Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,127
- 2,635
Great .... kaz is kazzing again.I haven't moved any goal post, you have. Redfish made the claim that both Clinton's made the same "aids and protects al Qaeda" comment that Bush made. I challenged and asked for a link. You posted links in response that deflect away from the challenge and failed to respond to the challenge. We have seen this lame method of deceit multiple times in this thread. You guys post threads with the hope no one will notice it is not what is being claimed. It is a bluff and when you get called on your bluff you attempt to change the subject.What is this, ground hog day. You were asked days ago to back up that claim. When did either of the Clinton's claim that Saddam was giving aid and protection to al Qaeda?
Try to figure out the difference between discussions about WMD's and the claim of a working relationship with al Qaeda.
Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room
Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam - Washington Times
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties The Weekly Standard
So where is the part that shows one of the Clinton's suggesting aid and protection from Saddam to al Qaeda. These articles are about reports of an alleged and speculated connection between Sudan and Iraq in regards to the Al Silifa pharmaceutical facility that Clinton bombed with cruise missiles after the African embassy bombings. This all occurred four years before Bush's and the allegations and speculations remained and still remain just allegations and speculation.
And so the goal posts move again.
Let's say the Redskins beat the Forty Niners 49-0 and I say the Redskins won.
Your reply is, not unless you can prove that in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0 they didn't. Can you prove that?
Yes, I made the point you are asking for proof the Redskins won by demanding proof "in the third quarter on third and two they got the first down with a lateral pass and a three yard run for the first down with a block from the tight end when they were up 28-0" and I'm saying WTF difference does that make when the final score was 49-0?
Any critical mind heard the same thing from W, the Democrats, the UN, the Germans, the French and the Russians regarding that Hussein was building WMDs. Arguing some nit gotcha point is irrelevant to that. W was President for six months before 9/11. Clinton was President for eight .... years ... before that. That W somehow came in and conned the world is butt stupid. And if you know anything about the Senate intelligence committee and the wide access they have to intelligence, that a hoax that large could be perpetrated by either party on the other is preposterous.
Both parties were guilty. Here's how the Democrats could have actually distinguished themselves in the aftermath.
- We were wrong. The Republicans and we saw the same evidence and we told you (the country) the same thing. However, we have come to realize what was wrong was our policy. We need to stop fighting wars on behalf of other Arab nations and the Euroweenies while they undercut us and stab us in the back. We need to protect the United States of America. We have learned our lesson and challenge the Republicans to do the same.
That would be worth voting for
Really? The Germans were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...
He said that as far as Germany was concerned, there was no evidence of any increased threat from Iraq, and that none of those supporting military action seemed to have thought through the consequences for the Middle East.
Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder
Interview With Gerhard Schroeder
Opposition to Iraq attack harming ties US warning to Germany - Newspaper - DAWN.COM
"These are for me weighty arguments that lead me to say: Of course it is important for Germany what resolutions the United Nations adopt, but these arguments — these three — they remain my own, the ones that make me say: Hands off. Especially because, as I said before, the evidence appears to be highly dubious." ~ Gerhard Schroeder
Interview With Gerhard Schroeder
Really? The French were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...
AMANPOUR: Do you believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction; for instance, chemical or biological weapons?
PRESIDENT CHIRAC: Well, I don’t know. I have no evidence to support that... It seems that there are no nuclear weapons - no nuclear weapons program. That is something that the inspectors seem to be sure of.
Really? The Russians were saying Hussein was building WMD? Actually, no, they weren't...
"Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress." ~ Vladimir Putin 10.10.2002
Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian
Putin demands proof over Iraqi weapons UK news The Guardian
When do you stop lying, liar?