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

[P@triot]

Now that I have not only exposed Fauny as the fauny that he is, and had him jumping through hoops at my command to try to reclaim some shred of a whisper of a hope that he may yet have any credibility, I must move on.

Who's up next?

There has to be some challenge out there. Sadly, Fauny wasn't one.

What a sad delusional fool you are.

It's amusing the lengths you went to just to avoid proving your claim that there was "no question" that Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake; which went from lying about what the Nigerian PM said, to calling your own sources wrong or lying, to finally the limp-dick confessiion that "no question" really meant "likelihood," which of course, proves nothing other than you're a bloviating imbecile.

Hey Fauny - I have to be honest with you here - I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone get owned as bad as you've been owned by IlarMeilyr here (and I've done some serious owning on this site).

He's made the most intelligent, rock solid argument based on facts, and because of that, he's left you with not a leg to stand on (and that has shown in your weak, desperate responses).

If I were you, I would just swallow my pride and walk away. The longer this has gone on, the more of a fool he has exposed you to be. You're killing yourself and your credibility over pride. Not smart.

 

[initforme]

there were thousands of wmds in iraq? Where exactly? What a croc

 

[P@triot]

George W. Bush: "We have reason to believe that Saddam has WMD's"
Faun: "GWB has lied us into war - he's a blood-sucking vampire who deserves to rot in hell"

George W. Bush: "We have not found any WMD's"
Faun: "GWB is an HONEST man, and damn it, the world needs to listen to what he's saying and believe him because he's a good man who would never lie"

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. Give an idiot liberal enough time, they will contradict 100% of what they've said. These people can't even remember their "official stance" on an issue from what post to the next. It's how you know they are the wrong side - they have to spin everything, and when you spin, you never know where you will end up

Faun never said Bush was honest.

Wait a second - he doesn't think Bush is HONEST, but he does think we should believe him when he tells us something?!?!

Joe, baby, you and Fauny here are taking insanity to a whole new level.

Either Bush is honest OR you can't trust what he says. You can't have it both ways (although - I hear you liberals of found of going both ways being the sick bastards that you are). You can't pick and choose fragmented sound bites, take them out of context, and then randomly decide which are "honest" and which are "lies".

If he "lied us into war" as you stupid asshole contest (despite all evidence to the contrary), then he has zero credibility. If he's honest, then he didn't lie us into war.

As usual, either way, you guys lose (that's the problem with contradicting yourselves). I'll let you guys decide which way you'd rather lose (I'm betting the "he lied us into war" option since you love to demonize Bush).

 

[Faun]

Hey, look everybody ... this is what it looks like when Conservatives get together for a circle jerk ...

Now that I have not only exposed Fauny as the fauny that he is, and had him jumping through hoops at my command to try to reclaim some shred of a whisper of a hope that he may yet have any credibility, I must move on.

Who's up next?

There has to be some challenge out there. Sadly, Fauny wasn't one.

What a sad delusional fool you are.

It's amusing the lengths you went to just to avoid proving your claim that there was "no question" that Iraq sought to purchase yellowcake; which went from lying about what the Nigerian PM said, to calling your own sources wrong or lying, to finally the limp-dick confessiion that "no question" really meant "likelihood," which of course, proves nothing other than you're a bloviating imbecile.

Hey Fauny - I have to be honest with you here - I'm not sure I have ever seen anyone get owned as bad as you've been owned by IlarMeilyr here (and I've done some serious owning on this site).

He's made the most intelligent, rock solid argument based on facts, and because of that, he's left you with not a leg to stand on (and that has shown in your weak, desperate responses).

If I were you, I would just swallow my pride and walk away. The longer this has gone on, the more of a fool he has exposed you to be. You're killing yourself and your credibility over pride. Not smart.

 

[Faun]

George W. Bush: "We have reason to believe that Saddam has WMD's"
Faun: "GWB has lied us into war - he's a blood-sucking vampire who deserves to rot in hell"

George W. Bush: "We have not found any WMD's"
Faun: "GWB is an HONEST man, and damn it, the world needs to listen to what he's saying and believe him because he's a good man who would never lie"

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. Give an idiot liberal enough time, they will contradict 100% of what they've said. These people can't even remember their "official stance" on an issue from what post to the next. It's how you know they are the wrong side - they have to spin everything, and when you spin, you never know where you will end up

Faun never said Bush was honest.

Wait a second - he doesn't think Bush is HONEST, but he does think we should believe him when he tells us something?!?!

Joe, baby, you and Fauny here are taking insanity to a whole new level.

Either Bush is honest OR you can't trust what he says. You can't have it both ways (although - I hear you liberals of found of going both ways being the sick bastards that you are). You can't pick and choose fragmented sound bites, take them out of context, and then randomly decide which are "honest" and which are "lies".

If he "lied us into war" as you stupid asshole contest (despite all evidence to the contrary), then he has zero credibility. If he's honest, then he didn't lie us into war.

As usual, either way, you guys lose (that's the problem with contradicting yourselves). I'll let you guys decide which way you'd rather lose (I'm betting the "he lied us into war" option since you love to demonize Bush).

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

 

[P@triot]

Faun never said Bush was honest.

Wait a second - he doesn't think Bush is HONEST, but he does think we should believe him when he tells us something?!?!

Joe, baby, you and Fauny here are taking insanity to a whole new level.

Either Bush is honest OR you can't trust what he says. You can't have it both ways (although - I hear you liberals of found of going both ways being the sick bastards that you are). You can't pick and choose fragmented sound bites, take them out of context, and then randomly decide which are "honest" and which are "lies".

If he "lied us into war" as you stupid asshole contest (despite all evidence to the contrary), then he has zero credibility. If he's honest, then he didn't lie us into war.

As usual, either way, you guys lose (that's the problem with contradicting yourselves). I'll let you guys decide which way you'd rather lose (I'm betting the "he lied us into war" option since you love to demonize Bush).

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[Faun]

Wait a second - he doesn't think Bush is HONEST, but he does think we should believe him when he tells us something?!?!

Joe, baby, you and Fauny here are taking insanity to a whole new level.

Either Bush is honest OR you can't trust what he says. You can't have it both ways (although - I hear you liberals of found of going both ways being the sick bastards that you are). You can't pick and choose fragmented sound bites, take them out of context, and then randomly decide which are "honest" and which are "lies".

If he "lied us into war" as you stupid asshole contest (despite all evidence to the contrary), then he has zero credibility. If he's honest, then he didn't lie us into war.

As usual, either way, you guys lose (that's the problem with contradicting yourselves). I'll let you guys decide which way you'd rather lose (I'm betting the "he lied us into war" option since you love to demonize Bush).

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

You idiotically stated that Bush said that to get re-elected. Only he said that well into his second term.

So that cleary wasn't it and only serves to highlight just how retarded you really are.

He certainly didn't say to in an effort to help fellow Republicans in the mid-terms, as you also suggested, since almost every single Republican signed the bill to authorize him to use force in Iraq. And indeed, Repuplicans lost the House and the Senate in that election.

So are you going to continue to make shit up or are you going to answer?

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

 

[Dubya]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

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). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

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.

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

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

You have Bush admitting there wasn't WMD, so what else do you right-wingers need?

 

[JoeB131]

I guess you don't understand the distinction.

1) Making sure children are fed despite the bad decisions made by their parents-- What a humane society does.

2) Feeling bad a group of people defied common sense, moved into a land that someone else owned, and wonder why they've been at non-stop war for 65 years.... Not really my bag.

Joe - can you go more than two sentences any more without contradicting yourself? This has gone from absolutely hilarious to a fucking Greek tragedy...

You first "point" states that children should be cared for despite the bad decisions of their parents. Your second "point" is support for your original statement of "fuck Israel".

Uh....Joe....are the children of Israel being blown up not suffering for (and I quote you directly here) "the bad decisions made by their parents"?!?

Your second point of "fuck Israel" literally contradicts your first point that "children should not have to suffer for the bad decisions of their parents".

Do you even know what you believe any more?!?

Poodle, I just have to wonder if you are some kind of high functioning retard, because it's kind of hard to tell. Besides the fact that the Palestinian Children are suffering more than the Zionist's kids. My solution is to send the lot of the back to Europe where they came from. Period.

My solution to American Welfare kids would be to properly educate them, teach them about birth control so they don't repeat their parents mistakes, and make sure they have good jobs by putting the interests of working folks over big corporations. Again, all things conservative whacks are against.

[

One more thing - being both the radical and the misinformed bitter jack-ass that you are, I'd like to point out that Israel was granted that land by the U.N. Therefore, your assertion that Israel "moved into a land that someone else owned" is as absurd as all of your other comments.

It's Israel's land and nobody disputes that but terrorists, radicals, assholes, and the uninformed. Which one are you?

Palestine wasn't the UN's to give away. Isn't giving people other people's stuff because you feel bad for them something you "conservatives" are normally against? I mean, if I gave your house to some black people because I felt really bad about slavery, I think your immediate reaction would be "Hey, I didn't own any slaves! Why are you giving them MY house." I'm sure I'd hear some squealing about "2nd Amendment Solutions", too.

The Israelis didn't live in Palestine prior to 1939. They moved there after WWII because they no longer trusted their Christian neighbors not to genocide their ass. So now their Muslim Neighbors are trying to do it instead. Unless they genocide them first, but there are a lot more of them.

Today, most of the world doesn't really recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Trust me, the happy day Israel is pushed into the sea, most of the world will cheer.

 

[Mac1958]

You have Bush admitting there wasn't WMD, so what else do you right-wingers need?

What they need is to soothe their conscience, and that's what they're doing. There are other ways to do it, but some of them have chosen this route.

.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

Really? I can't see how admitting you committed a 1 Trillion Dollar, 4500 life error that cost your party congress is really furthering yourself "politically".

Bush stopped insisting there were WMD's because none were found.

Pfarrer is a crank hoping that stupid people don't understand the difference between a nuke and an expired canister of mustard gas that went inert.

 

[Faun]

I guess you don't understand the distinction.

1) Making sure children are fed despite the bad decisions made by their parents-- What a humane society does.

2) Feeling bad a group of people defied common sense, moved into a land that someone else owned, and wonder why they've been at non-stop war for 65 years.... Not really my bag.

Joe - can you go more than two sentences any more without contradicting yourself? This has gone from absolutely hilarious to a fucking Greek tragedy...

You first "point" states that children should be cared for despite the bad decisions of their parents. Your second "point" is support for your original statement of "fuck Israel".

Uh....Joe....are the children of Israel being blown up not suffering for (and I quote you directly here) "the bad decisions made by their parents"?!?

Your second point of "fuck Israel" literally contradicts your first point that "children should not have to suffer for the bad decisions of their parents".

Do you even know what you believe any more?!?

Poodle, I just have to wonder if you are some kind of high functioning retard, because it's kind of hard to tell. Besides the fact that the Palestinian Children are suffering more than the Zionist's kids. My solution is to send the lot of the back to Europe where they came from. Period.

My solution to American Welfare kids would be to properly educate them, teach them about birth control so they don't repeat their parents mistakes, and make sure they have good jobs by putting the interests of working folks over big corporations. Again, all things conservative whacks are against.

[

One more thing - being both the radical and the misinformed bitter jack-ass that you are, I'd like to point out that Israel was granted that land by the U.N. Therefore, your assertion that Israel "moved into a land that someone else owned" is as absurd as all of your other comments.

It's Israel's land and nobody disputes that but terrorists, radicals, assholes, and the uninformed. Which one are you?

Palestine wasn't the UN's to give away. Isn't giving people other people's stuff because you feel bad for them something you "conservatives" are normally against? I mean, if I gave your house to some black people because I felt really bad about slavery, I think your immediate reaction would be "Hey, I didn't own any slaves! Why are you giving them MY house." I'm sure I'd hear some squealing about "2nd Amendment Solutions", too.

The Israelis didn't live in Palestine prior to 1939. They moved there after WWII because they no longer trusted their Christian neighbors not to genocide their ass. So now their Muslim Neighbors are trying to do it instead. Unless they genocide them first, but there are a lot more of them.

Today, most of the world doesn't really recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Trust me, the happy day Israel is pushed into the sea, most of the world will cheer.

Wait, how did Palestinians end up with that land? Weren't there Jews living there?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Wait, how did Palestinians end up with that land? Weren't there Jews living there?

The Palestinians had lived their for centuries. And, yes, there was a small native Jewish population. But Muslims were in the vast majority.

And then they all made the mistake of trusting the British when they said, "Hey, side with us against the Ottomans, and we will give you your own state.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY]This Land is Mine - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Faun]

[
Wait, how did Palestinians end up with that land? Weren't there Jews living there?

The Palestinians had lived their for centuries. And, yes, there was a small native Jewish population. But Muslims were in the vast majority.

And then they all made the mistake of trusting the British when they said, "Hey, side with us against the Ottomans, and we will give you your own state.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-evIyrrjTTY]This Land is Mine - YouTube[/ame]

No, I know there have been Jews living there. I mean, that land belonged to the Jews ... how did the Palestinians end up with it?

 

[rdean]

Wait a second - he doesn't think Bush is HONEST, but he does think we should believe him when he tells us something?!?!

Joe, baby, you and Fauny here are taking insanity to a whole new level.

Either Bush is honest OR you can't trust what he says. You can't have it both ways (although - I hear you liberals of found of going both ways being the sick bastards that you are). You can't pick and choose fragmented sound bites, take them out of context, and then randomly decide which are "honest" and which are "lies".

If he "lied us into war" as you stupid asshole contest (despite all evidence to the contrary), then he has zero credibility. If he's honest, then he didn't lie us into war.

As usual, either way, you guys lose (that's the problem with contradicting yourselves). I'll let you guys decide which way you'd rather lose (I'm betting the "he lied us into war" option since you love to demonize Bush).

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

Bush Sr. was a WWII Officer, he was head of the CIA, Vice President and President. He chased Saddam out of Kuwait. With the Bush Sr. background, only a totally brainwashed moron could believe spies weren't placed in Iraq. Satellites weren't permanently parked overhead. The country wasn't be closely watched. Bush Sr. even explained why he didn't continue on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

I don't remember Bush Sr. ever coming out and supporting his son beyond some generic - he's the president, I don't want to get in the way. If Bush Sr. thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and he would know, he would have led the band. But he didn't. Because he already knew. And yes Virginia, it really is just that simple.

 

[chikenwing]

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

Bush Sr. was a WWII Officer, he was head of the CIA, Vice President and President. He chased Saddam out of Kuwait. With the Bush Sr. background, only a totally brainwashed moron could believe spies weren't placed in Iraq. Satellites weren't permanently parked overhead. The country wasn't be closely watched. Bush Sr. even explained why he didn't continue on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

I don't remember Bush Sr. ever coming out and supporting his son beyond some generic - he's the president, I don't want to get in the way. If Bush Sr. thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and he would know, he would have led the band. But he didn't. Because he already knew. And yes Virginia, it really is just that simple.

Then why for almost 8 years did the Clinton white house insist Iraq did have WMD and how did those 5k pulse people die all at once in northern Iraq at the hands of sadam??

There were 8 years betwen Bush senior and Bush II guess Clinton was all wet also right??

 

[expatriate]

There is plenty of evidence that Dubya wanted to go after Saddam long before 9/11. The attack on the WTC provided him with the perfect opportunity to accomplish that. All he had to do is to tell two lies and conflate them. First: Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and was actively working on producing more of them. THAT was a lie. Second: Saddam and Osama bin Laden were buddies and were in cahoots. That was ALSO a lie. The Prague meeting never happened. Al Qaeda and Iraq had zero operational connections - and why should they? The overriding raison d'etre for Al Qaeda was the elimination of secular arab nation states in the region of the former caliphate. The Iraqi government would have been foolish to provide WMD's - even if they had any, which they did not - to an organization that was determined to destroy them. But low information Americans who are more likely to be able to name the contestants on American Idol than they are the members of SCOTUS didn't know that and didn't care. They were both frightened and angry... a dangerous combination. Dubya tells them that Saddam has got WMD's.... talks about mushroom clouds over American cities... and he tells them that Saddam is working with Osama bin Laden and that he could give OBL those WMD's so that he could use them against us. Heck... he might be giving them to him RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE!!!! We can't wait for the UN inspectors that Dubya had successfully forced Saddam into letting back into the county tell us what we later found out: Saddam did NOT have any viable WMD's and he did NOT have any connection with AQ. Two lies, conflated, that allowed him to gain the fleeting favorable American political opinion that he needed to cram the use of force resolution down Congress's throats and invade, conquer, and occupy Iraq - the thing he had wanted to do since the day he took office. And republicans are STILL trying to rationalize that. Fucking pathetic is what it is.

 

[Faun]

Stop making up excuses to avoid the question and answer it ...

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

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

Bush Sr. was a WWII Officer, he was head of the CIA, Vice President and President. He chased Saddam out of Kuwait. With the Bush Sr. background, only a totally brainwashed moron could believe spies weren't placed in Iraq. Satellites weren't permanently parked overhead. The country wasn't be closely watched. Bush Sr. even explained why he didn't continue on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

I don't remember Bush Sr. ever coming out and supporting his son beyond some generic - he's the president, I don't want to get in the way. If Bush Sr. thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and he would know, he would have led the band. But he didn't. Because he already knew. And yes Virginia, it really is just that simple.

You're absolutely right he knew and the biggest evidence of that came after the U.N. inspectors were let back into Iraq around November of 2002, they were begging Bush to tell them where the WMD were because they couldn't find them. Months passed and Bush wouldn't say until it was becoming suspicious if they were even there, when Rumsfeld finally came out and infamously told Stephanopolis(sp?), "we know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." It was clearly a bullshit answer to placate the natives.

 

[Faun]

I've answered this like FIVE times already.... How stupid can you possibly be?

Bush has a political agenda - Pfarrer does not.

Game. Set. Match.

Bush Sr. was a WWII Officer, he was head of the CIA, Vice President and President. He chased Saddam out of Kuwait. With the Bush Sr. background, only a totally brainwashed moron could believe spies weren't placed in Iraq. Satellites weren't permanently parked overhead. The country wasn't be closely watched. Bush Sr. even explained why he didn't continue on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

I don't remember Bush Sr. ever coming out and supporting his son beyond some generic - he's the president, I don't want to get in the way. If Bush Sr. thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and he would know, he would have led the band. But he didn't. Because he already knew. And yes Virginia, it really is just that simple.

Then why for almost 8 years did the Clinton white house insist Iraq did have WMD and how did those 5k pulse people die all at once in northern Iraq at the hands of sadam??

There were 8 years betwen Bush senior and Bush II guess Clinton was all wet also right??

Clinton (and Blair) took out most of Hussein's remaining caches is Desert Fox.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Bush Sr. was a WWII Officer, he was head of the CIA, Vice President and President. He chased Saddam out of Kuwait. With the Bush Sr. background, only a totally brainwashed moron could believe spies weren't placed in Iraq. Satellites weren't permanently parked overhead. The country wasn't be closely watched. Bush Sr. even explained why he didn't continue on to Baghdad and oust Saddam.

I don't remember Bush Sr. ever coming out and supporting his son beyond some generic - he's the president, I don't want to get in the way. If Bush Sr. thought there were WMD's in Iraq, and he would know, he would have led the band. But he didn't. Because he already knew. And yes Virginia, it really is just that simple.

Then why for almost 8 years did the Clinton white house insist Iraq did have WMD and how did those 5k pulse people die all at once in northern Iraq at the hands of sadam??

There were 8 years betwen Bush senior and Bush II guess Clinton was all wet also right??

Clinton (and Blair) took out most of Hussein's remaining caches is Desert Fox.

So sayeth the fauny.

Of course, Fauny will never deign to prove his blithering blather.