in 1968 when nearly a half-million troops were there. Most news reports about current military engagement focus on the number of troops in Iraq now: 150,000 are there, with another 20,000 on the ground in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon.
> 
> The United States drafted nearly 2 million people during the Vietnam War era, according to the Selective Service System, but *did not activate military reserves as the military is doing for the Iraq war*.



http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050412-gone-to-war.htm

Why do you think the rich privileged kids all wanted to get in the guard?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 17, 2007)

bush is quoted on record, by a Fort Worth newspaper, that he chose the guard, to avoid going to vietnam.   A war he supported, as long as other kids went to fight it.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 17, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> What's pathetic is people posting without a clue.  When you fly aboard a combat aircraft you are REQUIRED to be in uniform; especially, if it's to a warship that is deployed in a combat status.
> 
> Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam.  Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> 
> You're dismissed.



Here are some facts to consider:

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#vietnam

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/wleftguard.html


----------



## jillian (Nov 17, 2007)

Quotes from GWB from Matt's link:

Bush on Bush

"I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?' I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly." 

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes." 


Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990

"I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service. ... Somebody said the Guard was looking for pilots. All I know is, there weren't that many people trying to be pilots." 

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 29, 1998

http://foi.missouri.edu/polinfoprop/wleftguard.html


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 17, 2007)

I wonder if Gunny will come back and retract his statement:

_"Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.

You're dismissed._


I thought those bush quotes about avoiding vietnam, were fairly common knowledge to us political junkies - those that don't get all their information from Fox News.


----------



## maineman (Nov 17, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Well...some leaders fly jet fighters and some are draft dodgers that loath the military.....thats just the way it is sometimes.....
> Don't let it get to ya.....




it doesn't get to me at all.... rubbing your nose in your own partisan idiocy is quite enjoyable.  

wanna talk to me about COD flights again, pussy?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> it doesn't get to me at all.... rubbing your nose in your own partisan idiocy is quite enjoyable.
> 
> wanna talk to me about COD flights again, pussy?



Why would I want to talk about COD flights when the discussion is about the flight of Navy combat aircraft....

It would serve no point....

I can understand that. Unlike you, I served in three Navy Squadrons, VF174 (F-4's), VU8(S2F's and F-8's, and VU5 (helicopters), so your experience with  Navy aircraft must be close to zero compared to myself....I got quite a kick out of firing up an F8 Crusader on a Sunday morning just for the fun of it....you probably enjoyed firing up those boilers too right?

If you actually think anyone that intends to take the controls of a Navy aircraft (as Bush did) does so in a sport coat and not a flight suit, we have nothing to discuss....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2007)

jillian said:


> Quotes from GWB from Matt's link:
> 
> Bush on Bush
> 
> ...



All sound decisions if you asked any normal person....

So you really have no point except that Bush decided to serve as a National Guard fighter pilot, an officer rather a private in the Army....seems the logic of that decision escapes you.....

How about some other famous quotes....from "guess who".............*

Infamous quotes from a self-admitted draft dodger:

"First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft"

"ROTC was the one way left in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and resistance. "

"After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program in itself and all I seemed to have done was to protect myself from physical harm."

"At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1 - D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of self-regard and self-confidence really set in"

"The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life"

"I loathe the Military"

*


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I wonder if Gunny will come back and retract his statement:
> 
> _"Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> 
> ...



I see nothing about avoiding Vietnam, unless you ignore what the actual quote is....."not serving as private in Vietnam"....I can assure you that very few if any,  want to serve as a Private anywhere....that includes Vietnam or even New Jersey.....so at least learn to read


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 17, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I wonder if Gunny will come back and retract his statement:
> _"Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> You're dismissed._
> I thought those bush quotes about avoiding vietnam, were fairly common knowledge to us political junkies - those that don't get all their information from Fox News.



so what you are saying is he can make a good decision.....


----------



## maineman (Nov 17, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Why would I want to talk about COD flights when the discussion is about the flight of Navy combat aircraft....
> 
> It would serve no point....
> 
> ...



I think that any commander in chief who makes the crew of an aircraft carrier on the final day of a long deployment have to trap yet another aircraft just so he gets to get dolled up in his flight suit and hold the stick on an S-3 fling straight and level and then give up the controls to a REAL pilot is a fucking pussy....

my guess is, you fired up the F8 and let real pilots ride it off.... what were you, a member of the purple gang?


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 17, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I see nothing about avoiding Vietnam, unless you ignore what the actual quote is....."not serving as private in Vietnam"....I can assure you that very few if any,  want to serve as a Private anywhere....that includes Vietnam or even New Jersey.....so at least learn to read




Jesus, how many blow jobs have you given bush. 

Even I could admit Clinton tried to dodge vietnam.  At least he did it, because he had a solid record of oppossing that stupid and unneccessary war. 

But, you can't even bring yourself to admit that your hero, Bush, tried to dodge Vietnam too?  LOL.   And Bush supported that freakin' war.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Jesus, how many blow jobs have you given bush.
> 
> Even I could admit Clinton tried to dodge vietnam.  At least he did it, because he had a solid record of oppossing that stupid and unneccessary war.
> 
> But, you can't even bring yourself to admit that your hero, Bush, tried to dodge Vietnam too?  LOL.   And Bush supported that freakin' war.



  Show me the money, not your stupid spin on real facts...

It is a fact that many Air National Guard units served with regualr Air Force units in Vietnam....so joining the ANG was by no means a guarantee that you were immune from serving in SE Asia....actually, it was quite the contrary...

Dodge Vietnam? again, the contrary is the truth...Bush joined, while Clinton whined and begged not to serve in ANY capacity....
I would never brand any one that wore the uniform of a US military man a dodger of any kind.....you can keep your lies and spin to yourself...if you have facts...post 'em.....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> I think that any commander in chief who makes the crew of an aircraft carrier on the final day of a long deployment have to trap yet another aircraft just so he gets to get dolled up in his flight suit and hold the stick on an S-3 fling straight and level and then give up the controls to a REAL pilot is a fucking pussy....
> 
> my guess is, you fired up the F8 and let real pilots ride it off.... what were you, a member of the purple gang?


 
The crew looked pretty happy about the whole event...going so far as to request the "Mission Accomplished" sign, that the White House staffers were only to happy to supply to them...
\and of course we know,  a "real" pilot is the one can make a carrier landing, damn right mate..

And I believe its a "brown shirt" (plane Captain)


----------



## maineman (Nov 17, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> The crew looked pretty happy about the whole event...going so far as to request the "Mission Accomplished" sign, that the White House staffers were only to happy to supply to them...
> \and of course we know,  a "real" pilot is the one can make a carrier landing, damn right mate..
> 
> And I believe its a "brown shirt" (plane Captain)



A real carrier qualified pilot is the only one who ought to be occupying one of the front seats on an aircraft making an approach onto an aircraft carrier, that is for sure.  Bush was not....and thus, to a degree, put the entire crew at increased risk.... Oh...and I was the senior ship driver on a bird farm...I am well aware of what a brownshirt is.  My guess is that you never cat'ed off of trapped on a carrier.  Right?

you avoid the point that he didn't need to make that sort of grand entrance, that it was more work for the flight deck crew, and that is was entirely theatrical.  But you love Bush's theatrics.  YOU are a hack.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 17, 2007)

maineman said:


> I think that any commander in chief who makes the crew of an aircraft carrier on the final day of a long deployment have to trap yet another aircraft just so he gets to get dolled up in his flight suit and hold the stick on an S-3 fling straight and level and then give up the controls to a REAL pilot is a fucking pussy....
> 
> my guess is, you fired up the F8 and let real pilots ride it off.... what were you, a member of the purple gang?



Wait? Doesn't the COD flight get trapped too?


----------



## maineman (Nov 18, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wait? Doesn't the COD flight get trapped too?



helo's don't.

If he needed to take a fixed wing aircraft to the Lincoln because of its distance away from San Diego, he could have taken a cod and ridden in his business suit.  As it turned out, he could have ridden his marine chopper and nobody would have had to ready the arresting gear...but he wanted to put on a PR show.  why don't you guys just admit that?


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> helo's don't.
> 
> If he needed to take a fixed wing aircraft to the Lincoln because of its distance away from San Diego, he could have taken a cod and ridden in his business suit.  As it turned out, he could have ridden his marine chopper and nobody would have had to ready the arresting gear...but he wanted to put on a PR show.  why don't you guys just admit that?



Perhaps Bush saw Independence Day (the movie) in which the president of the United States actually leads the US fighter jets against an alien spacecraft.  That a president would actually fly into harms way was funny.  Of course Bush was putting on a PR show.


----------



## maineman (Nov 18, 2007)

I doubt the bush buttlickers will ever admit to that, and if they do, they will immediately drag out some example of a democrat's PR stunt as some sort of "if they can do it, we can do it" justification.

They, of course, will completely ignore the huge difference....Bush's PR stunt was staged to maintain public approval for a stupid war where Americans are dying for a cause that has ZERO to do with the war against our real enemies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I doubt the bush buttlickers will ever admit to that, and if they do, they will immediately drag out some example of a democrat's PR stunt as some sort of "if they can do it, we can do it" justification.
> 
> They, of course, will completely ignore the huge difference....Bush's PR stunt was staged to maintain public approval for a stupid war where Americans are dying for a cause that has ZERO to do with the war against our real enemies.



Absolute bullshit. There was no real dissent when he did his so called "stunt". But do keep rewriting history, so your good at it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> helo's don't.
> 
> If he needed to take a fixed wing aircraft to the Lincoln because of its distance away from San Diego, he could have taken a cod and ridden in his business suit.  As it turned out, he could have ridden his marine chopper and nobody would have had to ready the arresting gear...but he wanted to put on a PR show.  why don't you guys just admit that?



Of course it was PR event...and you're right, its only fair to look at Democrats too...you are for fairness are you not?

http://www.palletmastersworkshop.com/political.html

*Yeah...lets look at some theatrical grandstanding by our fearless leaders*

President Bush soars in for a landing on the USS Lincoln...flight suit and all...
Of course, taking a turn at the controls, he should have a flight suit on..
Did Bush serve in the military?....Texas ANG...fighter pilot
------------------
And what do ya know...Its Bill Clinton on the USS Teddy Roosevelt in his brand spankin' new flight jacket...
Thats as close as Billy wants to get to military uniform...after all, he 'loathes' the military....
Did Billy serve in the military?  I think not....
------------------
What have we here....Senator Leahy in a freekin' flight suit....just like a real pilot...
Did Leahy serve in the military?  I think not.....
------------------
And then we have the make believe 'tank commander'...what a farce....
Super Mario...did he serve in the military? I think not....
------------------
We can't forget LBJ making his carrier landing....he even ordered the USS Constellation to sea so he get this fine photo op....the next day the carrier returned to port....another farce...
Funny...no talk of putting anyone in danger with that unnecessary cruise.....
Did Johnson serve in the military....by damn he did, Navy Reserves.....
From his online bio...
" During World War II he served briefly in the Navy as a lieutenant commander, winning a Silver Star in the South Pacific. "
thats it....brief career..brief bio...no explanation of how he earned the Silver Star....but he served....
------------------


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 18, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute bullshit. There was no real dissent when he did his so called "stunt". But do keep rewriting history, so your good at it.



Did MM say that there was dissent?  I doubt it and I doubt that there was dissent on that particular occasion.  At least no dissent was evident.  I will grant you that Democrats stage some pretty silly photo ops too.


----------



## Gunny (Nov 18, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I wonder if Gunny will come back and retract his statement:
> 
> _"Please present your factual evidence that President Bush went out fo his way to avoid service in Vietnam. Oh, that's right, there isn't any.
> 
> ...



Nope.  I'm not retracting shit since no such evidence exists outside of your fantasies.  The statements posted support nothing except that he didn't want to be a grunt.  Anything else you try to add to them are assumption, not fact.

You're STILL dismissed.


----------



## JimH52 (Nov 18, 2007)

jillian said:


> See... this is where someone like you shows a total lack of understanding. You act as if he has comported himself in such a way that he would have gained support from the left of the aisle. After 9/11, most of us were predisposed to supporting him... .rooting for him, actually. I really wanted him to be a "compassionate conservative" who would run a "humble foreign policy" (his words, not mine). He took all that good will and sqauandered it with heavy-handed Rovian poltics and incompetence.
> 
> So as far as I'm concerned, it isn't the "I hate Bush" club, it's a rational response to someone who we see as having destroyed our standing in the world, attacked the constitution and undermined everything good that this country stands for.
> 
> Luckily he's out in 441 days.



Yes, I do beleive we were all rooting for him after 9/11.  The entire world was in our corner.  When he stood there at ground zero and thanked all the rescue workers, I felt pride.  When we attacked Afganistan, I knew it had to be done to go after Bin Laden.  But when he, and I'm sure at the urgings of DICK, decided to concoct a lame reason to invade Iraq I knew he was going over the edge.

But what could we do, you and I and all the nobodies of the US.  All we could do was shake our heads and watch the biggest blunder in the history of our country.  So now the real reasons for the invasion are coming out.  bush has had 8 years to make his buddies rich.  I am sure he is very proud and can go back to texass and have his parties and tell jokes about how he made the entire world believe his lie.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2007)

JimH52 said:


> Yes, I do beleive we were all rooting for him after 9/11.  The entire world was in our corner.  When he stood there at ground zero and thanked all the rescue workers, I felt pride.  When we attacked Afganistan, I knew it had to be done to go after Bin Laden.  But when he, and I'm sure at the urgings of DICK, decided to concoct a lame reason to invade Iraq I knew he was going over the edge.
> 
> But what could we do, you and I and all the nobodies of the US.  All we could do was shake our heads and watch the biggest blunder in the history of our country.  So now the real reasons for the invasion are coming out.  bush has had 8 years to make his buddies rich.  I am sure he is very proud and can go back to texass and have his parties and tell jokes about how he made the entire world believe his lie.



Still waiitng for evidence of these lies. You and your cohorts keep making the claim but have zero to back it up. Now if you want to see a President that Lied, I know a certain Democrat that had to admit he lied and forfiet his right to be a lawyer for it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 18, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Still waiitng for evidence of these lies. You and your cohorts keep making the claim but have zero to back it up. Now if you want to see a President that Lied, I know a certain Democrat that had to admit he lied and forfiet his right to be a lawyer for it.



you have been given plenty of evidence that Bush&Co. made penty of statements that served to convey a false impression.

You chose to ignore them.

and for you to say that there was no real dissent when he pulled off his PR stunt is patently ridiculous.  Hell... a majority of congressional democrats were against his even STARTING this dumbass war.  There was PLENTY of dissent by the time he declared "mission accomplished".  By that time, I was already a frequent participant in the thursday evening candlelight demonstrations at the traffic circle here in Maine's state capital... but to expect you to ever admit that is far fetched, I know.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> you have been given plenty of evidence that Bush&Co. made penty of statements that served to convey a false impression.
> 
> You chose to ignore them.
> 
> and for you to say that there was no real dissent when he pulled off his PR stunt is patently ridiculous.  Hell... a majority of congressional democrats were against his even STARTING this dumbass war.  There was PLENTY of dissent by the time he declared "mission accomplished".  By that time, I was already a frequent participant in the thursday evening candlelight demonstrations at the traffic circle here in Maine's state capital... but to expect you to ever admit that is far fetched, I know.



Yup, there has been so much open dissent the Democrats keep pretending they will bring back the draft in hopes of drumming up something resembling a protest. Further we have an ALL VOLUNTEER military and it is running just fine, so much for all that dissent.

And the tired claim the sign meant the war was over is so ridiculous as to be IGNORANT. You know as well as everyone with a 2nd grade education that it was meant for the CArrier he visited since THEY had ACCOMPLISHED their mission.


----------



## maineman (Nov 18, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, there has been so much open dissent the Democrats keep pretending they will bring back the draft in hopes of drumming up something resembling a protest. Further we have an ALL VOLUNTEER military and it is running just fine, so much for all that dissent.
> 
> And the tired claim the sign meant the war was over is so ridiculous as to be IGNORANT. You know as well as everyone with a 2nd grade education that it was meant for the CArrier he visited since THEY had ACCOMPLISHED their mission.



I say again...for you to say that Bush pulled off his stupid PR stunt on the Abe Lincoln in an atmosphere devoid of dissent is patently ridiculous.

but suck on some more koolaid and swallow some more Bush jism....I am sure it will continue to all make perfect sense to you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2007)

maineman said:


> I say again...for you to say that Bush pulled off his stupid PR stunt on the Abe Lincoln in an atmosphere devoid of dissent is patently ridiculous.
> 
> but suck on some more koolaid and swallow some more Bush jism....I am sure it will continue to all make perfect sense to you.



Yes yes, so much dissent that the democrats lie about numbers and clap when a couple hundred protesters show up. So much dissent the democrats keep pretending they will bring back the draft for the stated purpose of hopefully making Americans more willing to complain.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I never said that most people thought he did his top gun gimmick in the persian gulf.
> 
> What is blatantly obvious though, is that your president who went out of his way to dodge service in vietnam (a war he supported), got himself dressed up in a costume, and his handlers stage managed a lame ass Top Gun carrier landing, so he could play war hero, and declare victory in a war that was far from over.
> Pathetic and Moronic.


Yes, we all know you hate Bush, and that you work backwards from there.
Let us know when you have something meaningful to add.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> All sound decisions if you asked any normal person....
> 
> So you really have no point except that Bush decided to serve as a National Guard fighter pilot, an officer rather a private in the Army....seems the logic of that decision escapes you.....
> 
> ...


*

Its amazing...
Getting out of Vietnam by any means possible -used- to be a badge of courage to the left...

Truth be told, if Bush were a Democrat, the liberals would be applauding him.

*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I doubt the bush buttlickers will ever admit to that, and if they do, they will immediately drag out some example of a democrat's PR stunt as some sort of "if they can do it, we can do it" justification.
> 
> They, of course, will completely ignore the huge difference....Bush's PR stunt was staged to maintain public approval for a stupid war where Americans are dying for a cause that has ZERO to do with the war against our real enemies.


Hey!!  Did you -really- get lucky with cousin Josie last weekend?  You DOG!

Bush landed on a carrier.  You hate him.
Bush woke up this morning.  You hate him.
Bush ate a doughnut this morning.  You hate him.
You hate Bush, no matter what he does or why.

We all know you're a partsian bigot, dude -- you dont need to keep trying to convince us.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> but suck on some more koolaid and swallow some more Bush jism



SOMEONE is projecting...
...or letting on more than he should about his 'experience' in the navy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 19, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hey!!  Did you -really- get lucky with cousin Josie last weekend?  You DOG!
> 
> Bush landed on a carrier.  You hate him.
> Bush woke up this morning.  You hate him.
> ...



I guess your last bastion really is personal attacks devoid of any relevant content.  If you care to address the publicity stunt nature of the Lincoln landing, that would be nice.  If all you have is disparaging remarks that aren't even accompanied by anything, this is probably the incorrect forum, don't you think?

As I have said before, I was a total Bush supporter right up until he forgot to keep looking under all the rocks and in all the caves to bring OBL out dead or alive...right up until he invaded Iraq which I believed would be a terribly disruptive and counterproductive move.  Considering that the BEST case scenario at this point is a shiite dominated government that can keep the sunnis in check.... and align itself with Iran.... I think that my fears have been realized.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I guess your last bastion really is personal attacks devoid of any relevant content.


Is that so, fucking asshole?



> If you care to address the publicity stunt nature of the Lincoln landing, that would be nice.


You're whining and crying about a 'publicity stunt'?
-I- don't care, dude,  You whine and cry about everything.



> As I have said before, I was a total Bush supporter...


That's a lie.
Just my opinion.

So, did you get lucky with cousin Josie again, or not?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 19, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Of course it was PR event...and you're right, its only fair to look at Democrats too...you are for fairness are you not?
> 
> http://www.palletmastersworkshop.com/political.html
> 
> ...



* so where is all the mm loudmouth bullshit now....don't want to comment on my post...?  Making you eat the crap you spew is getting to be so easy I'm getting a superiority complex....
Being such a hypocritical hack is so easy for you....seeing only one side an equation must have made grade school math a real problem for you...*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 19, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> * so where is all the mm loudmouth bullshit now....don't want to comment on my post...?  Making you eat the crap you spew is getting to be so easy I'm getting a superiority complex....
> Being such a hypocritical hack is so easy for you....seeing only one side an equation must have made grade school math a real problem for you...*


*
OBVIOUSLY the 'outrage' over 'granstanding' only exists when a Republican does it.

And they don't think they're partisan bigots...*


----------



## maineman (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> I doubt the bush buttlickers will ever admit to that, and if they do,* they will immediately drag out some example of a democrat's PR stunt as some sort of "if they can do it, we can do it" justification.*
> They, of course, will completely ignore the huge difference....Bush's PR stunt was staged to maintain public approval for a stupid war where Americans are dying for a cause that has ZERO to do with the war against our real enemies.



and right on schedule, alfalfa comes through!


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> and right on schedule, alfalfa comes through!




  Just to show a major difference between you and I......

You obviously are a left wing political hack and hypocrite....

Me...fair and balanced from start to finish...I examine both sides for what and why they do what they do....


----------



## maineman (Nov 19, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Just to show a major difference between you and I......
> 
> You obviously are a left wing political hack and hypocrite....
> 
> Me...fair and balanced from start to finish...I examine both sides for what and why they do what they do....



hypocrite?  How do you know what my response was to those PR stunts from democrats?

and you are clearly in denial....you have been adoring Bush throughout this thread...and for as long as I have known you.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You asked to prove at least ONE. I did...what's that about credibility again?


You're claiming a link to political humor is proof thet GWB is a cokehead. Is that a fair statement?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> ...Considering that the BEST case scenario at this point is a shiite dominated government that can keep the sunnis in check.... and align itself with Iran.... I think that my fears have been realized.


  Why would a democratically elected Iraq government with the US as its strategic ally align itself with a theocratic Iran?


----------



## maineman (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Why would a democratically elected Iraq government with the US as its strategic ally align itself with a theocratic Iran?



shared religion, shared philosophy, shared dislike for America, shared distaste for sunnis, close personal ties between religious and political leadership camps...


----------



## DeadCanDance (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Why would a democratically elected Iraq government with the US as its strategic ally align itself with a theocratic Iran?



Wait...you haven't bought into that whole NeoCon pipe dream of a pro-U.S., democratic Iraq, have you?

this is a no brainer:  Lets say for example, you and bush get your dream of a war on Iran.  Lets say we invade iran.  Which side do you think the vast majority of iraqi shia will be on?  Our side?  Or, the Iranian side?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> You're claiming a link to political humor is proof thet GWB is a cokehead. Is that a fair statement?



No, it's not. You asked me to prove one of three things. One was that he couldn't string a sentence together, another was that he was a cokehead. Forget the third and can't be bothered going back to look. Bottom line is, you asked me to prove at least one (go back and look at YOUR own post). I did. He is incoherent. And while it is a link to political huimour, it is quoting the ijit directly and thus proving how incoherent he can be. And why the rest of the world laughs at him.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Why would a democratically elected Iraq government with the US as its strategic ally align itself with a theocratic Iran?



You're really not that bright are ya Glock...


----------



## jillian (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You're really not that bright are ya Glock...



Wasn't a secret.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> shared religion, *shared philosophy, **shared dislike for America,* shared distaste for sunnis, close personal ties between religious and political leadership camps...



1. One would be a democracy, a quite different philosophy than the other, which is a theocracy.
2. Iraq would have the US as an ally, with a military base in country. That hardly represents a dislike for America.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 19, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> No, it's not. You asked me to prove one of three things. One was that he couldn't string a sentence together, another was that he was a cokehead. Forget the third and can't be bothered going back to look. Bottom line is, you asked me to prove at least one (go back and look at YOUR own post). I did. He is incoherent. And while it is a link to political *huimour*, it is quoting the *ijit *directly and thus proving how incoherent he can be. And why the rest of the world laughs at him.



OK so let me summarize. You accused Bush of being:
1. a cokehead;
2 someone who has trouble tying his shoelaces together;
3. someone who can hardly string a sentence together.

I gave you the chance to prove just one of these accusations to be true. Since then you have admitted that accusations 1 and 2 were unfounded. So now you are relying totally on accusation 3. And now you are relying on a link to a comedy site as your proof.

My, how precious. 

However, anyone can be incoherent at any time. You proved it yourself with your post that I quoted here, as well as the one that began this exchange.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> OK so let me summarize. You accused Bush of being:
> 1. a cokehead;
> 2 someone who has trouble tying his shoelaces together;
> 3. someone who can hardly string a sentence together.
> ...



Your summation is missing a few things (how unusual). You only asked me to prove one. I did. Whether it came from a political humour site, Fox, CNN, or Benjiman Bunny's homepage, the bottom line is they were quoting him directly, and were showing that he has trouble stringing words together. Now, unless you troll through some of those quotes and want to make a stand on how they are not incomplete, incoherent, or downright retarded, the floor is yours. Making a fool of yourself seems to be a pastime to you, but hey, each to their own.

Tying is shoelaces - yeah, I think he is capable of that...might have sold him short on that one.

Being a cokehead? IMO there is enough anecdotal evidence that he used coke in his early years. His lack of denial when the issue has been raised, and the fact he failed to sue somebody over a very defamatory remark speaks for itself. He has already admitted to being a drunk, doing coke wouldn't surprise me. And before you state that nobody has proved it, nobody proved that OJ Simspon killed his wife and Ron Goldman. What say you? You think he did it?

As for highlighting "literals"...we can all play that game. I purposefully said Ijit, which you will note I have done of quite a few occasions. Secondly, you put a fullstop (or what you Yanks call a period) after the numerals 1 and 3, but not after 2. Tsk, tsk, Glocky....we can all play the petty/pendantic game if you like....


----------



## jillian (Nov 19, 2007)

Some more Bush-isms... 



> "We're going to -- we'll be sending a person on the ground there pretty soon to help implement the malaria initiative, and that initiative will mean spreading nets and insecticides throughout the country so that we can see a reduction in death of young children that -- a death that we can cure." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 18, 2007
> 
> "All I can tell you is when the governor calls, I answer his phone." --George W. Bush, San Diego, Calif., Oct. 25, 2007
> 
> ...



http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

And I'm not certain he can tie his shoelaces given that he's taken to wearing crocs... something no grown man should do, much less the president of the U.S.  

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/...-raises-two-bo?icid=mf_portal_marketmod_link1


----------



## maineman (Nov 19, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1. One would be a democracy, a quite different philosophy than the other, which is a theocracy.
> 2. Iraq would have the US as an ally, with a military base in country. That hardly represents a dislike for America.




do you honestly think that the Iraqi population, especially the 70&#37; that is shiite, does not feel a much stronger bond and connection with their fellow shiites next door in Iran than they do to the primarily Christian, Israeli supporting population of America?

There isn't going to BE a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates.  YOU need to accept that and put the koolaid down.

edit:

oh...and Bush didn't just ADMIT to being a drunk.  He was found guilty of OUI in Kennebunkport Maine.  He was SO hammered that he drove his car up over the curve, across the sidewalk, and smashed through a hedge into someone's yard.

And if just one unlucky Mainer (or flatlander tourist) had been walking down that sidewalk on that fateful day and lost his life in Bush's drunken driving accident, that unlucky soul would have unwittingly saved the lives of 3873 (and counting) Americans.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 19, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you honestly think that the Iraqi population, especially the 70&#37; that is shiite, does not feel a much stronger bond and connection with their fellow shiites next door in Iran than they do to the primarily Christian, Israeli supporting population of America?
> 
> There isn't going to BE a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates.  YOU need to accept that and put the koolaid down.



Glock's as dumb as a post. He and Dumbya are cut from the same cloth. They're of the (best Gomer Pyle voice) "Well, gee, if we can have a Jeffersonian democracy here, so can Aye-Rack" ilk. This is why people in high places in the US need to bone up on the rest of the world - their geopolitical standings, their geography, and the history of the region. If they do not do these things, they are incompetent ijits......oh, wait, that's right...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> do you honestly think that the Iraqi population, especially the 70% that is shiite, does not feel a much stronger bond and connection with their fellow shiites next door in Iran than they do to the primarily Christian, Israeli supporting population of America?
> 
> There isn't going to BE a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates.  YOU need to accept that and put the koolaid down.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't bring up drunks in the Republican party if I were you, we have a HOST of Democrats to respond with, even one that murdered a girl and got away with it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Glock's as dumb as a post. He and Dumbya are cut from the same cloth. They're of the (best Gomer Pyle voice) "Well, gee, if we can have a Jeffersonian democracy here, so can Aye-Rack" ilk. This is why people in high places in the US need to bone up on the rest of the world - their geopolitical standings, their geography, and the history of the region. If they do not do these things, they are incompetent ijits......oh, wait, that's right...



Except no one ever set the parameter for this "Jeffersonian" Democracy except you retards that keep claiming a sign celebrating the successful completion of One Aircraft Carriers mission signaled the end of the war.


----------



## doniston (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I wouldn't bring up drunks in the Republican party if I were you, we have a HOST of Democrats to respond with, even one that murdered a girl and got away with it.


  Once more you are SO certain of your unproven position.  I too think there should have been more investigation in the (possible) accident.  But I don't automatically classify it as murder.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Your summation is missing a few things (how unusual). You only asked me to prove one. I did. Whether it came from a political humour [sic] site, Fox, CNN, or Benjiman [sic] Bunny's homepage, the bottom line is they were quoting him directly, and were showing that he has trouble stringing words together. Now, unless you troll through some of those quotes and want to make a stand on how they are not incomplete, incoherent, or downright retarded, the floor is yours. Making a fool of yourself seems to be a pastime to you, but hey, each to their own.
> 
> Tying is shoelaces - yeah, I think he is capable of that...might have sold him short on that one.
> 
> ...




As I indicated earlier, yet you seem unable to understand, is that since you have capitulated on accusations one and two, the issue boils down to accusation three, that GWB is someone who can hardly string a sentence together.

You appear to be judging this based on some cherry-picked sentences out of the thousands that GWB has strung together. Are you implying that this indicates his lack of capacity for lucent thought? 

If so you have demonstrated to be at least as dense. 

Furthermore, I used semicolons after 1 and 2 to continue the sentence, and a period at the end to signify the end. This is quite clear in my post 616 as well as your quote of that passage. Does your isolated mistake indicate an inability to understand a properly strung together sentence?


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> [1]do you honestly think that the Iraqi population, especially the 70% that is shiite, does not feel a much stronger bond and connection with their fellow shiites next door in Iran than they do to the primarily Christian, Israeli supporting population of America?
> 
> There isn't going to BE a multicultural Jeffersonian democracy on the banks of the Euphrates.  YOU need to accept that and put the koolaid down.
> 
> ...



1.	As Iraq and Iran have been hostile to each other for decades, at time resorting to all-out war, and the US of A has liberated them from a tyrannical dictator, then yes, I do. And again, Iraq would have the US as an ally, with a military base in country. Also, Iraq ill have the full support of the UN, while Iran will be under severe sanctions.
2.	Interesting that you would inject this into the conversation in attempt to defame the Commander in Chief. A young man at his parents vacation retreat gets drunk and drives his car off the road, not hurting anyone. Tell me, what would be your assessment of a young man at his parents vacation retreat who gets drunk and drives his car off a bridge, drowning a woman who is not his wife, leaves the scene of the accident, and doesnt notify the authorities until the next morning?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1.	As Iraq and Iran have been hostile to each other for decades, at time resorting to all-out war, and the US of A has liberated them from a tyrannical dictator, then yes, I do. And again, Iraq would have the US as an ally, with a military base in country. Also, Iraq ill have the full support of the UN, while Iran will be under severe sanctions.
> 2.	Interesting that you would inject this into the conversation in attempt to defame the Commander in Chief. A young man at his parents vacation retreat gets drunk and drives his car off the road, not hurting anyone. Tell me, what would be your assessment of a young man at his parents vacation retreat who gets drunk and drives his car off a bridge, drowning a woman who is not his wife, leaves the scene of the accident, and doesnt notify the authorities until the next morning?



Why he just deplores that, so much he supports the Senator from his party.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> As I indicated earlier, yet you seem unable to understand, is that since you have capitulated on accusations one and two, the issue boils down to accusation three, that GWB is &#8216;someone who can hardly string a sentence together&#8217;.
> 
> You appear to be judging this based on some cherry-picked sentences out of the thousands that GWB has strung together. Are you implying that this indicates his lack of capacity for lucent thought?
> 
> ...



To use a Retired and M14 tactic here, where did I say I capitulated on 1 and 2? That is not a fact Jack! The tying shoelaces you can have, but I'm still not 100&#37; convinced.

Cherrypicked sentences? If it was one or two or even half a dozen, you might have a point, but there are literally 100s. Did Clinton, Raygun, Nixon, Ford - even Daddy Bush, sound so stupid? Er, no. Of course it indicates that he is not the brightest bulb...

Your over explanation of your terrible grammar STILL doesn't make sense. Sure, you added a semi-colon, which explains the period after the numeral 3 how, but not after numeral 2? Who's dense again? If your gonna be a smartarse, at least get rid of the evidence that makes you look more of a fool than you already are...


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I wouldn't bring up drunks in the Republican party if I were you, we have a HOST of Democrats to respond with, even one that murdered a girl and got away with it.



more flatulent rhetoric from the king.... "murdered"?  do you even KNOW the definition of the word?

and if you want to start a thread about Teddy, fuckin' go for it.... but don't hijack this one...THIS one is about Bush.  Either stay on topic or leave.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> more flatulent rhetoric from the king.... "murdered"?  do you even KNOW the definition of the word?
> 
> and if you want to start a thread about Teddy, fuckin' go for it.... but don't hijack this one...THIS one is about Bush.  Either stay on topic or leave.



I , not yuo, will determine my responses to your moronic drivel. Unless someone made you Emperor of all Internet boards? Or shall I now start teliong YOU what you an post and where? Ohh wait I forgot, only YOU get to order people around.

I suggest you learn how the system works.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I , not yuo, will determine my responses to your moronic drivel. Unless someone made you Emperor of all Internet boards? Or shall I now start teliong YOU what you an post and where? Ohh wait I forgot, only YOU get to order people around.
> 
> I suggest you learn how the system works.



I'd just settle for you proving that Kennedy murdered Mary-Jo. I can't believe, after all the huffing and puffing that yourself and M14 went on and on about whether Bush lied or not over the past week, you do exactly what you accused us of doing. Saying something with no proof...Hypocrite!


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> 1.	As Iraq and Iran have been hostile to each other for decades, at time resorting to all-out war, and the US of A has liberated them from a tyrannical dictator, then yes, I do. And again, Iraq would have the US as an ally, with a military base in country. Also, Iraq ill have the full support of the UN, while Iran will be under severe sanctions.
> 2.	Interesting that you would inject this into the conversation in attempt to defame the Commander in Chief. A young man at his parents vacation retreat gets drunk and drives his car off the road, not hurting anyone. Tell me, what would be your assessment of a young man at his parents vacation retreat who gets drunk and drives his car off a bridge, drowning a woman who is not his wife, leaves the scene of the accident, and doesnt notify the authorities until the next morning?



I guess you are unaware that the hostility between Iran and Iraq occured when a secular baathist sunni dictator was controlling Iraq.  I guess you are unaware that a significant majority of Iraqis are shiites, not sunnis.

But if you want to believe that the shiites of Iraq, many of the leaders of whom were living in exile IN Iran during the reign of Saddam, feel more affinity to American Jew loving Christians half way around the world than they do to their shiite brethren who sheltered them and continue to support and arm them to this day, then clearly you are so besotted with bush koolaid (and armed with negligible understanding of the region in question) that you are going to hold onto those bizarre and unspportable beliefs regardless.

Carry on!

And like I said to RGS, if you wanna start a thread about Teddy, go for it.  I will certainly weigh in if you ask me to.  THIS thread is about Bush.


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I , not yuo, will determine my responses to your moronic drivel. Unless someone made you Emperor of all Internet boards? Or shall I now start teliong YOU what you an post and where? Ohh wait I forgot, only YOU get to order people around.
> 
> I suggest you learn how the system works.



nice tapdance away from the murder rap!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> I'd just settle for you proving that Kennedy murdered Mary-Jo. I can't believe, after all the huffing and puffing that yourself and M14 went on and on about whether Bush lied or not over the past week, you do exactly what you accused us of doing. Saying something with no proof...Hypocrite!



I have all the proof I need, it is a matter of public record. He drove the car with her in it off a bridge into water. He swam to shore and then with no effort to save her, notify anyone or do anything to help her went home and waited for HOURS to call anyone. It was known he was drinking that night.

Anyone BUT Kennedy would have been arrested and faced charges. I know lest conduct a test. You get a lady in your car, and even with out drinking do exactly what he did in the exact same jurisdiction and lets see what happens, shall we?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> nice tapdance away from the murder rap!



My response is appropriate as you well know since YOU not I brought up drunk driving and "killing" of someone by said driver. But do pretend otherwise.


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> My response is appropriate as you well know since YOU not I brought up drunk driving and "killing" of someone by said driver. But do pretend otherwise.




my use of someone losing their life as a result of a traffic accident was hypothetical.  Your use of "murder" was libelous, flatulent and inaccurate...and YOU know it.

unless you really don't know the difference between kill and murder, I guess.  I had not actually considered that, but it may, in fact, be true.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I have all the proof I need, it is a matter of public record. He drove the car with her in it off a bridge into water. He swam to shore and then with no effort to save her, notify anyone or do anything to help her went home and waited for HOURS to call anyone. It was known he was drinking that night.
> 
> Anyone BUT Kennedy would have been arrested and faced charges. I know lest conduct a test. You get a lady in your car, and even with out drinking do exactly what he did in the exact same jurisdiction and lets see what happens, shall we?



In order to prove a charge of murder you have to prove that BOTH Actus Reas (the act) and Mens Rea (mental intention) were in play. You can prove the former (he drove the car off the bridge while drunk) but not the latter (unless you can prove by way of confession he intended to kill her purposefully). Go ahead and prove it. Take your time...


----------



## glockmail (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> I guess you are unaware that the hostility between Iran and Iraq occured when a secular baathist sunni dictator was controlling Iraq.  I guess you are unaware that a significant majority of Iraqis are shiites, not sunnis.
> 
> But if you want to believe that the shiites of Iraq, many of the leaders of whom were living in exile IN Iran during the reign of Saddam, feel more affinity to American Jew loving Christians half way around the world than they do to their shiite brethren who sheltered them and continue to support and arm them to this day, then clearly you are so besotted with bush koolaid (and armed with negligible understanding of the region in question) that you are going to hold onto those bizarre and unspportable beliefs regardless.
> 
> ...



I am well aware of these facts, as well at the Arab-Persian differences which also have an opposite impact. I am also aware that the US Military will reach its goal of a stable Iraqi government as long as they have the support of the US populace. I am also well aware that Democrats in the US are fighting hard to erode that support.

I am also aware that within these Democrats are Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews, who are doing their best against Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews who are Republican. Politics trumps sectarian differences.

You were the one who brought up the issue of GWB&#8217;s drunk driving accident as an attack on his character. As such you opened the door for an attack of your Liberal Democrat brethren who have made similar, but much worse, mistakes. What George did was bad, but not unlike the mistakes that many have done in youth. Furthermore he did not leave the scene of the accident, was forthcoming to the authorities with his guilt and accepted responsibility for his actions. But along with drunk driving Teddy added in philandering, wanton disregard for human life, leaving the scene of the accident and attempts to shirk his responsibilities by hiding behind his family name.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> I'd just settle for you proving that Kennedy murdered Mary-Jo.


He did. He's a cold blooded murderer.
In my opinion.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> He did. He's a cold blooded murderer.
> In my opinion.



That can't be an opinion. It's a legally defined term. 

But if it makes you feel better......


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> That can't be an opinion. It's a legally defined term.


Of course it can be an opinion.  Anything can be an opinion.
And since its an opinion, I dont have to provide a shred of evidence to support it.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course it can be an opinion.  Anything can be an opinion.
> And since its an opinion, I dont have to provide a shred of evidence to support it.



No. That isn't true. Opinions don't need evidence. You know, like it's my opinion that Bush is an incompetent moron.

Legally defined term: murder: "kill intentionally and with premeditation".

See how easy that is. 

And if you can't see the difference, then it's *my* opinion that you're too stupid to find your butt with both hands.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> No. That isn't true. Opinions don't need evidence. You know, like it's my opinion that Bush is an incompetent moron.


Hmm.  I said: 
"And since its an opinion, I dont have to provide a shred of evidence to support it."
So..  what part of my statement are you disagreeing with?



> Legally defined term: murder: "kill intentionally and with premeditation".


So...?
See the quotes in my sig re: this not being a court of law.



> And if you can't see the difference, then it's *my* opinion that you're too stupid to find your butt with both hands


As opposed to yours, that's large enough to land aircraft?


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Hmm.  I said:
> "And since its an opinion, I dont have to provide a shred of evidence to support it."
> So..  what part of my statement are you disagreeing with?
> 
> ...



So because this isn't a court of law, you feel free to disregard the definitions of words?

Cool... that means I can apply any meaning I choose to any of your posts, right?  

By the way, if you don't know what the people you're quoting meant, again, you're either stupid or intentionally duplicitous. Which are you gonna cop to?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> So because this isn't a court of law, you feel free to disregard the definitions of words?


I'm not disregarding the definition of anything.
Define murder however you want -- it's my -opinion- that Kennedy is a murderer.



> By the way, if you don't know what the people you're quoting meant,


I know exactly what they meant, and so do you.
So, which are YOU going to choose?


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> I'm not disregarding the definition of anything.
> Define murder however you want -- it's my -opinion- that Kennedy is a murderer.
> 
> 
> ...



I choose you being an intentionally duplicitous moron.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> No. That isn't true. Opinions don't need evidence. You know, like it's my opinion that Bush is an incompetent moron.
> 
> Legally defined term: murder: "kill intentionally and with premeditation".
> 
> ...



Must have an on-line law degree....


Murder: Second degree

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or *2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.* Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
------------

Does this fit the bill ?

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> I choose you being an intentionally duplicitous moron.


And I take you as an effective substitute for a 10,000ft runway.

I also find it laughable that you take ME to task for offering an opinion and refusing to support it, based on the quotes provided, rather than the "duplicitous morons" that created the quotes to begin with.

Your issue, Lassie, is with them, not me.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Must have an on-line law degree....


You give her too much credit.
Even a complete moron knows that murder doesn't -have- to be a willful or intentional act.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Must have an on-line law degree....
> 
> 
> Murder: Second degree
> ...



nope, love, real law degree... lack of patience for people who think they can bandy about defamatory terms just because they're referring to the "other side".

I feel the same about people who start with the "Bush is a war criminal" stuff, too... 

just ignorant partisanship.

And the fact that this particular issue is raised yet again is simply stupid. It's something that happened ub 1969 and you're still talking about it is beyond me. It's like if I were to dwell on watergate every day.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And I take you as an effective substitute for a 10,000ft runway.
> 
> I also find it laughable that you take ME to task for offering an opinion and refusing to support it, based on the quotes provided, rather than the "duplicitous morons" that created the quotes to begin with.
> 
> Your issue, Lassie, is with them, not me.



Calling someone a murderer isn't offerening an opinion.

Dismissed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> nope, love, real law degree... lack of patience for people who think they can bandy about defamatory terms just because they're referring to the "other side".


So. you;ll agree that the people I quoted should not be bandying about their defamatory terms.  Right?



> I feel the same about people who start with the "Bush is a war criminal" stuff, too... just ignorant partisanship.


I'll believe that you really mean that when you address the statements they made.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> Calling someone a murderer isn't offerening an opinion.


Absolutely it is, Lassie.

"I think he is a murderer" is every bit a statement of opinion as "I think he is God's gift to homosexual men".
In bioth cases, I am describing what I think about the subject -- I am giving my opinion.

And you can "dismiss" me all you want -- we both know you're just running away from a point you cannot defend.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> nope, love, real law degree... lack of patience for people who think they can bandy about defamatory terms just because they're referring to the "other side".
> 
> I feel the same about people who start with the "Bush is a war criminal" stuff, too...
> 
> ...



One would think that even a half-assed lawyer would be familiar with the definition of murder in the second degree....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> In order to prove a charge of murder you have to prove that BOTH Actus Reas (the act) and Mens Rea (mental intention) were in play. You can prove the former (he drove the car off the bridge while drunk) but not the latter (unless you can prove by way of confession he intended to kill her purposefully). Go ahead and prove it. Take your time...



Simply not true, one can be found guilty of a charge of murder without the purposeful intent to murder, all one need do is show depraved indifference. His leaving the scene and covering his ass by waiting to sober up BEFORE reporting the "accident" prove that to a reasonable degree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> Calling someone a murderer isn't offerening an opinion.
> 
> Dismissed.



So when ever anyone states that OJ murdered his x wife I can call them idiots and retards?


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I am well aware of these facts, as well at the Arab-Persian differences which also have an opposite impact. *I am also aware that the US Military will reach its goal of a stable Iraqi government *as long as they have the support of the US populace. I am also well aware that Democrats in the US are fighting hard to erode that support.
> 
> I am also aware that within these Democrats are Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews, who are doing their best against Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews who are Republican. Politics trumps sectarian differences.



A stable Iraqi government is not a US MILITARY goal, anymore than fixing your fucked up looking face is the goal of your podiatrist.  The short term US military goal is to stamp down sectarian violence so that Iraqis can attempt to reach THEIR goal of a stable Iraqi government.  The long term US military goal is to train the Iraqi security forces to keep that sectarian violence stamped down so we can get out of there.  While the US military is succeeding in its goals, the Iraqi people are not.  Democrats are suggesting that there be some sort of time limit as to how long we will continue to babysit the Iraqi sectarian intransigence and ascertain that, at some point, it is the Iraqi's problem and none of our own.

And for you to suggest that politics trumps sectarian differences and apply the example of American Christians as some sort of proof that similar priorities are in play with muslims in Iraq or anywhere else in the middle east only serves to glaringly highlight your profound ignorance concerning the area and the religion.

and it was grump who brought up Bush's drunkeness, not me.  And Teddy is - and will always be - irrelevant to the discussion of the ineptitude of our current commander in chief.


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So when ever anyone states that OJ murdered his x wife I can call them idiots and retards?



if someone states that, they are wrong.  Call them whay you like.

If they offer the opinion that they think he killed them, that is perfectly appropriate.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> So because this isn't a court of law, you feel free to disregard the definitions of words?



Cool. So now happy means sad, jump means walk and drive means flyi]. I love this new game where words no longer mean what they are defined in the dictionary!


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Cool. So now happy means sad, jump means walk and drive means flyi]. I love this new game where words no longer mean what they are defined in the dictionary!


What you're missing is the part where no one changed the definition of any word(s).


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not true, one can be found guilty of a charge of murder without the purposeful intent to murder, all one need do is show depraved indifference. His leaving the scene and covering his ass by waiting to sober up BEFORE reporting the "accident" prove that to a reasonable degree.



Ah, that's right you Yanks have different degrees of murder. We have manslaughter and murder. To be fair, under our definition of murder, there is a degree of recklessness that can be attached to the Mens Rea aspect - ie: you can't discharge a full loaded shotgun in somebody's face and claim it was not your intention to kill them when it is obvious to any reasonable person that doing such an action will lead to instant death. That aside can you give me the legal definition of Depraved and Indifference. IOW, did he reach those definitions to the degree you mentioned? I believe not. I think his reaction was typical of any body in that situation, and I doubt he felt indifferent about the demise of Mary-Jo, or that his actions were depraved. He is guilty of manslaughter at best.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 20, 2007)

The consideration that the degree might be an online one was interesting...and caused me to think perhaps it's possible that a 12-year-old obtained one?

Calling someone a murderer can be a statement of fact...if it has been proven.  Otherwise it is still an opinion. Unless, of course, you witnessed the murder.

So saying "OJ is a murderer" is simply an opinion, which may or may not be the truth.  
I find myself concerned that the law has fallen into the hands of precocious, possibly unmonitored children who don't have a firm grasp on the difference between opinion and truth.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> What you're missing is the part where no one changed the definition of any word(s).



Yeah, you did. You have now decided that Kennedy is guilty of murder. Therefore you have changed the definition because his actions never met the definition...thanks for playing!


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> The consideration that the degree might be an online one was interesting...and caused me to think perhaps it's possible that a 12-year-old obtained one?
> 
> Calling someone a murderer can be a statement of fact...if it has been proven.  Otherwise it is still an opinion. Unless, of course, you witnessed the murder.
> 
> ...




Whether you like it or not OJ was not a murderer. Under the criminal justice system it has been proven a fact, under the civil one, not. The quirks of law.

I find it concerning that those who DON'T put their bona fides on the table feel right to criticise those who have.Care to tell us your education, or are you one of those hide-behind-the-keyboard types who can throw barbs but not take them?


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 20, 2007)

Oh now you've done it. Challenge her bonafides and stand by for a whopper of a tantrum. Though probably privately. And possibly not from her, but from Shogun....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> Oh now you've done it. Challenge her bonafides and stand by for a whopper of a tantrum. Though probably privately. And possibly not from her, but from Shogun....



Not at all. Nothing to do with a trantrum or even close. Just wondering why you think you have the right to call into question somebody's bonafides when you are unwilling to put yours on the line. Comes down to credibility. See, Jill is a lawyer - a very good one in fact - for all I know you may be some Superior Court Judge, in which case your opinion would carry some weight. Then again, your greatest achievement in life might be picking up trash on the highways and byways of rural America, which would then lend me pause for thought. You are not the first nor will you be the last to criticise her. She has never claimed to be a criminal lawyer, or even an expert on the subject. I have noted over the years though, that as soon as she makes a good point and gets under another debater's skin, her bonafides come into question. Typical tactic of somebody who 1) hates her political ideology 2) is redundant in their argument or lack thereof. I think you fall into both categories. Now fess up Allie - your occupation is:______________


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 20, 2007)

Well, I really misread your comment, but I'll respond to your obnoxious post, anyway.

I have put my bonafides on the table. I don't need to in every single monotonous thread where Jillian gets involved in which her devotees are running around behind her, praising her to the heavens above. If only I had a fan club which would save me the bother of actually having to lie, myself, about my "bonafides", and which could effectively hijack any conversation where I might be getting in a little over my head.

But I don't. There's just little old me. I don't need my bonafides recited to make a point. 

And besides, the idea of a demonic 12-year-old attorney is favorable compared to the picture I usually have in my mind of people who sit on their bonafides.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> Well, I really misread your comment, but I'll respond to your obnoxious post, anyway.
> 
> I have put my bonafides on the table. I don't need to in every single monotonous thread where Jillian gets involved in which her devotees are running around behind her, praising her to the heavens above. If only I had a fan club which would save me the bother of actually having to lie, myself, about my "bonafides", and which could effectively hijack any conversation where I might be getting in a little over my head.
> 
> ...



Well mayhap you shouldn't start out obnoxious in the first place and then the likes of myself would not respond in kind.

Believe it or not I have not read every single post of yours, so I have no idea what you do for a living.

Jillian has no "devotees" at all. She has friends. I look out for my friends. You? If you don't want a thread to get "hijacked" or go off topic, stop making silly, asinine, personal statements. Take responsibility for your own actions instead of trying to fob them off on someone else.

Jillian never sits on her bonafides, just gets a reaction when somebody calls them into question. If you don't want the subject brought up, don't instigate it and then bitch about it. Simple really...


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> if someone states that, they are wrong.  Call them whay you like.
> 
> If they offer the opinion that they think he killed them, that is perfectly appropriate.



Ohh I see, so if i say Kennedy is a murderer I MUST add "in my opinion"... I will remember that ever time you leftwing morons make idiotic statements.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Cool. So now happy means sad, jump means walk and drive means flyi]. I love this new game where words no longer mean what they are defined in the dictionary!



Ask Maineman he is real good at twisting what words do and do not mean depending on what ever idiotic opinion he is supporting.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Ah, that's right you Yanks have different degrees of murder. We have manslaughter and murder. To be fair, under our definition of murder, there is a degree of recklessness that can be attached to the Mens Rea aspect - ie: you can't discharge a full loaded shotgun in somebody's face and claim it was not your intention to kill them when it is obvious to any reasonable person that doing such an action will lead to instant death. That aside can you give me the legal definition of Depraved and Indifference. IOW, did he reach those definitions to the degree you mentioned? I believe not. I think his reaction was typical of any body in that situation, and I doubt he felt indifferent about the demise of Mary-Jo, or that his actions were depraved. He is guilty of manslaughter at best.



He made a conscious decision to hide out until no longer drunk, to not inform anyone she was at the bottom of the body of water he drove her into and he made no effort until sober to tell anyone except his family what happened. THAT is intent.

It is NOT normal for people that kill others to simply go home and sleep off a drunk before telling the cops. Well I guess people that do not care about others lives might find that reasonable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Whether you like it or not OJ was not a murderer. Under the criminal justice system it has been proven a fact, under the civil one, not. The quirks of law.
> 
> I find it concerning that those who DON'T put their bona fides on the table feel right to criticise those who have.Care to tell us your education, or are you one of those hide-behind-the-keyboard types who can throw barbs but not take them?



Jillian is a poor attorney or so biased by politics to be ineffective at some things. She has in the past made some of the most idiotic statements for  certified lawyer to ever utter as to defy she has a degree, much less passed the bar. All to do with politics. She has a very poor understanding of the very document that gives her any power, the Constitution , as to make one wonder if her classes on the law were given in some Banana Republic. Or to make one wonder if Law even teaches the intent and purpose and powers of the Document.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Jillian is a poor attorney or so biased by politics to be ineffective at some things. She has in the past made some of the most idiotic statements for  certified lawyer to ever utter as to defy she has a degree, much less passed the bar. All to do with politics. She has a very poor understanding of the very document that gives her any power, the Constitution , as to make one wonder if her classes on the law were given in some Banana Republic. Or to make one wonder if Law even teaches the intent and purpose and powers of the Document.



And yet she has successfully practised her chosen career for the best part of 20 years..(shrug)..

what's that about biased again? Unlike, say, you?


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Well mayhap you shouldn't start out obnoxious in the first place and then the likes of myself would not respond in kind.
> 
> Believe it or not I have not read every single post of yours, so I have no idea what your do for a living.
> 
> ...



Actually, I was responding, not instigating.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> And yet she has successfully practised her chosen career for the best part of 20 years..(shrug)..
> 
> what's that about biased again? Unlike, say, you?



Yes, well, says you.

Not that it matters. There are some very bad attorneys out there who claim success.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, I was responding, not instigating.



What you did was called an ad hominem...one of the lowest forms of debate. You were not responding to an ad hominem from her. The "12-year-old" comment was all your own, and instigated by you. Take that sentence and the last one out, and you indeed, were just responding.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Not at all. Nothing to do with a trantrum or even close. Just wondering why you think you have the right to call into question somebody's bonafides when you are unwilling to put yours on the line. Comes down to credibility. See, Jill is a lawyer - a very good one in fact - for all I know you may be some Superior Court Judge, in which case your opinion would carry some weight. Then again, your greatest achievement in life might be picking up trash on the highways and byways of rural America, which would then lend me pause for thought. You are not the first nor will you be the last to criticise her. She has never claimed to be a criminal lawyer, or even an expert on the subject. I have noted over the years though, that as soon as she makes a good point and gets under another debater's skin, her bonafides come into question. Typical tactic of somebody who 1) hates her political ideology 2) is redundant in their argument or lack thereof. I think you fall into both categories. Now fess up Allie - your occupation is:______________



* See, Jill is a lawyer - a very good one in fact - 
Now thats an opinion with no proof to back it up*
-------------------------
jillian jillian is online now
1-20-09

And since its an opinion, I dont have to provide a shred of evidence to support it.
No. That isn't true. Opinions don't need evidence. You know, like it's my opinion that Bush is an incompetent moron.

*Legally defined term: murder: "kill intentionally and with premeditation".

See how easy that is.*

And if you can't see the difference, then it's *my* opinion that you're too stupid to find your butt with both hands. 
=============================================================================

Ahhhh yes...its so easy....
But it seems our learned lawyer (and political hack), ignores murder in the second degree.... a legally defined term also...

 Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or (2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
-----
Not very smart for a learned lawyer.....

And what do we know about Kennedy and Mary Jo....

1. they were at a party
2. there was drinking at the party,( it wouldn't take much of an investigation to ask if Kennedy had a few)....but there was no investigation really...
3. Kennedy drove off a bridge
4. Kennedy escaped from a submerged car..and poor Mary Jo did not...
5. Kennedy left the scene and went home...failed to report the accident for several hours (surely enough to sober up)
6. Mary Jo died as a result of the accident.....
7. Kennedy didn't even have a valid drivers license....

so as a juror,would you just ignore the facts....?  

No, better to not even bring charges against Kennedy...because there is no freekin' way he is not guilty of second degree murder.....hes a hero in Mass. and Democrat, and no one will make a big deal if we all just forget about the whole thing....and thats what happened....

No Media uproar....
No investigation....
Cops just struck deaf and dumb
Nothing from the Guests at party to speak of
Even Mary Jo's parents so understanding(such loyal Democrats)...as if to say "Well, shit happens"....(that my biggest disappointment...)
----------------------
Under the influence
Leaves the scene of fatal accident
Fails to report said accident for several hours
No valid license
----------------------
If this were you or I,(or a Republican),  you would kiss your ass good-by....you would be in a fuckin' cell for the forseeable future....

But Kenney....No investigation, no charges, no nothing.....I don't even think he got a citation for having no valid license....

So much for fair and equal treatment under the law.....


Try this if you give a rats ass......http://www.ytedk.com/chapter1.htm#alcohol.....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, well, says you.
> 
> Not that it matters. There are some very bad attorneys out there who claim success.



There are? Name them...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> * See, Jill is a lawyer - a very good one in fact -
> Now thats an opinion with no proof to back it up*....



Care to point out how many crappy lawyers manage to practice for 20 years plus? You ever heard of Bruce Cutler? Gotti's lawyer? Morals of a sewer rat and a snakeoil salesman, but he got Gotti off three times. Great lawyer whether you like him or not. Same with Cochrane.

Notwithstanding that, I am not comparing Jillian to them, more your mindset. You don't like her politics, so you attack her personally. Weak, shallow and pathetic all rolled into one. Now, we all know that RetiredGunny is a failed soldier and engineer, so what's your occupation Alpha? Let's dissect it shall we....ditto Allie if she ever shows up again...


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

Don't ignore my post Grump......or your very good lawyer for that matter....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Care to point out how many crappy lawyers manage to practice for 20 years plus? You ever heard of Bruce Cutler? Gotti's lawyer? Morals of a sewer rat and a snakeoil salesman, but he got Gotti off three times. Great lawyer whether you like him or not. Same with Cochrane.
> 
> Notwithstanding that, I am not comparing Jillian to them, more your mindset. You don't like her politics, so you attack her personally. Weak, shallow and pathetic all rolled into one. Now, we all know that RetiredGunny is a failed soldier and engineer, so what's your occupation Alpha? Let's dissect it shall we....ditto Allie if she ever shows up again...



Nice attempt to change the subject.


----------



## jillian (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Nice attempt to change the subject.



I thought he was right on topic. Y'all just keep changing the topics when you get bested.

FWIW, if Teddy Kennedy had been convicted of anything, it probably, at worst, would have been for criminally negligent homicide and for leaving the scene. And yes, family connections and power bring assistance, kind of like when you're arrested for drunk driving and you're one of the Bush family.

See how that works.

Mostly, both of those things happened far too long ago to be relevant any longer. Would I want to be buds with either? Nope.

I also think it's pretty low to question what I do whenever you don't agree with me.

Ends discussion. Capice?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> I thought he was right on topic. Y'all just keep changing the topics when you get bested.
> 
> FWIW, if Teddy Kennedy had been convicted of anything, it probably, at worst, would have been for criminally negligent homicide and for leaving the scene. And yes, family connections and power bring assistance, kind of like when you're arrested for drunk driving and you're one of the Bush family.
> 
> ...



It ends when you quit trying to be sole judge of opinion and law. The blatantly ignorant claim that MY opinion was in fact not an opinion while yours was just fine is what this is all about. Your claim that one can not have an opinion about someone having broken a law was and is ignorant on it's face. Further to make that claim while telling us about what a stellar Lawyer you are? Please. You don't want similar treatment? Don't try and pretend you are sole judge and jury on others. You should hang out with Maineman he does the same crap.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

jillian said:


> I thought he was right on topic. Y'all just keep changing the topics when you get bested.
> 
> *The only one bested in this and other threads is you, dear...but at least you have the balls to respond*
> 
> ...



I other words...you seem to have serious character flaw....capice?


----------



## maineman (Nov 20, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh I see, so if i say Kennedy is a murderer I MUST add "in my opinion"... I will remember that ever time you leftwing morons make idiotic statements.



if you claim that it is a fact that Kennedy is a murderer, you are inaccurate, if you claim that it is your opinion that he killed someone, fine.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you claim that it is a fact that Kennedy is a murderer, you are inaccurate, if you claim that it is your opinion that he killed someone, fine.



And how are we to stop him looking inaccurate....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 20, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you claim that it is a fact that Kennedy is a murderer, you are inaccurate, if you claim that it is your opinion that he killed someone, fine.



  Hello mm....
I don't feel up to playing word games with you tonight....us laymen express ourselves in terms that have a generic meaning, understood by the masses,  and may not be accurate in a court of law...in plain words, we speak like common people, instead of lawyers.......that said...and of course its my opinion.....
It is a fact in my mind.....
Yeah...I'd accuse Kennedy of being guilty of murder in the second degree, legally....IMO...

I have every reason to believe he was DUI....
I have every reason to believe he left the scene of an accident....
I have every reason to believe he didn't report this accident for several critical hours.....
I have every reason to believe the Mary Jo died as a result of this accident...
and I have every reason to believe that he was treated in a manner that would be unthinkable if he wasn't who he is.....
A Mass. hero, a powerful Democratic Senator, in an overwhelming Democratic state....
A bullshit investigation, if you can even call it that.... that meant nothing....
A silent media for the most part.....
No charges at all to speak of....none that come to mind anyway....not even minor charges...that were plainly warrented on the face of the facts....

Leaving the scene...
Failure to report a fatal accident...
And as any token investigation would show....DUI....

Yeah...I'd conclude the dude got away with Murder 2....

And I need only recall several Republicans that resign their positions, get convicted, fined, or are at least the victims of character assassination...for the most mundane of accusations.....lately sins of morality, of all the bullshit...not even illegal activity, but sins against some moral value....

Thats justice in this country as of today.....but what goes around, comes around...and you may see things from a new, different perspective in the future.......actually I hope it never comes to that....but at lease returns to some more central, neutral balance....in plain words, justice....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 21, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Yeah...I'd conclude the dude got away with Murder 2....


Yep -- that's my -opinion- as well.


----------



## maineman (Nov 21, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Hello mm....
> I don't feel up to playing word games with you tonight....us laymen express ourselves in terms that have a generic meaning, understood by the masses,  and may not be accurate in a court of law...in plain words, we speak like common people, instead of lawyers.......that said...and of course its my opinion.....
> It is a fact in my mind.....
> *Yeah...I'd accuse Kennedy of being guilty of murder in the second degree, legally....IMO...*
> ...



All opinion.... and you are certainly entitled to it.  In fact, I disagree with much less of it than you would otherwise suspect.  The only sentence above I have a real problem with is the bolded one.  NO ONE is "guilty" of ANY crime based upon any one person's opinion...unless the crime was adjudicated with a bench trial.


----------



## OrnotBitwise (Nov 21, 2007)

maineman said:


> All opinion.... and you are certainly entitled to it.  In fact, I disagree with much less of it than you would otherwise suspect.  The only sentence above I have a real problem with is the bolded one.  NO ONE is "guilty" of ANY crime based upon any one person's opinion...unless the crime was adjudicated with a bench trial.


Seems that Republicans are much the same everywhere: they can't tell the difference between opinion and fact here either. It's all that impatience with "nuance" I think.

Hiya, mm.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 21, 2007)

OrnotBitwise said:


> Seems that Republicans are much the same everywhere: they can't tell the difference between opinion and fact here either.


The difference is clear to anyone paying attention:

-When a Dem/Lib makes an accusation/statement, its a statement of opinion and doesn't need to be proven in the least;
-When a Rep/conservative makes an accusation/statement, its a statement of fact and must be proven as if it were in a court of law.

It's all that self-righteous partisan bigotry, I think.


----------



## shepherdboy (Nov 21, 2007)

jillian said:


> Then there needs to be a solution from inside Iraq. Time to divide the country into three, allocate the oil between them, make our deals and get out.



Why? So the French, Germans, Russians and maybe the Chinese can take over where they left off.


----------



## jillian (Nov 21, 2007)

shepherdboy said:


> Why? So the French, Germans, Russians and maybe the Chinese can take over where they left off.



No. So we can stop spending 200 billion dollars a year for no reason.

What's your answer? Occupy Iraq forever?


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 21, 2007)

Until they are able to function in a stable manner. It might take forever. Probably not. But see it through to the end and do not leave  until/if they are able to function without disrupting the entire world continually.

BTW, dividing up the Ottoman Empire is where all this BS started. It's a method of conquering a land, and it works. So it always makes me giggle when liberals, who insist we are being imperialist bastards by "illegally" occupying poor Iraq, propose dividing it up. Now that would be the act of a tyrant.


----------



## Shogun (Nov 21, 2007)

well.. it would be if we had any intention on keeping the divided land for our own gain instead of giving autonomous authority to the people living there.... 


interesting that you assume such would be standard operating procedure though.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 21, 2007)

The Ottoman Empire was divided up SPECIFICALLY to de-stabilize the region, in order to give European and British Imperial Bastards a way to gain control over the Arab lands. It worked then and it would work now.

Regardless of the purely altruistic motive of liberals who would divide the country to "help" their Iraqi brothers, the result would be the same. Mayhem, bloodshed, and continued unrest forever. With liberals scrambling like crazy to create jobs for themseles and oppressing the people they say they're helping.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 21, 2007)

Dividing it up along ethnic lines would NOT be tyrannical. In fact, that is what the British and the French should have done in the first place when they created those countries. Same with Africa. Instead, they had tribes and ideologies that were always going to bash heads. If they had been divided up along ethnic/tribal/religious lines in the first place, there would have been nowhere near the amount of bloodshed there has been. Nothing liberal about it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 21, 2007)

Only if they elect to divide it up themselves, equably, would it not be the work of a tyrant.

But liberals don't get this, because they don't understand what tyranny is. They think their attitude of "we know what's best for you and because we know it's best, we're going to do it, regardless of what you want" is something other than what it is...tyranny.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 21, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> Only if they elect to divide it up themselves, equably, would it not be the work of a tyrant.
> 
> But liberals don't get this, because they don't understand what tyranny is. They think their attitude of "we know what's best for you and because we know it's best, we're going to do it, regardless of what you want" is something other than what it is...tyranny.



Of course they would have to have a say in it. However if they did it ALL themselves, then that in itself would cause problems because it would have to be equitable. There is no way the Sunnis would accept that the Shi'ites get all the oil fields for example. But it will never happen anyway. There is no way Turkey or Iran would allow the Kurds to have a homeland because the Kurds in their respective countries would demand similar. Again, nothing to do with liberal or conservative thinking...


----------



## maineman (Nov 21, 2007)

OrnotBitwise said:


> Seems that Republicans are much the same everywhere: they can't tell the difference between opinion and fact here either. It's all that impatience with "nuance" I think.
> 
> Hiya, mm.



ornot!  fellow traveler...it is good knowing you are there with me!

welcome!


----------



## maineman (Nov 21, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The difference is clear to anyone paying attention:
> 
> -When a Dem/Lib makes an accusation/statement, its a statement of opinion and doesn't need to be proven in the least;
> -When a Rep/conservative makes an accusation/statement, its a statement of fact and must be proven as if it were in a court of law.
> ...




when a dem/lib makes an accusation/statement, it is intelligently phrased as an opinion.

when a troglodyte republican/neocon makes an accusation, it is inaccurately phrased as a fact.

it's all about basic intelligence and understanding the colorful and nuanced nature of our language.  Some people use words like an artist uses paint.... some people use words like a housepainter uses paint.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 21, 2007)

The housepainters will not like that, mm.




maineman said:


> when a dem/lib makes an accusation/statement, it is intelligently phrased as an opinion.
> 
> when a troglodyte republican/neocon makes an accusation, it is inaccurately phrased as a fact.
> 
> it's all about basic intelligence and understanding the colorful and nuanced nature of our language.  Some people use words like an artist uses paint.... some people use words like a housepainter uses paint.



However, the abstractions and observations of even the least astute among us that seriously seeks some semblance of truth will recognize your statement as in good faith.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 23, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Dividing it up along ethnic lines would NOT be tyrannical. In fact, that is what the British and the French should have done in the first place when they created those countries. Same with Africa. Instead, they had tribes and ideologies that were always going to bash heads. If they had been divided up along ethnic/tribal/religious lines in the first place, there would have been nowhere near the amount of bloodshed there has been. Nothing liberal about it.




Isnt that just sooo typical for a liberal. SCREAM that we have no business being over there, then say how their idea to be there and divide it up is so great.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 23, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Isnt that just sooo typical for a liberal. SCREAM that we have no business being over there, then say how their idea to be there and divide it up is so great.



Isn't that so typical of a dumbass; to put words into somebody's mouth....


----------



## jillian (Nov 23, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Isn't that so typical of a dumbass; to put words into somebody's mouth....



Not to mention that not thinking we should be over there is very consistent with thinking it should be divided up so we can leave them their country and get the heck out.

But he pulls stuff out the air and decides they correlate somehow. To be expected, I suppose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> when a dem/lib makes an accusation/statement, it is intelligently phrased as an opinion.
> 
> when a troglodyte republican/neocon makes an accusation, it is inaccurately phrased as a fact.
> 
> it's all about basic intelligence and understanding the colorful and nuanced nature of our language.  Some people use words like an artist uses paint.... some people use words like a housepainter uses paint.



There it is in a nutshell. We libs , being your intellectual superiors, are always right and can say anything we want because when the time comes we will then claim it meant something else.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> A stable Iraqi government is not a US MILITARY goal, anymore than *fixing your fucked up looking face *is the goal of your podiatrist.  The short term US military goal is to stamp down sectarian violence so that Iraqis can attempt to reach THEIR goal of a stable Iraqi government.  The long term US military goal is to train the Iraqi security forces to keep that sectarian violence stamped down so we can get out of there.  While the US military is succeeding in its goals, the Iraqi people are not.  Democrats are suggesting that there be some sort of time limit as to how long we will continue to babysit the Iraqi sectarian intransigence and ascertain that, at some point, it is the Iraqi's problem and none of our own.
> 
> And for you to suggest that politics trumps sectarian differences and apply the example of American Christians as some sort of proof that similar priorities are in play with muslims in Iraq or anywhere else in the middle east only serves to glaringly highlight *your profound ignorance *concerning the area and the religion.
> 
> and it was grump who brought up Bush's drunkeness, not me.  And Teddy is - and will always be - irrelevant to the discussion of the ineptitude of our current commander in chief.



Once again you have resorted to personal insults, and have no substantive reply to the issues raised, both clear indications that you have lost the debate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 23, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Once again you have resorted to personal insults, and have no substantive reply to the issues raised, both clear indications that you have lost the debate.



Standard fare for some. Maineman thinks he can force responses along HIS chosen schematic and he always is dismissive of anyone that disagrees with him. He resorts to personal attacks out of the chute and plays the " I am so smart you haven't a chance" card the whole time.

By the way don't insult him back or you will be told just how rude that is and how unacceptable such tactics are when used by anyone except Maineman.

He isn't alone though, it is a basic staple of all liberals. They are after all our Intellectual Superiors and are just astounded we can't see that they just want to order us about for our own good. And of course laws are meant to protect US, not to impede their efforts, so when they ignore, avoid or abuse them, it is simply because they are our betters after all.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Yeah, you did. You have now decided that Kennedy is guilty of murder. Therefore you have changed the definition because his actions never met the definition...thanks for playing!


When did I say that kennedy was guilty of murder?
I opined that we was a murderer: I didn't say he ws guilty.
Whoops.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Not at all. Nothing to do with a trantrum or even close. Just wondering why you think you have the right to call into question somebody's bonafides when you are unwilling to put yours on the line


Its called "freedom of speech".  
You've heard of that, right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> when a dem/lib makes an accusation/statement, it is intelligently phrased as an opinion.


Conclusion:
Skippy isn't a Dem or a liberal.



> when a troglodyte republican/neocon makes an accusation, it is inaccurately phrased as a fact.


Conclusion:
Skippy -is- a Republican/Neocon.

Who would have guessed?


----------



## maineman (Nov 23, 2007)

glockmail said:


> Once again you have resorted to personal insults, and have no substantive reply to the issues raised, both clear indications that you have lost the debate.



your righteously indignant concentration on the two bolded sentences is a clear indication that you know that the rest of the post paints you into a corner so your huff and puff and ignore it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Standard fare for some. Maineman thinks he can force responses along HIS chosen schematic and he always is dismissive of anyone that disagrees with him. He resorts to personal attacks out of the chute and plays the " I am so smart you haven't a chance" card the whole time.
> 
> By the way don't insult him back or you will be told just how rude that is and how unacceptable such tactics are when used by anyone except Maineman.
> 
> He isn't alone though, it is a basic staple of all liberals. They are after all our Intellectual Superiors and are just astounded we can't see that they just want to order us about for our own good. And of course laws are meant to protect US, not to impede their efforts, so when they ignore, avoid or abuse them, it is simply because they are our betters after all.



and I see that you are joining your little buddy glock in ignoring the content of the post and pulling the righteous indignation act as a sleight of hand trick to attempt to get everyone to forget about what was said.

You can and have insulted me and belittled my service and the knowledge I gained whilst performing it for months now.... but that is fine with me. 

And I am your intellectual superior on only a few specific areas of inquiry.  I am sure that there are a whole host of things that you know a lot more about than I do.  As a matter of practice, I would not enter into a debate with you about those issues.  Do you ever wonder how cordial our relationship might have been if you had followed a similar protocol?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> and I see that you are joining your little buddy glock in ignoring the content of the post and pulling the righteous indignation act as a sleight of hand trick to attempt to get everyone to forget about what was said.
> 
> You can and have insulted me and belittled my service and the knowledge I gained whilst performing it for months now.... but that is fine with me.
> 
> And I am your intellectual superior on only a few specific areas of inquiry.  I am sure that there are a whole host of things that you know a lot more about than I do.  As a matter of practice, I would not enter into a debate with you about those issues.  Do you ever wonder how cordial our relationship might have been if you had followed a similar protocol?



There ya go again. Setting up a strawman argument and then insisting your poor behavior and antics are not your fault but everyone else's.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> And I am your intellectual superior on only a few specific areas of inquiry.


Of course you are!  You say so yourself!!
I mean, why else would you find it necessary to use profanity?



> Do you ever wonder how cordial our relationship might have been if you had followed a similar protocol?


You mean like calling people 'fucking assholes'?

You're a real piece of work, Skippy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> There ya go again. Setting up a strawman argument and then insisting your poor behavior and antics are not your fault but everyone else's.




not so...I take full responsibility for every word I type.  

I only posed a rhetorical question.  Certainly, we will never be able to go back in time and figure out how we would have interacted had you not suggested that my service in Lebanon made me no more knowledgeable about the political dynamics of Islam that you....because you did suggest precisely that.

and then you whine when I am less than flattering to you - or your buddies.

::yawn::


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 23, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so...I take full responsibility for every word I type.
> 
> I only posed a rhetorical question.  Certainly, we will never be able to go back in time and figure out how we would have interacted had you not suggested that my service in Lebanon made me no more knowledgeable about the political dynamics of Islam that you....because you did suggest precisely that.
> 
> ...



In  other words you can not handle having someone tell you your opinion is no more important than any others. Talk about whining and crying. You not I have made repeated claims others opinions mean nothing because your so much smarter then them.


----------



## maineman (Nov 23, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In  other words you can not handle having someone tell you your opinion is no more important than any others. Talk about whining and crying. You not I have made repeated claims others opinions mean nothing because your so much smarter then them.




I am not whining in the least.  I have said that I would clearly defer to your superior wisdom and experience in any and every area in which you had wisdom and experience.... and I wondered, in passing, how our "friendship" would have evolved if you had acted similarly.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 23, 2007)

oops


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 23, 2007)

Why would you concede to any "superior wisdom", mm?  And why do you desire friendship with such a doofus?


----------



## doniston (Nov 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Standard fare for some. Maineman thinks he can force responses along HIS chosen schematic and he always is dismissive of anyone that disagrees with him. He resorts to personal attacks out of the chute and plays the " I am so smart you haven't a chance" card the whole time.
> 
> By the way don't insult him back or you will be told just how rude that is and how unacceptable such tactics are when used by anyone except Maineman.
> 
> He isn't alone though, it is a basic staple of all liberals. They are after all our Intellectual Superiors and are just astounded we can't see that they just want to order us about for our own good. And of course laws are meant to protect US, not to impede their efforts, so when they ignore, avoid or abuse them, it is simply because they are our betters after all.



One more kettle/pot/ black utterance.  You appear tp be speaking of yourself,  "NOT" the other poster.


----------



## doniston (Nov 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Standard fare for some. Maineman thinks he can force responses along HIS chosen schematic and he always is dismissive of anyone that disagrees with him. He resorts to personal attacks out of the chute and plays the " I am so smart you haven't a chance" card the whole time.
> 
> By the way don't insult him back or you will be told just how rude that is and how unacceptable such tactics are when used by anyone except Maineman.
> 
> He isn't alone though, it is a basic staple of all liberals. They are after all our Intellectual Superiors and are just astounded we can't see that they just want to order us about for our own good. And of course laws are meant to protect US, not to impede their efforts, so when they ignore, avoid or abuse them, it is simply because they are our betters after all.



One more kettle/pot/ black utterance.  You appear to be speaking of yourself,  "NOT" the other poster.


----------



## doniston (Nov 24, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> When did I say that kennedy was guilty of murder?
> I opined that we was a murderer: I didn't say he ws guilty.
> Whoops.


  Is there a difference????


----------



## doniston (Nov 24, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In  other words you can not handle having someone tell you your opinion is no more important than any others. Talk about whining and crying. You not I have made repeated claims others opinions mean nothing because your so much smarter then them.


  Sorry, but when you post it in your sig, you are apparently agreeing, so you are just as guilty as he.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 24, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> When did I say that kennedy was guilty of murder?
> I opined that we was a murderer: I didn't say he ws guilty.
> Whoops.



Cool...

M14 is a paedophile...(shrug)....where did I say you were guilty?

Whoops...


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 25, 2007)

jillian said:


> Not to mention that not thinking we should be over there is very consistent with thinking it should be divided up so we can leave them their country and get the heck out.
> 
> But he pulls stuff out the air and decides they correlate somehow. To be expected, I suppose.



Oh, and who is going to divide it up? WE? Arent you the same ones saying we dont have the right to force democracy on them? But you think enforcing democracy AND CREATING WHAT COUNTRY THEY WILL LIVE IN IS OK.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 25, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Isn't that so typical of a dumbass; to put words into somebody's mouth....




Those are your ;words, not mine, own up to it jerkoff.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> not so...I take full responsibility for every word I type.
> 
> I only posed a rhetorical question.  Certainly, we will never be able to go back in time and figure out how we would have interacted had you not suggested that my service in Lebanon made me no more knowledgeable about the political dynamics of Islam that you....because you did suggest precisely that.
> 
> ...




So, you are allowed to break protocol and call us fucking assholes, when he says he thinks you dont have any better idea just because you served in Lebanon? Then if we reply in kind, we are assholes for doing it: but you arent?

DUDE, NOT EVERYONE who served necessarily has a better idea of what is going on then some who didnt serve. Its a large area, and Lebanon doesnt tell the whole story, much less an area that one person may have served in. So, I think he has a legitimate right to call into question your assertation, but you think its grounds for going into personal attack mode? talk about a fucking asshole.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Oh, and who is going to divide it up? WE? Arent you the same ones saying we dont have the right to force democracy on them? But you think enforcing democracy AND CREATING WHAT COUNTRY THEY WILL LIVE IN IS OK.



Where has anybody said they will have NO say in how it is divided? Of course they would have a say. Very presumptious of you to think otherwise...dumbass..


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 25, 2007)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Those are your ;words, not mine, own up to it jerkoff.




My word said it was my idea to be over there? Really dumbass? Where did I say that? And what is wrong with dividing up the country and wealth along ethnic/religious lines as long as they have input? It has been proven over and over again, they can't get along - Thanks for playing Peewee....


----------



## glockmail (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> your righteously indignant concentration on the two bolded sentences is a clear indication that you know that the rest of the post paints you into a corner so your huff and puff and ignore it.


 I did not ignore your reply, as I stated that you "[had] no substantive reply to the issues raised".


----------



## maineman (Nov 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> I did not ignore your reply, as I stated that you "[had] no substantive reply to the issues raised".



that is certainly your opinion...but it is also your opinion that multicultural democracy will thrive in Iraq and that Iraqi shiites will develop a deeper bond with Israeli-supporting Christians from America than they will to their shiite brethren the next country over who even now are supporting their most powerful militia leader.

Your opinions are clearly suspect.... but rather than address those points that I made concerning shiite allegiances, you want to claim that I did not make a substantive reply.

cute.... now...

fly fly


----------



## glockmail (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> that is certainly your opinion...but it is also your opinion that multicultural democracy will thrive in Iraq and that Iraqi shiites will develop a deeper bond with Israeli-supporting Christians from America than they will to their shiite brethren the next country over who even now are supporting their most powerful militia leader.
> 
> Your opinions are clearly suspect.... but rather than address those points that I made concerning shiite allegiances, you want to claim that I did not make a substantive reply.
> 
> ...


  The US Military will reach its goal of a stable Iraqi government as long as they have the support of the US populace. Democrats in the US are fighting hard to erode that support.

Within these Democrats are Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews, who are doing their best against Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews who are Republican. Politics trumps sectarian differences.


----------



## maineman (Nov 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> The US Military will reach its goal of a stable Iraqi government as long as they have the support of the US populace. Democrats in the US are fighting hard to erode that support.
> 
> Within these Democrats are Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews, who are doing their best against Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Jews who are Republican. Politics trumps sectarian differences.



you are like a broken record.  And you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Have you ever been anywhere outside conus?  have you ever been anywhere besides your flea infested state and ski areas that cater to your particular proclivities?    


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


----------



## glockmail (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you are like a broken record.  And you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  Have you ever been anywhere outside conus?  have you ever been anywhere besides your flea infested state and ski areas that cater to your particular proclivities?
> 
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071125/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq



From your source, emphasis added: 





> Al-Hakim, who has been undergoing treatment for lung cancer in Iran, said the Iranians have insisted in meetings with Iraqi officials that *"their true will is to support the Iraqi government" and to promote stability*.
> 
> "They have a long history of standing by the Iraqi people and that is their official stance that is presented to the press without any hesitation," he said.
> 
> Al-Hakim spent years in exile in Iran during Saddam's regime and is considered closer to the Iranians than any of the major Iraqi Shiite leaders. *His party has also closely cooperated with American authorities since the 2003 collapse of Saddam's regime, and he has met with President Bush in the Oval Office*.


Once again you have resorted to personal insults, and have no substantive reply to the issues raised, both clear indications that you have lost the debate.


----------



## maineman (Nov 25, 2007)

you emphasize this:

*Iranians have insisted in meetings with Iraqi officials that "their true will is to support the Iraqi government" and to promote stability.*

and you cannot see how such a quotation supports my assertion and not yours?

But look..... this is all hypothetical now anyway.  

You can claim that the Iraqi government that emerges before and after our departure will be a multi-cultural multi-sectarian America loving Iranian distrusting beacon of freedom.  

I can claim that the Iraqi government will be more closely aligned with Tehran than Washington....

we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> you emphasize this:
> 
> *Iranians have insisted in meetings with Iraqi officials that "their true will is to support the Iraqi government" and to promote stability.*
> 
> ...


 It would be nice if all Democrats would just "wait and see" instead of actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the Iranians.


----------



## maineman (Nov 25, 2007)

glockmail said:


> It would be nice if all Democrats would just "wait and see" instead of actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the Iranians.



I know of no democrats who are "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 25, 2007)

maineman said:


> I know of no democrats who are "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".



Then your blind and unable to hear the news as well. But I doubt that, your just politically willing to lie for your side.


----------



## Psychoblues (Nov 26, 2007)

What the hell news are you watching, rgs?




RetiredGySgt said:


> Then your blind and unable to hear the news as well. But I doubt that, your just politically willing to lie for your side.



Are you just repeating bullshit that the comedians on FauxNews and Rush Limpdick are feeding to you?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then your blind and unable to hear the news as well. But I doubt that, your just politically willing to lie for your side.




no.... dittoheads like you just mischaracterize the debate over the wisdom of continuing the action in Iraq as "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".  You are incapable of showing me one elected democratic official who has done or said anything to *actively promote *instability in the Iraqi government.  If you could, you would have instead of just pulling your standard righteous blustering act.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.... dittoheads like you just mischaracterize the debate over the wisdom of continuing the action in Iraq as "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".  You are incapable of showing me one elected democratic official who has done or said anything to *actively promote *instability in the Iraqi government.  If you could, you would have instead of just pulling your standard righteous blustering act.



Oh really, so earlier this year when all your leaders in the House and Senate said that failure to meet their demands or timetable would result in them withdrawing all US support was NOT destablizing to the Iraqi Government or the people that support it?

As for a dittohead, I neither watch TV news nor listen to Radio except music. Rush is not a hero of mine, I do not listen to him and in the past have only seen his show maybe 5 times when it was on and listen to portions of his radio show maybe 3 times.

Further I am not a Fan Boy of Bush, he was however the best choice of those given in 2000 and 2004. In fact Bush should have lost in 2004 but you idiots in the Democratic party picked a bigger problem them him to run against him. YOU lost 2004. PLAIN and SIMPLE and you admit every time you call him stupid or any other derogatory name. The Independents pick our Presidents, and they sided with Bush because Kerry is such a FUCKING loser that even Bush was better than him. Even with every major network but one backing him, slanting the news in his favor and publish lies about Bush, guess what? Kerry was such a BAD choice that couldn't help him.

In 2006 you and your liberal buddies didn't win either, you had to run about 30 Conservative Democrats to pull it out and even then just by a squeaker. The Republicans screwed up and paid for it. Now the Dems are to stupid to see their antics and games are doing the same thing.

The only way they win in 2008 will be because the Republicans don't wise up and run a conservative candidate. The Front runner for the Republicans is the worst possible choice. You should be happy if he gets the nod cause even if your candidate loses you will still have a left of center President.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Oh really, so earlier this year when all your leaders in the House and Senate said that failure to meet their demands or timetable would result in them withdrawing all US support was NOT destablizing to the Iraqi Government or the people that support it?


Of course it was.  
Any time the coach conceedes the game before half-time, the players can't help but be disheartened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Of course it was.
> Any time the coach conceedes the game before half-time, the players can't help but be disheartened.



And of course earlier this year when the Leaders of the Congress made outright personal attacks on the leader of Iraq, that too was not destabalizing in the least.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Oh really, so earlier this year when all your leaders in the House and Senate said that failure to meet their demands or timetable would result in them withdrawing all US support was NOT destablizing to the Iraqi Government or the people that support it?
> 
> As for a dittohead, I neither watch TV news nor listen to Radio except music. Rush is not a hero of mine, I do not listen to him and in the past have only seen his show maybe 5 times when it was on and listen to portions of his radio show maybe 3 times.
> 
> ...



If the content of the legitimate debate in congress has the unintended effect of destabilizing the government in Iraq, that is no proof that anyone actively promoted such destabilization... or is the difference lost on you?

Some people use words like an artist uses paint...some people use words like a housepainter uses paint.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And of course earlier this year when the Leaders of the Congress made outright personal attacks on the leader of Iraq, that too was not destabalizing in the least.




and are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government?  really????


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government?  really????


"Outright personal attacks" are "voicing criticism" in your book?

That explains a LOT, Skippy - you fucking asshole.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government?  really????



Are you now backing away from your claim that NO democrat undermined the Iraqi Government?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you now backing away from your claim that NO democrat undermined the Iraqi Government?



No.  I am standing firmly behind my assertion that no democrat actively promoted instability in the Iraqi government.  Now...will you quit tap dancing and answer MY question:

are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> Some people use words like an artist uses paint...some people use words like a housepainter uses paint.


And use you them like a queer uses a queen.
What's that make you?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And use you them like a queer uses a queen.
> What's that make you?




if you are going to use words in adolescent taunts, I would suggest that you work harder at putting them in the right order.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> If the content of the legitimate debate in congress has the unintended effect of destabilizing the government in Iraq, that is no proof that anyone actively promoted such destabilization... or is the difference lost on you?


 
Oh I see.... 
So, when the Dems do something its an 'unintended effect'.
When Bush (supposedly) does the same, its a deiberate "lie".

Have you ever stopped to consider just how far your head is up your ass, or do you think that shit running through your skull is natural?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> if you are going to use words in adolescent taunts, I would suggest that you work harder at putting them in the right order.



Adolescent taunts...  like 'fucking asshole'?

Classic Skippy:
He doesnt understand something, so he blames the person who says it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> No.  I am standing firmly behind my assertion that no democrat actively promoted instability in the Iraqi government.  Now...will you quit tap dancing and answer MY question:
> 
> are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government?



Obviously Congress can do what ever they want. But you do not then get to claim they did not say it to destabilize Iraq.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Obviously Congress can do what ever they want. But you do not then get to claim they did not say it to destabilize Iraq.



Of course I can.  You cannot simply attach motives to speech in absence of any proof.  To suggest that you know WHY someone said what they said - and in this case for you to suggest that someone was critical of the Iraqi government for the express purpose of actively promoting that government's destabilization - is patently absurd.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> And use you them like a queer uses a queen.
> What's that make you?




are you really suggesting that the placement of the second and third words of that post are as you intended them to be?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oh I see....
> So, when the Dems do something its an 'unintended effect'.
> When Bush (supposedly) does the same, its a deiberate "lie".



I don't see the correlation.  Congress debates issues.  Democrats in congress express doubt as to the effectiveness of the Maliki administration's efforts.  Do YOU have a great deal of confidence in the Maliki adminstration's effectiveness thus far?  Does expressing that lack of confidence really equate to actively promoting the destabilization of that government?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't see the correlation.  Congress debates issues.  Democrats in congress express doubt as to the effectiveness of the Maliki administration's efforts.  Do YOU have a great deal of confidence in the Maliki adminstration's effectiveness thus far?  Does expressing that lack of confidence really equate to actively promoting the destabilization of that government?



YES it does. That you pretend otherwise is FUCKING hilarious.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I know of no democrats who are "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".


OK so you don't know Pelosi and Reid personally. But they and others are.


----------



## glockmail (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I don't see the correlation.  Congress debates issues.  Democrats in congress express doubt as to the effectiveness of the Maliki administration's efforts.  Do YOU have a great deal of confidence in the Maliki adminstration's effectiveness thus far?  Does expressing that lack of confidence really equate to actively promoting the destabilization of that government?


 Yes, and when tied to their attempts to destablize our military efforts, it is obvious that this is true.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> YES it does. That you pretend otherwise is FUCKING hilarious.




do YOU have confidence in the Maliki government's effectiveness?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

*"That may be putting it mildly. The chief of the independent Government Accountability Office, David Walker, told Congress Sept. 4 that the Iraqi government is dysfunctional. While not as sharply worded, the new administration report concludes that the Iraqi government has to get energized, start delivering municipal services far more widely and push harder to reconcile warring parties, or all the security progress wont mean a thing."*

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/military_newprogressreport_070917/

Is the GAO "actively promoting the destabilization of the Iraqi government" by issuing that report?  Is the AirForceTimes doing the same by publicizing it?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> Of course I can.  You cannot simply attach motives to speech in absence of any proof.


YOU do, you fucking asshole -- why can't he?



> To suggest that you know WHY someone said what they said - is patently absurd.


Except when YOU do it ---  right, Skippy?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> *"That may be putting it mildly. The chief of the independent Government Accountability Office, David Walker, told Congress Sept. 4 that the Iraqi government is dysfunctional. While not as sharply worded, the new administration report concludes that the Iraqi government has to get energized, start delivering municipal services far more widely and push harder to reconcile warring parties, or all the security progress wont mean a thing."*
> 
> http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/military_newprogressreport_070917/
> 
> Is the GAO "actively promoting the destabilization of the Iraqi government" by issuing that report?  Is the AirForceTimes doing the same by publicizing it?



Not the News but yes the GAO is destabilizing the Government of Iraq. Actively, I would say no since they are looking for a movement in said Government. But that is NOT what the Leaders of the Dems do in Congress. They actively threaten to cut off funding and support to the Government, they openly condemn it and it's leaders and they actively are trying to remove the US military from helping said Government protect it's citizens.

But again neither here nor there, YOU made a statement that is patently false and you have even admitted it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not the News but yes the GAO is destabilizing the Government of Iraq. Actively, I would say no since they are looking for a movement in said Government. But that is NOT what the Leaders of the Dems do in Congress. They actively threaten to cut off funding and support to the Government, they openly condemn it and it's leaders and they actively are trying to remove the US military from helping said Government protect it's citizens.
> 
> But again neither here nor there, YOU made a statement that is patently false and you have even admitted it.



bullshit.  I have made no such statement and no such admission.  Democratic leaders threaten to cut off support for the Iraqi government...because they are tired of throwing money - our money - at an Iraqi government that does not seem to be able to get its act together.  That is completley different than actively promoting the Iraqi government's inability to get its act together.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> bullshit.  I have made no such statement and no such admission.  Democratic leaders threaten to cut off support for the Iraqi government...because they are tired of throwing money - our money - at an Iraqi government that does not seem to be able to get its act together.  That is completley different than actively promoting the Iraqi government's inability to get its act together.



And you are wrong yet again...




> the Iranians.
> I know of no democrats who are "actively promoting instability in the current Iraqi government".



post 737


and  



> and are you really suggesting that members of congress are precluded from voicing criticism of Maliki and his government? really????



post 745

So much for your claims.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you are wrong yet again...
> post 737
> and
> post 745
> ...



let me get this straight:  

are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?

So...if that is the case, were all the republicans who were critical of President Clinton "actively promoting instability" in our nation's government?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?


Why not?
After all, according to your pathetic ass, linking Iraq and AQ is the same thing as linking Iraq and 9/11.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> let me get this straight:
> 
> are you REALLY suggesting to me that "voicing criticism of the Iraqi government" is the same thing as "actively promoting instability" in that government?
> 
> So...if that is the case, were all the republicans who were critical of President Clinton "actively promoting instability" in our nation's government?



Depends? Did they threaten to remove any of his money? Any of his power? Any of his authority? Other then the legally authorized Impeachment process perhaps you can point me to any attempt to convince the Government agencies and the people to boot him from office?

Perhaps you can point me to any attempts to aid armed enemies to kill him or his supporters. Threatening to cut off the Presidential Budget? Denying the money to Democrats in Congress? Threatening to remove the Capitol police from the White House or shutting down the Secret Service? I will, as you say, wait for an answer.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Depends? Did they threaten to remove any of his money? Any of his power? Any of his authority? Other then the legally authorized Impeachment process perhaps you can point me to any attempt to convince the Government agencies and the people to boot him from office?
> 
> Perhaps you can point me to any attempts to aid armed enemies to kill him or his supporters. Threatening to cut off the Presidential Budget? Denying the money to Democrats in Congress? Threatening to remove the Capitol police from the White House or shutting down the Secret Service? I will, as you say, wait for an answer.




so you really are suggesting that having a debate as to the wisdom of continuting to fund an Iraqi government that even the administration admits is dysfunctional is synonymous with actively promoting the destabilization of that government?  do I have that right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> so you really are suggesting that having a debate as to the wisdom of continuting to fund an Iraqi government that even the administration admits is dysfunctional is synonymous with actively promoting the destabilization of that government?  do I have that right?



That is not what your dems have done though. They have openly threatened to cut off funds to an ally if that Democraticly elected Government does not do what THEY say must be done. And they have done it by threatening the leader of the Country openly and Publically.

 It is one thing to debate what should be done it is totally wrong to threaten a leader of a democratically elected Government and an ALLY.

Remind me again how the Republicans during Clinton's term threatened to remove Police and Secret Service, to deny him use of Airforce one or command of the Military. Prove me wrong, go ahead, I am still waiting.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is not what your dems have done though. They have openly threatened to cut off funds to an ally if that Democraticly elected Government does not do what THEY say must be done. And they have done it by threatening the leader of the Country openly and Publically.
> 
> It is one thing to debate what should be done it is totally wrong to threaten a leader of a democratically elected Government and an ALLY.
> 
> Remind me again how the Republicans during Clinton's term threatened to remove Police and Secret Service, to deny him use of Airforce one or command of the Military. Prove me wrong, go ahead, I am still waiting.



It is not threatening.  It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can.  It is NOT "actively promoting instability".  Why won't you just admit that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is not threatening.  It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can.  It is NOT "actively promoting instability".  Why won't you just admit that?


It is not linking Iraq and 9/11.  It is suggesting that Iraq was linked to AQ.  It is NOT lying to the American people that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
Why won't you just admit that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> It is not threatening.  It is suggesting that the current Iraqi government either needs to get its shit together or bring in leadership that can.  It is NOT "actively promoting instability".  Why won't you just admit that?



Gotta go for awhile, BUT I won't admit it because it is not true. Openly threatening the President of a Country and Publically calling him incompetent IS a personal attack. Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gotta go for awhile, BUT I won't admit it because it is not true. Openly threatening the President of a Country and Publically calling him incompetent IS a personal attack. Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it.



No one is threatening the man.  Democrats are calling him incompetent.  Do you think that he is competent? 

you said:  "Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it"

so.... when republicans were complaining that Clinton should have stepped down rather than put the nation through the tribulations of the impeachment trial, those calls for Clinton's resignation were an act of destabilizing our government?  Correct?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> No one is threatening the man.  Democrats are calling him incompetent.  Do you think that he is competent?
> 
> you said:  "Claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down is an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, no other way to put it"
> 
> so.... when republicans were complaining that Clinton should have stepped down rather than put the nation through the tribulations of the impeachment trial, those calls for Clinton's resignation were an act of destabilizing our government?  Correct?


Why do you people always bring Clinton into this?

Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you people always bring Clinton into this?
> 
> Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?



I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy.  If you can't answer RGS's questions for him perhaps you should step aside and wait til he gets back and can try to carry his own water.

But to answer YOUR question.....not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.  Governments are bigger than individuals.  Democrats would LOVE the Iraqi government to be stable.  They have ZERO desire to destabilize it.  They DO, however, want to see the current leadership of that government start showing that they are being effective stewards of the boatloads of american taxpayer dollars we are pouring into that government.  Our own military commanders on the ground now see the inability of the Maliki government to settle the political landscape as the greatest single threat to longterm Iraqi stability....moreso than sectarian violence or foreign extremists.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy.


No, you do it because you know your point can't stand on its own and you need to deflect attention away from your own incompetence.

What a fucking trog.

But, I expect that from you, as that's all you ever do.
Now, on to more important matters:

I asked you:


> Is the act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' an act of DESTABILIZING that Government, or is it not?



You said:


> Not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.



This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

For you to be right, you must show that, in Iraq,  this to be the case.

Get busy, Skippy.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I bring Clinton into it because the statement begs the analogy.  If you can't answer RGS's questions for him perhaps you should step aside and wait til he gets back and can try to carry his own water.
> 
> But to answer YOUR question.....not if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.  Governments are bigger than individuals.  Democrats would LOVE the Iraqi government to be stable.  They have ZERO desire to destabilize it.  They DO, however, want to see the current leadership of that government start showing that they are being effective stewards of the boatloads of american taxpayer dollars we are pouring into that government.  Our own military commanders on the ground now see the inability of the Maliki government to settle the political landscape as the greatest single threat to longterm Iraqi stability....moreso than sectarian violence or foreign extremists.



In fact, we demand,(mandate) that our leader step down after 8 years ...
and by having an election sooner, seems like the citizens have the opportunity to have him step down after only 4 years....does this destabilize the United States.....I think not...


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> In fact, we demand,(mandate) that our leader step down after 8 years ...
> and by having an election sooner, seems like the citizens have the opportunity to have him step down after only 4 years....does this destabilize the United States.....I think not...



and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?



This would be amazing funny, if it weren't so pathetic.

Aside from the fact that what you typed had absolutely nothing to do with what he said....

If the Bush administration suggested that we have "some modicum of input", regardless of context, you'd be the first fucking trog among a zillion fucking trogs to scream "Bush's puppet government!"


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> No, you do it because you know your point can't stand on its own and you need to deflect attention away from your own incompetence.
> 
> *you really need to get over this mistaken belief that you know people's motivations so well that you can contradict them....it really is quite tedious and sophomoric.*
> 
> ...



*No...for me to be wrong, you would need to prove that the result of the leader stepping down would be even greater destabilization... pretty tough to quantify... and, beyond that, you would need to prove that democrats "hoped for" and "actively promoted" that further destabilization and not merely improved performance and increased accountability.  Perhaps YOU should get busy.*


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

you need to rethink your entire approach here....you really are not the amazing Carnak.  You should maybe wait until I actually have said something rather than you current MO of "predicting" what I would say and then criticizing me based upon your prediction.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> *No...for me to be wrong, you would need to prove that the result of the leader stepping down would be even greater destabilization...
> *


*
Its your claim, Skippy -- its up to you to prove it.
Of course, you know this, and, of course, you know you cannot prove it, so you'll do everyting you can to avoid it - but:

YOU claim that:
The act of 'claiming the ELECTED leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of DESTABILIZING that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.  

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

Its up to you to show this to be true re: Iraq.

So, get busy.*


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> you need to rethink your entire approach here....you really are not the amazing Carnak.  You should maybe wait until I actually have said something rather than you current MO of "predicting" what I would say and then criticizing me based upon your prediction.


Whatever you say, Skippy.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its your claim, Skippy -- its up to you to prove it.
> Of course, you know this, and, of course, you know you cannot prove it, so you'll do everyting you can to avoid it - but:
> 
> YOU claim that:
> ...



my claim is that democrats are not actively promoting destabilization in Iraq.  I stand by it and would suggest that the record of democratic commentary on the Maliki government proves my case.  Clearly, one can never KNOW what the future holds - but it is clear that the democrats are not actively promoting failure or destabilization in Iraq.  We are actively promoting accountability, effectiveness and results from the Iraqi government.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why not?
> After all, according to your pathetic ass, linking Iraq and AQ is the same thing as linking Iraq and 9/11.



Linking Saddam's government to AQ operatives at a time before 9/11 who were central figures in the 9/11 attacks is the same thing.  But your statement is an inaccurate analogy in any case.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> my claim is that democrats are not actively promoting destabilization in Iraq.


Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

So, show that to be true.

C'mon, Skippy -- get your boyfriend's penis out of your mouth, and show us that Vastly Superior Intellect (tm) you keep telling us you have.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> Linking Saddam's government to AQ operatives at a time before 9/11 who were central figures in the 9/11 attacks is the same thing.  But your statement is an inaccurate analogy in any case.



Yes, yes -- we all know its DIFFERENT when YOU do it.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.
> 
> This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.
> 
> ...



no.  you show it to be false.  Show proof that Maliki being replaced by an effective leader who could actually make progress in resolving the sectarian political issues would further destabilize Iraq instead of exactly the opposite.

And I have never told anyone that I have a vastly superior intellect.

and your sophomoric gay insults are unnecessary, I must say, and they detract from the already marginal quality of your presentation.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes, yes -- we all know its DIFFERENT when YOU do it.



it is only different when I do it if I have, in fact, made a valid analogy.  I suppose it might be different if YOU were to make a valid analogy as well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  you show it to be false.


Its YOUR claim, Skippy.  
Its up to YOU to support yuour claims when challenged, not for anyone to disprove it.

So, get busy, Skippy.

Or, you can run away from your claim like the coward that you truly are.



> And I have never told anyone that I have a vastly superior intellect.


You tell us all the time how smart you are.
Its a good thing you keep reminding us, because your posts certainly don't lead anyone to that conclusion.



> and your sophomoric gay insults are unnecessary, I must say,


Its only an insult if it isn't true.
Prove that it isn't true.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> it is only different when I do it if I have, in fact, made a valid analogy.  I suppose it might be different if YOU were to make a valid analogy as well.



The truly sickening thing here is that you actually believe what you're saying.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Its YOUR claim, Skippy.
> Its up to YOU to support yuour claims when challenged, not for anyone to disprove it.



no.  I have, all along, challenged RGS's claim that democrats are actively promoting destabilization of the government of Iraq.   That is the claim that needs to be supported.  If you would like to do that for him, please feel free.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> no.  I have, all along, challenged RGS's claim that democrats are actively promoting destabilization of the government of Iraq.


Yes -- by arguing that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

As I have said, and as you continue to refuse to address - this is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.

I knew you were a coward, Skippy -- thanks for the proof.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes -- by arguing that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.
> 
> As I have said, and as you continue to refuse to address - this is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.



suggesting that an elected leader should step down is not actively promoting the destabilization of the government.  As I said earlier, suggesting that Bill Clinton resign rather than put America through the ordeal of an impeachment was a suggestion that was made by republicans.  No one has ever suggested that they were actively promoting the destabilization of the government of the United States when making that suggestion.  They made that suggestion because they believed it was in the BEST interest of increasing the stabilization of our government.  Now, for the sake of this discussion, Clinton HAD stepped down and, the result was that the government DID become destabilized, that would STILL not mean that the republicans who had advocated Clinton resigning had been actively promoting goverment destabilization.  Suggesting that Maliki step down so that a more effective leader might take his place is a suggestion designed to promote the stabilization of the Iraqi government, not the opposite.  Is that really that hard for you to grasp?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

and shooter...I have been trying very hard to keep a reasonably civil tone with you in this matter.  I really have grown weary of heated pissing contests on here where insults seemingly become the _raison d'etre _for the discussion and the real subject matter takes a back seat.  If you would like to join me in elevating our discussions to a higher plane, I would enjoy it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> suggesting that an elected leader should step down is not actively promoting the destabilization of the government.


Yes.  You said that.

Its is NOT actively promoting the destabilization of the government IF, as you said, if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.

And so, for you to be right, you have to show that -- wait for it -- the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.



> As I said earlier, suggesting that Bill Clinton...


This is 2007, dumbass.  
Bill Clinton is as irrelevant to anything today as your time in Navy.
Now, stop prancing, corwad-boy - grow some balls. 

Prove your claim to be correct, or admit that you can't.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and if some other country is footing the bill, do you think that they should have some modicum of input as to how that government is doing as a steward of that money as a condition of maintaining that voluntary largesse?



Your amazing, really you are.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't you among many say we had no business deposing a Dictator in a war he caused? That we were interfering in another Countries affairs?

Haven't you insisted Bush has no business interfering in that duely elected ( by a democratic process of it's citizens) Governments business?

Now your on about how a Liberal run Congress does HAVE just that right. To not only interfer BUT to demand the resignation of a freely elected leader for no other reason then they hate Bush. To threaten an ally with removal of troops to help stabilize their Country, to threaten removal of aid to said Government unless it cow tows to demands of the Liberals. 

Lets recap shall we? Bush shouldn't interfere BUT the Liberals should. If Bush tells Iraq what to do and it does it, thats BAD, but if Liberals tell Iraq what to do they better damn do it?

Have I got your position down right? Did I miss something? I did mention that you think OUR Government ( or rather the democrats in congress) should be free to ORDER an other Country to depose their leader, a Leader elected by a democratic vote and the process of their legally applied Documents establishing said Government. That about right? Ohh wait I forgot, doing so is not at all a destabilizing factor at all in said Government? That about right Maineman?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Your claim is based -entirely- on the idea that the act of 'claiming the elected leader of a country should step down' is NOT an act of destabalizing that Government if the current leader is running an unstable ineffective administration.
> 
> This is only true if the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.
> 
> ...



Uncalled for. Keep the personal insults to a low boil, the above is completely unacceptable. You lose all credibility when you resort to this crap.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your amazing, really you are.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't you among many say we had no business deposing a Dictator in a war he caused? That we were interfering in another Countries affairs?
> 
> ...



This is almost 2008, dumbass.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> This is almost 2008, dumbass.



Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that THIS year the liberals in Congress have done all I have said they did. Or is it only valid if they say it next year too?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and shooter...I have been trying very hard to keep a reasonably civil tone with you in this matter.


What horseshit.  

Would you like for me to post your numerous, directly offensive personal attacks against me, your whining about me referring to you as "skippy" as a "personal attack", and then your refusal to admit hat you had anything to apologize for?

Or will you simply deny that you ever said such things, the direct links to the statements notwithstanding?



> If you would like to join me in elevating our discussions to a higher plane, I would enjoy it.


You may apologize at your earliest convenience, Skippy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> What horseshit.
> 
> Would you like for me to post your numerous, directly offensive personal attacks against me, your whining about me referring to you as "skippy" as a "personal attack", and then your refusal to admit hat you had anything to apologize for?
> 
> ...



Your gay comment was uncalled for. Plain and simple, further _ would sugget it violates board policy_.

Call him stupid or skip or any other mundane name or phrase you want. Keep the offensive ignorant crap out of it.

Here let me explain something to you, so your aware. Maineman is a Sailor, he may be a slimy officer sailor but he IS a sailor. Unless you prove to me YOUR a sailor or a Marine, keep it clean or I will be forced to come after you. 

I don't even mind if you tell him to fuck off. But the other crap is ignorant and way to personal. Further it completely destroys any credibility you have.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your amazing, really you are.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't you among many say we had no business deposing a Dictator in a war he caused? That we were interfering in another Countries affairs?
> 
> ...



not so in the least. I am all for leaving right this minute.  taking our troops, our equipment and our money and letting Maliki and company do whatever the hell they want to do with Iraq. I NEVER said that we should be free to ORDER anyone to do anything.  We ARE free, however, to take our checkbook and go home, aren't we?  I think that Maliki is doing an abysmal job.  I think he is squandering opportunities to bridge gaps.  I think his inactivity and ineffectiveness is serving to destabilize the situation.  So do the intelligence agencies of our government.  I think that we should expect him to live up to expectations or quit bankrolling his failure on the backs of the American taxpayer.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> .
> 
> And so, for you to be right, you have to show that -- wait for it -- the leader stepping down would not further destabalize the government.




you act as if the statement above is some universally accepted truth.  Like the law of gravity or something.  That is only what YOU think I need to do.  I think that you need to prove the reverse.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> What horseshit.
> 
> Would you like for me to post your numerous, directly offensive personal attacks against me, your whining about me referring to you as "skippy" as a "personal attack", and then your refusal to admit hat you had anything to apologize for?
> 
> ...



I said, "in this matter".  I realize that we both have been rather insulting to one another in the past.  I have been trying to raise the tone and am merely asking if you would like to do something similar.

If not...fine.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> you act as if the statement above is some universally accepted truth.  Like the law of gravity or something.  That is only what YOU think I need to do.  I think that you need to prove the reverse.



Remind me again.... how one is not required to prove a negative and that the one making the initial argument is required to prove their point? Or does that only count for Liberals?


----------



## Shogun (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind me again.... how one is not required to prove a negative and that the one making the initial argument is required to prove their point? Or does that only count for Liberals?




It's certainly counted for every righty hellbent on believing in the myth of those phantom WMDs, no?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I said, "in this matter".  I realize that we both have been rather insulting to one another in the past.  I have been trying to raise the tone and am merely asking if you would like to do something similar.
> If not...fine.


So you're just whining about it, rather than actually doing what's necessary to actually bring about a change.

Typical liberal.   

If you arent man enough to apologize for bringing all of this about, then you're nothing more than a potty-mouthed child -- and shall be regarded as such.

Step up, son.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 26, 2007)

Shogun said:


> It's certainly counted for every righty hellbent on believing in the myth of those phantom WMDs, no?



Wait.  That might not count.  What year was that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> you act as if the statement above is some universally accepted truth.  Like the law of gravity or something.  That is only what YOU think I need to do.  I think that you need to prove the reverse.


I see that the rules of logic dont apply in your pathetic little world.   

You'll note that I am not at all surprised.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

Shogun said:


> It's certainly counted for every righty hellbent on believing in the myth of those phantom WMDs, no?



Another Red herring from the left, to be expected. I suggest you go watch Bush's State of the Union Address that year and his STATED purposes for invading Iraq. Further I suggest you ask why EVERY other Western Country believed he had WMD's, why the UN still believed he might have them ( or were they just running inspections as a scam) and why Saddam Himself convinced his own Generals he still had them.

But do now go on to the point, which is to claim Bush lied again. You can't prove that one either, even though you have had 4 years, one of them with Democrats in control of both houses. Do keep saying it though, some retard down the street may believe you.


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So you're just whining about it, rather than actually doing what's necessary to actually bring about a change.
> 
> 
> If you arent man enough to apologize for bringing all of this about, then you're nothing more than a potty-mouthed child -- and shall be regarded as such.



I am not whining at all.  I am merely pointing out that I am attempting to raise the tone of the discourse.  If you are suggesting that you are somehow the wronged party in this matter - that I insulted you wrongly and without provocation, and that some formal apology from me is necessary to cause that elevation in tone, I am more than willing to offer my apologies for any remarks you may have found insulting - and I do so.  I would suggest, however, that your hands are hardly clean in this matter and if you are so insistent upon contrition, you might consider offering up a dose of it yourself.


----------



## mattskramer (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> This is 2007, dumbass.
> Bill Clinton is as irrelevant to anything today as your time in Navy.
> Now, stop prancing, corwad-boy - grow some balls.



As long as the variables are the same and the values for those variables are similar, time is irrelevant.  MMs post (number 795) was very insightful.   The comparison between the desire for Maliki to step down for the sake of Iraq and the desire for Clinton to have steped down for the sake of America is valid (The former was made by liberals and the later was made by conservatives.)  Liberals do not see Malikis step down as instability for Iraq just as conservatives do not see Clintons step down as instability for America.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> As long as the variables are the same and the values for those variables are similar, time is irrelevant.  MMs post (number 795) was very insightful.   The comparison between the desire for Maliki to step down for the sake of Iraq and the desire for Clinton to have steped down for the sake of America is valid (The former was made by liberals and the later was made by conservatives.)  Liberals do not see Malikis step down as instability for Iraq just as conservatives do not see Clintons step down as instability for America.



Well except for the whole Dem position that we should not ever interfere in another countries Government. A case of do as I say not as I do, ehh?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well except for the whole Dem position that we should not ever interfere in another countries Government. A case of do as I say not as I do, ehh?



like I said.... the fact that we are totally bankrolling the Iraqi government when we weren't under Saddam changes the calculus a bit... 

or don't you care that your tax dollars are being wasted by an ineffective Iraqi government?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> like I said.... the fact that we are totally bankrolling the Iraqi government when we weren't under Saddam changes the calculus a bit...
> 
> or don't you care that your tax dollars are being wasted by an ineffective Iraqi government?



We do not bankroll the whole Government that is a bald face lie. But your real good at that today aren't you?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We do not bankroll the whole Government that is a bald face lie. But your real good at that today aren't you?



it's called rhetorical hyperbole, but if you'd like, I dumb it down to My Weekly Reader level for you if you'd like.  Regardless, I really dislike being called a liar, and would ask you to refrain from that in the future.  thank you.

By the way...I have to go have dinner, but I'll be back around the time that Mickey's little hand is on the seven and his big hand is on the twelve.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> it's called rhetorical hyperbole, but if you'd like, I dumb it down to My Weekly Reader level for you if you'd like.  Regardless, I really dislike being called a liar, and would ask you to refrain from that in the future.  thank you.
> 
> By the way...I have to go have dinner, but I'll be back around the time that Mickey's little hand is on the seven and his big hand is on the twelve.



Sorry being a stupid Marine I do not know what time that is, could you tell me in the 24 hour clock please?

It comes down to a simple fact , You believe if Bush intervenes it is bad, if the Dems do it, it is good.... simple enough to understand, even a 5 year old can get that from your "talking points"


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 26, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Why not?
> After all, according to your pathetic ass, linking Iraq and AQ is the same thing as linking Iraq and 9/11.



This might make Dumbest Post of the Month...
then again you still have another three days to trump yourself...


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sorry being a stupid Marine I do not know what time that is, could you tell me in the 24 hour clock please?
> 
> It comes down to a simple fact , You believe if Bush intervenes it is bad, if the Dems do it, it is good.... simple enough to understand, even a 5 year old can get that from your "talking points"




1900...but my wife took my out to a cute little restaurant for dessert and an after dinner drink, so I was delayed an hour or so...

But to your point....no.... at some point, you can "oversimplify" and you have here.  

Bush invaded a sovereign nation that had no connection to the attack against us.  He was able to do so only because a majority of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with the attacks on us.  You and I can have a difference of opinion about how that majority of Americans came to believe that inaccurate connection, but there really is little doubt, I would think, that had an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that the public will to put our search for AQ on the back burner and, instead, invade, conquer and occupy Iraq for four plus years because he had been in violation of some UN sanctions would NOT have been there.  But alas, a majority of the people did NOT believe the truth, they believed a fiction and that belief gave Bush the public support he needed to put the pressure on the congress to authorize his use of force and he DID invade, conquer, and occupy that sovereign nation.  THAT is one form of "intervention".

Now that we are there....now that we have suffered 31K dead and wounded Americans...now that we have wasted four plus years spinning our wheels in the real fight against our real enemies...now that we have tried our damnedest to get these three ethnic sects who hate one another to try to get along and create some semblance of democracy.... now that we have spent a *TRILLION* dollars trying to facilitate that democratic group hug, the democrats in congress are looking at reports that show that the failure of the Maliki government to make any meaningful progress in solving the political issues that separate those sects is the MOST serious roadblock to success in Iraq - greater even than foreign insurgents or sectarian violence - those democrats are beginning to look at all that time and all those casualties and ALL THAT MONEY that we flush down this toilet called a Maliki administration in this shithouse called Iraq - and they are critical of this yahoo's lack of leadership...lack of progress.... lack of any real hope that he will ever turn this thing around...and they are asking if maybe things might go a little better if some OTHER shiite politician were trying to make it all work.  Now THAT is also "intervention".

But for you to oversimplify that to say that those interventions are, in any substantive or ethical way, similar is silly....and deep down, you know it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> 1900...but my wife took my out to a cute little restaurant for dessert and an after dinner drink, so I was delayed an hour or so...
> 
> But to your point....no.... at some point, you can "oversimplify" and you have here.
> 
> ...



Some may  oversimplify issues...you seem to just mis-state facts.....


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Some may  oversimplify issues...you seem to just mis-state facts.....




and you, for some reason, don't think that politicians listen to their constituents when casting such a vote?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> and you, for some reason, don't think that politicians listen to their constituents when casting such a vote?



Almost never....thats about average.....if they actually did.....the southern border would be closed....the Dims would have us out of Iraq....taxes would be lower....etc. or is this rhetorical hyperbole ? Or am I not allowed to use that ?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Almost never....thats about average.....if they actually did.....the southern border would be closed....the Dims would have us out of Iraq....taxes would be lower....etc. or is this rhetorical hyperbole ? Or am I not allowed to use that ?



I am suggesting that popular opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Saddam.  The vote was taken less than a month before the midterm elections. Congress was well aware of that fact.  I guess you weren't?


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am suggesting that popular opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Saddam.  The vote was taken less than a month before the midterm elections. Congress was well aware of that fact.  I guess you weren't?


 Well, mate..you've a right to suggest any damn thing you want....

Believing what I do about a majority of Americans....most didn't know who the hell Saddam was, couldn't tell you if Iraq was in the middle east or Africa, didn't have a clue who attack the WTC....couldn't name even one of their Senators, or who the VP was at the time......some I would bet wouldn't even know who the serving President was ...... so I'll take you suggestion with a huge grain of salt, as they say....


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

And I might add.....those that voted AGAINST the resolution were still reelected for the most part.....so you suggestion defies the facts, no ?


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> And I might add.....those that voted AGAINST the resolution were still reelected for the most part.....so you suggestion defies the facts, no ?



only if you are of the belief that public opinion was uniformly homogenous across all congressional districts and that the strength of incumbents who voted against it was equally uniform as was the attractiveness of all of their opponents.

_for you to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect._

*edit:  it was getting late...the italicized sentence above is, in retrospect, nonsensical and Alpha is "right" to question it.  What I was trying to say - and failed miserably at - was that many democrats did vote for the legislation out of political expediency and many of those that voted against, and still kept their seats, considered the strength of public opinion in their states and districts prior to casting that vote... and some of those who voted against it, did so clearly out of conscience and let the midterm votes fall where they may.  see #831 below.*


----------



## maineman (Nov 26, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Well, mate..you've a right to suggest any damn thing you want....
> 
> Believing what I do about a majority of Americans....most didn't know who the hell Saddam was, couldn't tell you if Iraq was in the middle east or Africa, didn't have a clue who attack the WTC....couldn't name even one of their Senators, or who the VP was at the time......some I would bet wouldn't even know who the serving President was ...... so I'll take you suggestion with a huge grain of salt, as they say....




shit, write...you wouldn't admit I made a point if your life depended on it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 26, 2007)

maineman said:


> only if you are of the belief that public opinion was uniformly homogenous across all congressional districts and that the strength of incumbents who voted against it was equally uniform as was the attractiveness of all of their opponents.
> 
> for you to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect.



 Well just the hell is your point....first you claim the resolution passed because the Congress voted the "will of the people" in an election year....

THEN you claim, "for me to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect", which of course I didn't claim in the first place.....

So which is it...?
You talk out of both sides of your pie hole.....
----------------------------------------
What I did claim is that most Americans don't really know very much about what the hell is going on around the world or about politics in general....and their so called representatives don't give a rats ass what they say for the most part.....IMO, of course....

\But you Liberal hacks will back them and defend them and make all kinds of excuses for them when they screw up...


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> Well just the hell is your point....first you claim the resolution passed because the Congress voted the "will of the people" in an election year....
> 
> THEN you claim, "for me to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect", which of course I didn't claim in the first place.....
> 
> ...




*Let me try this again.  The republican administration, in concert with the republican floor leaders in congress, wrote the use of force resolution and scheduled it immediately prior to the 2002 midterm elections.

It may come as a surprise to you, but most members of congress have these things called "staffs"... part of which work in Washington, and the other parts work, oddly enough, in the states and districts represented by the congressmen.  Those "staffers", as they are called, who work back home are tasked with ascertaining the mood there.  On this issue, those "staffers" measured the will of the people back home and then, the congressman/senator and his/her "staffers" in DC looked at what sort of lead over their general election opponent they may have had in pre-election polling, looked at their opponent's positions on the war, considered the depth of their own feelings about the issue, and after all that deliberation, they decided whether they could afford to vote against the president's use of force resolution and still keep their seats, and/or whether they could afford to vote FOR the resolution and still be able to look themselves in the mirror.  There were a large number of democrats who decided that the could not afford to go against the president on this issue because of the breadth - if not depth - of public opinion going the president's way... and that tide of public opinion was there because nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had his hand in 9/11 and the proposed invasion was seen as revenge and payback and certainly a "logical" response - to attack the guy who attacked us.  HAD THAT UPSWELLING OF PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST SADDAM NOT BEEN PRESENT, MANY IN THAT LARGE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WOULD NOT HAVE FELT COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION.  In fact, I would imagine that there were a number of republicans in less than safe seats who might not have voted for a resolution to attack Saddam if nobody in America thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.  I would imagine that even getting congress to consider such a detour in our search for our attackers would have been a hard sell for the president *


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> On this issue, those "staffers" measured the will of the people back home and then, the congressman/senator and his/her "staffers" in DC looked at what sort of lead over their general election opponent they may have had in pre-election polling, looked at their opponent's positions on the war, considered the depth of their own feelings about the issue, and after all that deliberation, they decided whether they could afford to vote [for/]against the president's use of force resolution and still keep their seats


So, rather than taking for a position dictated by their conscience, they chose a position that would most likely keep them elected.

That is, their political power, personally, and as a party, was more important to them than 'the right thing to do'.

This is a common trait among Democrats and Liberals -- the only thing that REALLY matters to them is their own political power, and they do everyting they can to gain/retain it.

Voting to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?
How despicable is that?


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

I am quite pleased that my congressman voted against the use of force... my senators are both republicans, alas.

but I would suggest that there were republicans who voted FOR the resolution - even though THEY had misgivings - just to keep THEIR seat (kinda like Senator Craig voting against gay rights legislation), so what is your point?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I am quite pleased that my congressman voted against the use of force... my senators are both republicans, alas.
> 
> but I would suggest that there were republicans who voted FOR the resolution - even though THEY had misgivings - just to keep THEIR seat (kinda like Senator Craig voting against gay rights legislation), so what is your point?



Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?




are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?

do you or do you not think that the sum total of anyone's career in congress is more than just one vote?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?


You were asked a direct question.
Don't try to dodge your way out of it.

Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> You were asked a direct question.
> Don't try to dodge your way out of it.
> 
> Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?



and you were asked a direct question as well.  Don't try to dodge your way out of it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> and you were asked a direct question....


...by you as you were trying to dodge my question.

Please answer my question:
Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

I will say this:  I know full well that most every elected official casts votes for a variety of reasons.  Some of the votes I like, even if the reason for them I don't....some of the votes I don't like, even if I can respect the reason for it.

No politician is going to vote the way I want them to vote all the time.  No politician is going to develop the same rationale for his vote as I have developed all the time.

When I look at that vote in particular, and know that there were enough genuine pro-war hawks on the democratic side of the aisle to guarantee passage when their votes were added to the nearly unanimous republican caucus, and I think of a democratic congressman in a district with strong pro-war leanings, I do not think it is despicable that that congressman might have held his nose and voted along with the pre-ordained majority in order to keep his seat and to continue to work for the issues that he believed in for his district.

Does that mean that I am not upset with many democrats for many of their votes at many times?  no.  I am.  

I learned long ago, however, that the only way to ensure that your congressman votes the way you want him to each and every time is to challenge him in the next primary or general election and win the seat for yourself.


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> ...by you as you were trying to dodge my question.
> 
> Please answer my question:
> Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?



answered.  now please answer mine:

are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?

do you or do you not think that the sum total of anyone's career in congress is more than just one vote?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> answered.


So, you DO think it is despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat -- but that wont keep you from supporting those people that did.

That's a good Useful Idiot.  Your masters are proud.


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So, you DO think it is despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat -- but that wont keep you from supporting those people that did.
> 
> That's a good Useful Idiot.  Your masters are proud.



I would suggest the idiot here is the one who is only capable of nonsensical oversimplification and insults.  I do NOT agree with your oversimplification.  I spent a few paragraphs trying to give you a thoughtful answer, yet my questions to you stand unanswered... or are you permitted to dodge while you castigate others???

I guess I should know by now that "M14 Shooter", "paragraph", and "thoughtful" don't belong in the same universe.

And as you will notice, I said I was quite pleased that my congressman voted against the resolution... as were many other democrats in the first congressional district of Maine...because there was plenty of discussion and political will and energy to mount a primary campaign against him if he had voted for it and I would certainly have joined that effort.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

maineman said:


> I would suggest the idiot here is the one who is only capable of nonsensical oversimplification and insults.  I do NOT agree with your oversimplification.


So... you do NOT think is it despicable to to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat.

That is, it -is- OK by you that people put their own personal political power over all the things you whine and cry about -- the US soldiers that have needlessly died, the money we've wasted, the turmoil we've caused and the prestige we've lost.

That's just sad.

But, it was expected.

You are, after all, a partisan bigot.

And as such, there's no sense in wasting any more time on you.


----------



## maineman (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So... you do NOT think is it despicable to to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat.
> 
> That is, it -is- OK by you that people put their own personal political power over all the things you whine and cry about -- the US soldiers that have needlessly died, the money we've wasted, the turmoil we've caused and the prestige we've lost.
> 
> ...



your antagonistic and adolsecent badgering is getting tiresome.  I notice that you continue to dodge my questions, but I would MUCH rather go without hearing your undoubtedly moronic and simplistic answers if that also meant that you would indeed shut your fucking piehole and, for crissakes, not "waste" any more time on me!


----------



## AllieBaba (Nov 27, 2007)

"Oversimplification" is always a term used by lefties who get caught waffling. It implies that we are too simple to understand the complexities of their decision making, or to grasp why they lie....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> "Oversimplification" is always a term used by lefties who get caught waffling. It implies that we are too simple to understand the complexities of their decision making, or to grasp why they lie....



Untrue. Oversimplification means somebody hasn't thought about their opinion through. A bit like the "he voted for it before he voted against it" mantra. Oversimplification with no thought...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> So... you do NOT think is it despicable to to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat.



Who did that?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

AllieBaba said:


> "Oversimplification" is always a term used by lefties who get caught waffling. It implies that we are too simple to understand the complexities of their decision making, or to grasp why they lie....


Or how it is they can damn something out of one side of their mouth and praise it out the other.

"I dont care if he voted to take us into a war over a lie that unnecessarily killed tens of thousands, cost us tons of treasure and prestige just so he wouldnt lose his seat in Congress -- I like his stand on social issues!!!"   

All liberals/Dems care about is their political power - that, and ONLY that.
They will say and do anything to gain and retain as much of it as they can.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> All liberals/Dems care about is their political power - that, and ONLY that.
> They will say and do anything to gain and retain as much of it as they can.



Unlike those stand-up guys, the conservatives....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Who did that?



The people MM was referring to when he said:



> ....There were a large number of democrats who decided that the could not afford to go against the president on this issue because of the breadth - if not depth - of public opinion going the president's way....



If he had a specific person in mind, you'll have to ask him.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Unlike those stand-up guys, the conservatives....


Trying to misdirect the discussion by responding 'oh yeah, well what about...' only means you can't counter the point you responded to.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> The people MM was referring to when he said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he had a specific person in mind, you'll have to ask him.



Roger...although most politicians follow the mood the people - nothing new there, and nothing partisan about it. They all do it..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Roger...although most politicians follow the mood the people - nothing new there, and nothing partisan about it. They all do it..



Dont YOU think it is despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Trying to misdirect the discussion by responding 'oh yeah, well what about...' only means you can't counter the point you responded to.



No it does not. It means I see the bigger picture instead of trying to score a cheap political point...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Dont YOU think it is despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?



You question is a bit confusing. You say for "whatever reason", but then state that the ONLY reason is to keep their seat. I think it is terrible to do so just to keep your seat. If you can point out what politician voted to go to war SOLELY for that purpose, I would be interested to know..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> No it does not. It means I see the bigger picture instead of trying to score a cheap political point...


There's nothing "cheap" about taking to task people that do what they do so they can gain/retain pokitical power.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 27, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> You question is a bit confusing. You say for "whatever reason", but then state that the ONLY reason is to keep their seat.


Different parts of the question.
"whatever reaon" refers to why they oppose the idea to go to war
"just to stay in power" refers to why they voted for it.



> I think it is terrible to do so just to keep your seat.


Would that keep you, someone who opposes the war at every oppotunity, arguing that it was based on a lie, etc from voting for him in the future?
Why/why not?



> If you can point out what politician voted to go to war SOLELY for that purpose, I would be interested to know


Again, you'll have to ask MM for the people he was thinking of.


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> There's nothing "cheap" about taking to task people that do what they do so they can gain/retain pokitical power.



Politics - especially US politics - is a dirty business. To try and say one party is better than the other is beyond ridiculous. They're both as bad as each other, and anyone who can't see that is just a biased hack IMO...


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 27, 2007)

M14 Shooter said:


> Different parts of the question.
> "whatever reaon" refers to why they oppose the idea to go to war
> "just to stay in power" refers to why they voted for it.
> 
> ...



Roger re the first part..

It would certainly come into consideration whether I voted for them. But it would not be the sole criteria...


----------



## Alpha1 (Nov 28, 2007)

The Doc. is a pretty good tapdancer..... 
Or else can't follow the questions asked....


----------



## Dr Grump (Nov 29, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> The Doc. is a pretty good tapdancer.....
> Or else can't follow the questions asked....



I don't know what I find more worrying, it took you so long to answer this post, or that fact people with IQs under 90 are allowed to vote Stateside..


----------



## Psychoblues (Dec 7, 2007)

It is clear that the under 90 group is well represented on this board, DocG.





Dr Grump said:


> I don't know what I find more worrying, it took you so long to answer this post, or that fact people with IQs under 90 are allowed to vote Stateside..



Which explains the long response time for which you are concerned.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Dec 13, 2007)

Dr Grump said:


> Politics - especially US politics - is a dirty business. To try and say one party is better than the other is beyond ridiculous. They're both as bad as each other, and anyone who can't see that is just a biased hack IMO...




WOw, talk about stereotyping. So you think all politicians are bad/dirty?

Besides, you are quite wrong. Compared to other countries, we are quite clean and civil. 

And one party is better than the other. Just because none of them address all or most of the issues how you want them to be, doesnt mean they are dirty or bad. Get over, quit whining.

Republicans, through judicial appointees, support the freedoms of the Constitution much more than LIBECRATS.


----------



## Psychoblues (Dec 14, 2007)

I take it that you're in favor of the American genocide in Iraq?




LuvRPgrl said:


> WOw, talk about stereotyping. So you think all politicians are bad/dirty?
> 
> Besides, you are quite wrong. Compared to other countries, we are quite clean and civil.
> 
> ...



My party will never take responsiblilty for that.


----------

