Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[PatekPhilippe]

Once again Curve light is shot down in flames.

Post #488:

How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida?

Post #504:

I always known there was no connetion.

Post #543...my response:

for the record the Pentagon report acknowledged that there were Al Qaeda contacts with Iraq intel services but none of them developed into an "operational relationship".......

Post #545:

What are you talking about? I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida.

Post #571:

Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact.

Post #575:

con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

CurveLight...you seem to have trouble with basic english skills and comprehension...I recommend you repeat the 3rd grade...then come back.

as can be plainly seen CurveLight attempted to change it's position on whether or not there were contacts. First it's no and then secondly it's yes but it didn't develope into an operational relationship...which is WHAT I SAID BACK IN POST #543...

Dishonesty and spin is CurveLights game and it's exposed for all to see..... Where is your lapdog Starkey??

 

[Liability]

Once again Curve light is shot down in flames.

Post #488:

How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida?

Post #504:

I always known there was no connetion.

Post #543...my response:
Post #545:
Post #571:

Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact.

Post #575:

con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

CurveLight...you seem to have trouble with basic english skills and comprehension...I recommend you repeat the 3rd grade...then come back.

as can be plainly seen CurveLight attempted to change it's position on whether or not there were contacts. First it's no and then secondly it's yes but it didn't develope into an operational relationship...which is WHAT I SAID BACK IN POST #543...

Dishonesty and spin is CurveLights game and it's exposed for all to see..... Where is your lapdog Starkey??

There is some reason to believe that Jokey and bent cannot physically post at the same moment in time...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4NGf2l5PXE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4NGf2l5PXE&feature=related[/ame]

CurveLight shot down again.

 

[CurveLight]

* * * *

I did show why you are wrong, several times. You claim there was some kind of relationship but years of investigations conclude there was no relationship. Whatever kind of relationship you want to claim existed is left unsubstantiated and with no evidence.

Untrue. That there was some relationship isn't even subject to any doubt from any honest intelligent and informed person. Your denial is what is unsubstantiated. And more laughably yet, you still pretend that your cite to the Commission conclusion "supports" your moronic position. You remain a glaringly stupid imbecile.

You want a great example of how you use strawmen?

I'd settle to get you educated to the point where you use the term properly someday.



Cannot have done something "again" when I never did it in the first place. And I have still not done so.



Wow. I ALMOST had to own up to having misread your post. But instead, I will just expose your deliberate lie. What you ACTUALLY wrote, you fucking lying retard, is: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq." And I properly responded to THAT idiotic claim you actually made, you fucking lying tool.

You repeated yet another strawman fallacy. You said:

"ONE such reason was the relationship (non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

Can you provide a single quote from Bush or Cheney where they said it was a:

"...(non-operational and indirect though it may have been) between al qaeda and Saddam's regime."

No need. I never claimed that THEY had qualified their terminology, nor did I maintain that they had made the claim of any relationship explicitly prior to the invasion. Reading is fundamental.

No you can't. That's two strawmen in a single post. Can you imagine how stupid it would have been for Bush to say:

"one of the reasons we need to invade iraq is because of the non-operational and indirect relationship between alkida and iraq."

You just got pwned.

Not even a little and certainly not by you. Your baseless self-congratulation says a lot of strange things about you, none of them good. Nothing more.

And by the way, this entire deflection effort of yours is only marginally interesting. Aren't you pleased (to get back ON topic) that President Obama has finally come to realize that we ARE at war?

Good grief. Lol......yes when I pointed out there was no relationship that meant they could not use the iraq-alkida justification. I clearly said it was PART of the justification used for the invasion of Iraq but I never said it was the SOLE reason. You got pwned because fear is your Master. That s why you change what other people say because you don't know how to honestly address issues.

 

[CurveLight]

Once again Curve light is shot down in flames.

Post #488:

How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida?

Post #504:
Post #543...my response:
Post #545:
Post #571:
Post #575:

con·tact:
a. Connection or interaction; communication
c. Association

link:
1. To connect with or as if with a link
2. (tr) to connect by association, etc

CurveLight...you seem to have trouble with basic english skills and comprehension...I recommend you repeat the 3rd grade...then come back.

as can be plainly seen CurveLight attempted to change it's position on whether or not there were contacts. First it's no and then secondly it's yes but it didn't develope into an operational relationship...which is WHAT I SAID BACK IN POST #543...

Dishonesty and spin is CurveLights game and it's exposed for all to see..... Where is your lapdog Starkey??

There is some reason to believe that Jokey and bent cannot physically post at the same moment in time...

I never made any claim about "contact" one way or another. Is this what your Fear Master has reduced you to? Hyperventilating on a single word? Rotfl! It wouldn't have mattered if there was "contact" between the two. The investigations all conclude no relationship.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

but THERE WAS A LINK YOU FUCKING DUMBASS!!!!!!! It was said in the report from the Pentagon.

Some people can't even remember the lies they tell 15 posts back

Holy shit man. When I said "Link" it's the same fucking thing as a "relationship." They mean the same thing in this context. Are you guys soooooooo desperate you cling the most petty possible things? Lol.

When are you going to re-state your claim that says anyone who thinks there was a relationship between iraq and alkida is a stupid mother fucker? Liability says there was a relationship but I don't see you calling him a stupid mother fucker. Why? Partisan pussy cat got your tongue? Lol

 

[CMike]

Notice that the reactionary wingnuts can't tell us why Clinton did have him delivered up. They can squall and bawl, scowl and howl, but who cares what they think when they can't even give evidence.

But they amuse me.

So what?

You are a fucking drooling imbecile.

Tiny bits of shiny foil amuse you.

You are the wingnut.

I completely agree he is the wingnut.

 

[CMike]

Notice that the reactionary wingnuts can't tell us why Clinton did have him delivered up. They can squall and bawl, scowl and howl, but who cares what they think when they can't even give evidence.

But they amuse me.

I said why

• Gross negligence
  
• Recklissness
  
• Liberalism
  
• Stupidity

Caring more about he rights of a terorrist than protecting this country

Liability is right, you are the wing nut.

Imagine if a republican president refused to accept OBL when he was handed over on silver plate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are judging without giving evidence. Let me write this s l o w l y : your opinion is not evidence.

 

[CMike]

Curve's quotes in his first position.

"ROTFL! How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida? (only asking for the comedic value)"

"I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida"

"No, I didn't have to wait for that you dumbass. I always known there was no connetion"

Curve then changes his position.

"Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact. What was pointed out is there was never a relationship"

Curve then claims he has no new position.

"Don't have a new position since mine has always been the same. Is this your attempt to deflect from being proven wrong?


What a moron.

My position never changed so why are you fabricating again? Is it to try and hide the fact you've never supported your claim? You dismissed links from CNN and the Washington Post on the claim they are far Left sources and that is why they "lied" in their article titles by saying the reports showed no links between iraq and alkida. Well, Fox news had the exact same title so how will you dismiss it? Are you prepared to claim Fox is a far left source?

"Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein"
Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Yanno...on one hand I think you actually grew that I think you actually realize that it doesn't matter what a headline says, what matters is what source they used, and what exactly does that source say.

I hope you at least realize that CNN and the Washington Post flat out lied, because their sources never said what their headlines said.

You should at least pretend you are a man and admit you made a mistake.

Also, don't be so fucking arrogant next time. Here you are boosting of your "superior intellect" and challenging posters you agree with on one-on-one debate, and you made yourself look like a complete idiot.

I hate that you continue to lie. Lying shows extremely low morals, and you know you are doing it now. Despite your political view, honesty should come come above all else.

This is what you would say if you had integrity.

What Curve should say "Yes, I know after reading the actual sources that there were links, and contacts, however I disagree whether this constituties a relationship or not."

Frankly, I am not going to get into parsing words.

Show some integrity man.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I did show why you are wrong, several times. You claim there was some kind of relationship but years of investigations conclude there was no relationship. Whatever kind of relationship you want to claim existed is left unsubstantiated and with no evidence.

Untrue. That there was some relationship isn't even subject to any doubt from any honest intelligent and informed person. Your denial is what is unsubstantiated. And more laughably yet, you still pretend that your cite to the Commission conclusion "supports" your moronic position. You remain a glaringly stupid imbecile.



I'd settle to get you educated to the point where you use the term properly someday.



Cannot have done something "again" when I never did it in the first place. And I have still not done so.



Wow. I ALMOST had to own up to having misread your post. But instead, I will just expose your deliberate lie. What you ACTUALLY wrote, you fucking lying retard, is: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq." And I properly responded to THAT idiotic claim you actually made, you fucking lying tool.



No need. I never claimed that THEY had qualified their terminology, nor did I maintain that they had made the claim of any relationship explicitly prior to the invasion. Reading is fundamental.

No you can't. That's two strawmen in a single post. Can you imagine how stupid it would have been for Bush to say:

"one of the reasons we need to invade iraq is because of the non-operational and indirect relationship between alkida and iraq."

You just got pwned.

Not even a little and certainly not by you. Your baseless self-congratulation says a lot of strange things about you, none of them good. Nothing more.

And by the way, this entire deflection effort of yours is only marginally interesting. Aren't you pleased (to get back ON topic) that President Obama has finally come to realize that we ARE at war?

Good grief. Lol......yes when I pointed out there was no relationship that meant they could not use the iraq-alkida justification. I clearly said it was PART of the justification used for the invasion of Iraq but I never said it was the SOLE reason. You got pwned because fear is your Master. That s why you change what other people say because you don't know how to honestly address issues.

You cannot even keep up with your own double-talk.

What you SAID was what I addressed, you retard.

YOUR actual words QUOTED: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq."

There is no getting around it. Words have meaning. That moronic sentence you actually posted CLEARLY means that "if and only if there was a claimed direct or operational relationship betwen al qaeda and Saddam was the invasion of Iraq justified."

YOU can spin like a top for all I care, but your words are recorded for the record, verbatim; and you are stuck with what you ACTUALLY wrote, you utterly dishonest lying sack of pus moron.

 

[CMike]

Curve's quotes in his first position.

"ROTFL! How does your punk whiny ass ignore the Pentagon report that points out no link between Iraq and alkida? (only asking for the comedic value)"

"I just explained I always knew there was no link between iraq and alkida"

"No, I didn't have to wait for that you dumbass. I always known there was no connetion"

Curve then changes his position.

"Nobody ever claimed there was never any contact. What was pointed out is there was never a relationship"

Curve then claims he has no new position.

"Don't have a new position since mine has always been the same. Is this your attempt to deflect from being proven wrong?


What a moron.

My position never changed so why are you fabricating again? Is it to try and hide the fact you've never supported your claim? You dismissed links from CNN and the Washington Post on the claim they are far Left sources and that is why they "lied" in their article titles by saying the reports showed no links between iraq and alkida. Well, Fox news had the exact same title so how will you dismiss it? Are you prepared to claim Fox is a far left source?

"Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein"
Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

You realize the above are directly quotes from what you said?

 

[CMike]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

Good grief. Can people truely be this stupid?

You said that according to the 911 commision report there was no link between Hussein and Al Qaida.

What I did was quote directly from the report, which did NOT say that there was no link. It say that there wasn't evidence of a "collorabative operational relationship".

I introduced the truth to the lies or untruths that you were saying.

 

[Liability]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

Good grief. Can people truely be this stupid?

You said that according to the 911 commision report there was no link between Hussein and Al Qaida.

What I did was quote directly from the report, which did NOT say that there was no link. It say that there wasn't evidence of a "collorabative operational relationship".

I introduced the truth to the lies or untruths that you were saying.

He's a compulsive liar and a determined liar, but not at all convincing at his job in life.

 

[CurveLight]

Sorry...you have been exposed. YOU clearly said there was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. YOU were proven wrong. Then you said you never said that but what you said was there was never an operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda...which I said in about 10 replies long before you. Then after you were exposed you adopted my view. I encourage all readers here to go back and read the posts. It's all quite clear.

Now start posting facts without spin and you may actually last around here.

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

Good grief. Can people truely be this stupid?

You said that according to the 911 commision report there was no link between Hussein and Al Qaida.

What I did was quote directly from the report, which did NOT say that there was no link. It say that there wasn't evidence of a "collorabative operational relationship".

I introduced the truth to the lies or untruths that you were saying.

You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?

 

[CMike]

Since Curve seems intent of diversion and bullshit I want to once again summarize what we know:

BTW Curve is a moron

• According to CIA Director Tenet's testimony before the Senative Intelligence Committee there was a relationship that went back a decade
  
• According to a CIA declassfied memo, there were links and contacts that went back a decade
  
• According to a DOD (Department of Defense) declassified memo there were over 50 contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaida
  
• According to the 911 commission report there wasn't evidence of a "collorbative operational relationship".
  
• According to the Institute of Defense Analysis report there was no "smoking gun (i.e. direct connection betwen Iraq and Hussein)". Also that Hussein routinely supported terrorism and even gave out certifications on car bombing and suicide vests.
  
  Now, do we know how many times Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaida actually met? No. We only know what we have documented. They could have met 500 times.
  
  What did they discuss in over 50 meetings that we actually know about? We don't know. We may have bits and pieces, but do we really know what they discussed? Do you think it was betting on camel jockeys?
  
  We had the most notorious and dangerous dictator of a country with meetings with the most notorious terrorist groups in the world?
  
  Are you able to put 2+2 together curve? Are you truely this dense? Do your left wing rantings really defy all logic and common sense? Do you have any intellectual integrity? Let's find out.

 

[Jay Canuck]

So how's the U.S. war with Nigeria going Lie-Ablility?

 

[CMike]

Okay. Now it's clear you just make stuff up. I've always said there was never any link or relationship. It was CMike and Liability who introduced the "operational relationship" strawman. You know you are so wrong you won't even quote my post because it proves you are lying and you want to ignore that as much as possible. Dude, you're simply sick.

Are you going to call CMike a stupid mother fucker for saying there was a relationship between iraq and alkida? Or is that just another flip flop on your position?

Good grief. Can people truely be this stupid?

You said that according to the 911 commision report there was no link between Hussein and Al Qaida.

What I did was quote directly from the report, which did NOT say that there was no link. It say that there wasn't evidence of a "collorabative operational relationship".

I introduced the truth to the lies or untruths that you were saying.

You are being purposefully obtuse. If there was no operational relationship then there was no justification in trying to use that claim to help justify the invasion. When I said there was no link I was saying there was not a relationship between the two that helped provide legitimate justification. You are clearly going to continue your semantic charade and as already proven, you refuse to admit when you are wrong. What was the latest? Was it you who claimed the US had charges against bin laden before 1996?

What a moron.

 

[CMike]

So how's the U.S. war with Nigeria going Lie-Ablility?

Hey I missed you.

Insane liberal rantings can be pretty amusing at times.

 

[CurveLight]

Untrue. That there was some relationship isn't even subject to any doubt from any honest intelligent and informed person. Your denial is what is unsubstantiated. And more laughably yet, you still pretend that your cite to the Commission conclusion "supports" your moronic position. You remain a glaringly stupid imbecile.



I'd settle to get you educated to the point where you use the term properly someday.



Cannot have done something "again" when I never did it in the first place. And I have still not done so.



Wow. I ALMOST had to own up to having misread your post. But instead, I will just expose your deliberate lie. What you ACTUALLY wrote, you fucking lying retard, is: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq." And I properly responded to THAT idiotic claim you actually made, you fucking lying tool.



No need. I never claimed that THEY had qualified their terminology, nor did I maintain that they had made the claim of any relationship explicitly prior to the invasion. Reading is fundamental.



Not even a little and certainly not by you. Your baseless self-congratulation says a lot of strange things about you, none of them good. Nothing more.

And by the way, this entire deflection effort of yours is only marginally interesting. Aren't you pleased (to get back ON topic) that President Obama has finally come to realize that we ARE at war?

Good grief. Lol......yes when I pointed out there was no relationship that meant they could not use the iraq-alkida justification. I clearly said it was PART of the justification used for the invasion of Iraq but I never said it was the SOLE reason. You got pwned because fear is your Master. That s why you change what other people say because you don't know how to honestly address issues.

You cannot even keep up with your own double-talk.

What you SAID was what I addressed, you retard.

YOUR actual words QUOTED: "If there was no 'direct' or 'operational' relationship then there was no justification to invade iraq."

There is no getting around it. Words have meaning. That moronic sentence you actually posted CLEARLY means that "if and only if there was a claimed direct or operational relationship betwen al qaeda and Saddam was the invasion of Iraq justified."

YOU can spin like a top for all I care, but your words are recorded for the record, verbatim; and you are stuck with what you ACTUALLY wrote, you utterly dishonest lying sack of pus moron.

You are wholly ignoring the fact in that same post I clearly said it was used "in part" as the justification. Why are you ignoring that? Oh yeah. It proves you are wrong. The part you keep hanging on to points out it was not a legitimate reason to invade iraq, but I never said it was the sole reason and once again, you are ignoring context as I already said in that post it was a partial reason given. Now be true to your Master (fear) and ignore that again. It's funny in a sad way to see you attempt these charades.