Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Faun]

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

Umm, even Bush says he was wrong ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't," ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

... why can't you?

 

[JoeB131]

Just one slight correction to Faun's Awesome Post.

Aluminum rods Hussein was trying to purchase from Niger

Aluminium Rods were purchased from an Australian company, made in China and intercepted in Jordan. Iraq was not allowed to buy these things because they were prohibited under UN sanctions. These tubes, 7075-T4 aluminum, had a number of possible military applications, but it appears the Iraqis wanted them to make rockets out of. Bush claimed they were being used as part of a centrifuge to process uranium.

What was alledged was that Iraq was trying to buy Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger, which is what the whole Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame fiasco was about. Again, there was questionable evidence here. The CIA had its doubts, but British and Italian intelligence were pretty sure they were.

And this was the problem. There were a whole lot of things Saddam was doing that he shouldn't have been doing. And, yes, he could have saved himself an invasion by just fessing up and admitting he really didn't have these weapons. (Except then he'd probably face an internal uprising.)

But Bush was determined to invade, and interpretted the evidence to justify the invasion, instead of following where the evidence lead.

 

[Mac1958]

.

My only guess is that there's some personal conscience-soothing going on here. Looking at the horrific cost of the invasion of Iraq, yet being 100% committed to an ideology... Ideology is a pretty strong thing, and when you're consumed by it, absolutely nothing else matters. Everything has to be black & white, no regrets, ever.

.

 

[JoeB131]

.

My only guess is that there's some personal conscience-soothing going on here. Looking at the horrific cost of the invasion of Iraq, yet being 100% committed to an ideology... Ideology is a pretty strong thing, and when you're consumed by it, absolutely nothing else matters. Everything has to be black & white, no regrets, ever.

.

I think you are reading way too much into it.

Poodle exists on his own reality, where Europe, Evolution, Global Warming don't exist, where REagan never comprimised, Saddam had WMD's and Romney really won the election.

Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him is a "communist".

 

[P@triot]

You've been asked to produce evidence that thousands of WMD were found -- yet you've offered nothing. Why is that?

Uh - I started this thread citing the evidence. Let me repeat that since you and your fellow liberals appear to be awfully slow: I started this thread citing the evidence. From post #1 (that's right - post #1):

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So how can you say that I have "offered nothing"? Do you even realize how absurd you sound?

It's interesting that you mention that since one of the chemicals Hussein had used on the Kurds was White Phosphorus -- the same chemical agent Bush used in Fallujah.

Nothing like cherry-picking items to fit your own version of reality

The following articles mention mustard gas, nerve agents such as sarin gas, Botulinin toxin and Anthrax among the Iraq WMD arsenal...

Death Clouds: Saddam Hussein?s Chemical War Against the Kurds 5/1/1991 | Dlawer's point
Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History.

Say what?? According to Bush, Hussein was denying that he had WMD ...

NY Times: Saddam's generals believed they had WMD to repel US

Agent: Hussein was surprised U.S. invaded - CNN

Saddam Hussein Wanted Iran to Fear WMDs | NBC Chicago

FBI Interviews: Saddam Bluffed About WMD Out of Fear of Iran | Fox News

Don't let the facts posted here get in the way of your twisted ideology. Oh, wait a second, that's right - you've already proven you won't do that - your track record is to disregard facts. Saddam only denied having WMD's at zero hour after the Bush ultimatum to step down or else. Prior to that, he needed his mortal enemies (Iran) to believe he was a military superpower complete with a WMD arsenal.

To be clear, it was believed that the insurgents who planted that roadside bomb didn't knew it contained any chemical agents.

To be clear, this is hands down the most absurd comment I've seen on USMB. It's not a coincidence you have no links to back up your outrageous claim.

 

[editec]

.

My only guess is that there's some personal conscience-soothing going on here. Looking at the horrific cost of the invasion of Iraq, yet being 100% committed to an ideology... Ideology is a pretty strong thing, and when you're consumed by it, absolutely nothing else matters. Everything has to be black & white, no regrets, ever.

.

I think you are reading way too much into it.

Poodle exists on his own reality, where Europe, Evolution, Global Warming don't exist, where REagan never comprimised, Saddam had WMD's and Romney really won the election.

Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him is a "communist".

Trolling perhaps?

Never underestimate the mental illness of people you meet online.

When they clearly do nothing but DENY reality, there's really only two possiblities.

Either they're impossibly stupid, or they're getting their sick rocks off making people jump on their silly posts.

 

[P@triot]

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

Umm, even Bush says he was wrong ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't," ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

... why can't you?

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

That was from post #1 junior and more than answers you're absurd question. Either you can't read, or like most liberals, you jumped in at the end here hell bent on preserving the official liberal narrative and not giving a damn about the facts presented or the discussion. I'm betting it's the latter....

 

[P@triot]

.

My only guess is that there's some personal conscience-soothing going on here. Looking at the horrific cost of the invasion of Iraq, yet being 100% committed to an ideology... Ideology is a pretty strong thing, and when you're consumed by it, absolutely nothing else matters. Everything has to be black & white, no regrets, ever.

.

I think you are reading way too much into it.

Poodle exists on his own reality, where Europe, Evolution, Global Warming don't exist, where REagan never comprimised, Saddam had WMD's and Romney really won the election.

Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him is a "communist".

Trolling perhaps?

Never underestimate the mental illness of people you meet online.

When they clearly do nothing but DENY reality, there's really only two possiblities.

Either they're impossibly stupid, or they're getting their sick rocks off making people jump on their silly posts.

That's a good point - and it begs the question: why do you continue to deny reality? I have over a dozen links so far (most of which from major media outlets - including your own precious MSNBC) which proves you were wrong.

 

[P@triot]

Two ways you can tell when Poodle has lost an argument.

He uses bigger fonts, and calls people who he disagrees with "communists".

Two things you can guarantee when it comes to JoeB:

1. Everything he says is a lie
   
   
2. Because of #1, give him enough time and he will always contradict himself

Post #127 from the thread linked below:

"I just see no reason to support a system that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't." - JoeB131

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/275392-the-2nd-amendment-for-dumbocrats-9.html

 

[P@triot]

Oh, and everyone who disagrees with him is a "communist".

Two ways you can tell when Poodle has lost an argument.

He uses bigger fonts, and calls people who he disagrees with "communists".

Two things you can guarantee when it comes to JoeB:

1. Everything he says is a lie
   
   
2. Because of #1, give him enough time and he will always contradict himself

Post #127 from the thread linked below:

"I just see no reason to support a system that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't." - JoeB131

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/275392-the-2nd-amendment-for-dumbocrats-9.html

 

[P@triot]

Israel runs an apartheid state based on Religion, and they are constantly manipulating our politics. With friends like Israel, we can do without enemies. They've chosen to steal someone else's land and then wonder why those people are trying to kill them. Can't feel bad for someone who is so responsible for his own problems.

Oh, you mean like liberal whores who get knocked up with 5 different children by 4 different baby-daddy's and who then expect society to care for them and all of their needs? You mean that kind "who is responsible for their own problems"?

Or do you mean like the crack-addict liberals who expect society to care for them and all of their needs? You mean that kind "who is responsible for their own problems"?

Or do you mean like the heroin-addict liberals who expect society to care for them and all of their needs? You mean that kind "who is responsible for their own problems"?

Or do you mean like the lazy liberals who are just too lazy to work expect society to care for them and all of their needs? You mean that kind "who is responsible for their own problems"?

Or do you mean like the greedy liberals who spend their money on smartphones, plasma tv's, stereo equipment, and don't put a dime away for their insurance, healthcare costs, and other critical necessities - and who are then "shocked" when they can't pay their bills expect society to cover their healthcare needs? (gee - who does that sound like Joe?) You mean that kind "who is responsible for their own problems"?

As I keep saying - give JoeB. enough time and he will contradict himself 100% of the time.

This man is the glaring example of a liberal. His true colors are "fuck society and everyone in it" - but he requires the narrative of "I cry for these poor, innocent people who are hungry, and homeless, and who need us" because that narrative actually fulfills the redistribution of wealth he desires due to his greed and laziness.

Typical....despicable..... fucking..... liberal

 

[P@triot]

Can't feel bad for someone who is so responsible for his own problems.

God damn Joe, you have me laughing so hard every day, I can't get enough. You are the one person I will never block because you are more fun than a barrel of monkey's (and a lot less intelligent than them too!).

This is exactly what conservatives have been saying for 100 years. People are responsible for their own problems (their own successes). At each day you have screamed that this was not true - that people were forced into bad situations beyond their control and couldn't possibly survive those situations without communism (ie government forcing people at the barrel of a gun to hand over "tax" dollars to be redistributed to these people).

And now, as is always the case with liberals, we see your true colors. You just need the sob-story narrative to push your agenda. An agenda which is nothing more than filling your pockets to satisfy your greed and your laziness.

 

[Faun]

To be clear, it was believed that the insurgents who planted that roadside bomb didn't knew it contained any chemical agents.

To be clear, this is hands down the most absurd comment I've seen on USMB. It's not a coincidence you have no links to back up your outrageous claim.

Oh, my!

I got that information from YOU!

Turns out, YOU posted "the most absurd comment" you've ever seen here!

LMAO!!!

How effin' funny is that??

Oh, and by the way, if you want a link to that, just look at your first post -- that's where I got it from. Here's some free advice -- read what you post.

LMAO!

 

[P@triot]

To be clear, it was believed that the insurgents who planted that roadside bomb didn't knew it contained any chemical agents.

To be clear, this is hands down the most absurd comment I've seen on USMB. It's not a coincidence you have no links to back up your outrageous claim.

Oh, my!

I got that information from YOU!

Turns out, YOU posted "the most absurd comment" you've ever seen here!

LMAO!!!

How effin' funny is that??

Oh, and by the way, if you want a link to that, just look at your first post -- that's where I got it from. Here's some free advice -- read what you post.

LMAO!

Uh - I just read it again - and NO WHERE in my post do I say that. No where.

This is how you know that you are losing a debate - you have to LIE.

Do me a favor, copy me entire post word-for-word and then highlight the part where I said that.... Can't do it? Yeah, didn't think so....

 

[Faun]

Who knows, another 25 years of this and liberals might be able to actually admit Bush was right.

Umm, even Bush says he was wrong ...

"the main reason we went into Iraq, at the time, was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't," ~ George Bush, 8.21.2006 ​

... why can't you?

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

That was from post #1 junior and more than answers you're absurd question. Either you can't read, or like most liberals, you jumped in at the end here hell bent on preserving the official liberal narrative and not giving a damn about the facts presented or the discussion. I'm betting it's the latter....

Umm, who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

 

[P@triot]

Umm, who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

Wait, wait, wait... The entire official narrative of you wing-nuts is "Bush LIED us into war". But now, when you think it helps your argument, you suddenly believe what George W. Bush says and cite him as a trustful source?

Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up folks.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Next we'll be hearing that when Bush and others sold the war on threats of a 'mushroom cloud',

he was really talking about real mushrooms that grow out of the ground.

Another quote from Condi which you dishonest liberal hacks take way the fuck out of context.

What she actually said was simple, straightforward and really indisputable:

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Condoleezza Rice

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It's February 26, 2013. No WMDs were found today either...just as there never has been.

Closing your eyes and pretending reality is different from what you wish it were does not change that reality.

That's what people have been trying to TELL you....there WERE no WMDs!!!!!​

 

[Faun]

To be clear, this is hands down the most absurd comment I've seen on USMB. It's not a coincidence you have no links to back up your outrageous claim.

Oh, my!

I got that information from YOU!

Turns out, YOU posted "the most absurd comment" you've ever seen here!

LMAO!!!

How effin' funny is that??

Oh, and by the way, if you want a link to that, just look at your first post -- that's where I got it from. Here's some free advice -- read what you post.

LMAO!

Uh - I just read it again - and NO WHERE in my post do I say that. No where.

This is how you know that you are losing a debate - you have to LIE.

Do me a favor, copy me entire post word-for-word and then highlight the part where I said that.... Can't do it? Yeah, didn't think so....

Too bad you answer your own question; it makes you look like a fool. Of course I can do it ...

From your first post:

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split).

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News​

... from your link ...

[Brig. Gen. Mark] Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive didn’t know it contained the nerve agent.​

... so yeah, I got that information from YOU! LMAO!! And you still haven't answered my question ... how effin' funny is it that "the most absurd comment" you've ever seen ever here came from you??

Now let's see if you have any character; for if you do, you will apologize for falsely claiming that I lied.

 

[Faun]

Umm, who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?

Wait, wait, wait... The entire official narrative of you wing-nuts is "Bush LIED us into war". But now, when you think it helps your argument, you suddenly believe what George W. Bush says and cite him as a trustful source?

Holy shit, you can't make this stuff up folks.....

Yes, it's hard to feign ignorance like yours. You can't even grasp the concept of truth in confession. Like when a criminal suspect denies he's guilty, his denials alone do not lend him credibility; but when that same person confesses to the crime, his confession is accepted as truthful.

So yes, it's perfectly reasonable to accept Bush was being truthful when he finally confessed that the WMD for which he went into Iraq, weren't there -- he was believable, even though he wasn't believable earlier.

And again, you attempt deflection to avoid answering a question, so I'll repeat it ... who knows better if Bush was wrong? Mr. Pfarerr ... or Bush himself?