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

[expatriate]

again: two lies conflated.

1. Saddam had stockpiles of dangerous weapons of MASS destruction (not just a few canisters of old degraded chemical weapons)
2. Saddam and Al Qaeda were actively working together BEFORE 9/11 and would continue to do so.

That's all it took to scare the American people into supporting the invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq.

And in so doing, we stopped Saddam from doing the three things he could do that we were unable to do, and that would have improved our ability to fight the islamic extremists that had attacked us and keep the middle east from coming more unglued:

1. keep AQ from using Iraq as a staging ground
2. keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another in Iraq
3. provide the only effective foil to Iranian regional hegemony

OBL predicted that the United States would invade an oil rich muslim country and we played right into his hands. Totally stupid.

 

[Faun]

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.

Holy shit!!!



That wouldn't be so funny if it didn't come from the Conservative imbecile who posted, "there is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake," and the spent the next day and dozens of posts NOT proving it.



Dayam!

Thanks for the laugh, rightard. That's about the only thing you losers are good for these days.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

Holy shit!!!



That wouldn't be so funny if it didn't come from the Conservative imbecile who posted, "there is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake," and the spent the next day and dozens of posts NOT proving it.



Dayam!

Thanks for the laugh, rightard. That's about the only thing you losers are good for these days.

It is funny since it exposes you as the evasive deflecting machine you are.

You just deflected and evaded again and you are such a Fauny prick (or maybe you are a genuine prick?) that you think nobody sees what you did.

Quite amusing. I have enjoyed your endless parade of libtarded fail. Keep up the wonderful work.

 

[Faun]

So sayeth the fauny.

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

Holy shit!!!



That wouldn't be so funny if it didn't come from the Conservative imbecile who posted, "there is, in reality, no question but that some representatives of the Iraqi Government DID seek to purchase yellowcake," and the spent the next day and dozens of posts NOT proving it.



Dayam!

Thanks for the laugh, rightard. That's about the only thing you losers are good for these days.

It is funny since it exposes you as the evasive deflecting machine you are.

You just deflected and evaded again and you are such a Fauny prick (or maybe you are a genuine prick?) that you think nobody sees what you did.

Quite amusing. I have enjoyed your endless parade of libtarded fail. Keep up the wonderful work.

What do you think people see?

You made the [fallacious] claim that there was no doubt Iraq sought yellowcake. That's what people saw.

I said they didn't. That's what people saw.

You then spent the next day insisting they did until you finally confessed you couldn't prove it because it was only a "likelihood that the conversations about "business" WERE about uranium"

That's what people saw.

Oh, wait, people also saw me prove it wasn't even a "likelihood" that their conversations about business were about Uramium when people saw me post how the Nigerian PM said they DIDN'T discuss Uranium.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

<<snip the prolog>>

What do you think people see?

I think EVERYONE sees that you refuse to ADMIT that YOU made the claim that YOU cannot support and have not supported.



And every time a direct question is put to you, you deflect and evade as you just did again.

 

[Faun]

<<snip the prolog>>

What do you think people see?

I think EVERYONE sees that you refuse to ADMIT that YOU made the claim that YOU cannot support and have not supported.



And every time a direct question is put to you, you deflect and evade as you just did again.

What about your fallacious claim that there was no doubt Iraq sought Uranium, which you failed to prove? You really don't think anyone noticed???

 

[IlarMeilyr]

<<snip the prolog>>

What do you think people see?

I think EVERYONE sees that you refuse to ADMIT that YOU made the claim that YOU cannot support and have not supported.



And every time a direct question is put to you, you deflect and evade as you just did again.

What about your fallacious claim that there was no doubt Iraq sought Uranium, which you failed to prove? You really don't think anyone noticed???

You really are too easy. Probably because you are complete Fauny.

FIRST let us note AGAIN that your post ^ was just another deflection and evasion.

THEN, let us note that, UNLIKE YOU, I conceded a point. I have already conceded that I had overstated my original claim.

Now let's see you stop your endless pussy evasion efforts and just admit that YOU cannot establish that there were "no discussions" between Iraq and Niger about the purchase and sale of uranium.

But you won't.

You are an evasive dishonest cowardly gutless deflection-prone pussy.



Everyone notices, by the way.

 

[Faun]

I think EVERYONE sees that you refuse to ADMIT that YOU made the claim that YOU cannot support and have not supported.



And every time a direct question is put to you, you deflect and evade as you just did again.

What about your fallacious claim that there was no doubt Iraq sought Uranium, which you failed to prove? You really don't think anyone noticed???

You really are too easy. Probably because you are complete Fauny.

FIRST let us note AGAIN that your post ^ was just another deflection and evasion.

THEN, let us note that, UNLIKE YOU, I conceded a point. I have already conceded that I had overstated my original claim.

Now let's see you stop your endless pussy evasion efforts and just admit that YOU cannot establish that there were "no discussions" between Iraq and Niger about the purchase and sale of uranium.

But you won't.

You are an evasive dishonest cowardly gutless deflection-prone pussy.



Everyone notices, by the way.

You're a complete moron. But then, you are a Conservative.

I've already admitted that my comment was a negative; and by being a negative, it cannot be proven. Who knows why you're incapable of comprehending that concept other than to attribute it to you being a rightwingnut.

You claimed there was no doubt Iraq sought yellowcake.

I said there was no such effort. Do you understand my comment is a negative? Do you understand what that means? How does one prove something DIDN'T happen?

 

[Polk]

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.

That's the last desperate effort of idiot liberals (you guys are so predictable - it's hilarious).

There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES. They said OVER, and OVER, and OVER - WMD's. In fact, the famous picture of Collin Powell before the UN was of him holding a vile of a biological weapon - NOT of him hold a nuke.

I love when you guys lose an argument - you can't admit you're wrong, so you just make wild and false claims to move the goalposts.

Newsflash: chemical and biological weapons don't create a "mushroom cloud".

 

[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.

That's the last desperate effort of idiot liberals (you guys are so predictable - it's hilarious).

There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES. They said OVER, and OVER, and OVER - WMD's. In fact, the famous picture of Collin Powell before the UN was of him holding a vile of a biological weapon - NOT of him hold a nuke.

I love when you guys lose an argument - you can't admit you're wrong, so you just make wild and false claims to move the goalposts.

Newsflash: chemical and biological weapons don't create a "mushroom cloud".

Right. But the WMDs which were primarily focused on were the likes of Sarin.

Both the Secretary of State, Dr. Rice, and the President DID also make public comments regarding the concern that Saddam might be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapons capacity. That was well founded. Very well founded. And given his lack of cooperation in terms of the many inspections programs, the concerned was justifiably heightened, especially post 9/11/2001.

Nevertheless, what the President and Dr. Rice SAID about "mushroom cloud" has been seriously overblown by liberals engaging in any discussion about the Iraq War. What they actually said was also legitimate and the product of perfectly valid common sense.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

What about your fallacious claim that there was no doubt Iraq sought Uranium, which you failed to prove? You really don't think anyone noticed???

You really are too easy. Probably because you are complete Fauny.

FIRST let us note AGAIN that your post ^ was just another deflection and evasion.

THEN, let us note that, UNLIKE YOU, I conceded a point. I have already conceded that I had overstated my original claim.

Now let's see you stop your endless pussy evasion efforts and just admit that YOU cannot establish that there were "no discussions" between Iraq and Niger about the purchase and sale of uranium.

But you won't.

You are an evasive dishonest cowardly gutless deflection-prone pussy.



Everyone notices, by the way.

You're a complete moron. But then, you are a Conservative.

I've already admitted that my comment was a negative; and by being a negative, it cannot be proven. Who knows why you're incapable of comprehending that concept other than to attribute it to you being a rightwingnut.

You claimed there was no doubt Iraq sought yellowcake.

I said there was no such effort. Do you understand my comment is a negative? Do you understand what that means? How does one prove something DIDN'T happen?

So, in your fantasy world, you pathetic Fauny, it is ok to couch your claims in terms of the negative to EVADE a prospect of being called upon to PROVE UP your contention.

You are a laugh a minute. But you have zero credibility.

So let's expose how fraudulent you are. If you "know" you cannot prove a NEGATIVE, then you should avoid making your grandiose claims in terms of an absolute.

INSTEAD of saying that THEY NEVER DISCUSSED the purchase of Uranium -- which is what you essentially claimed -- you could have made a slightly less broad and unqualified contention. You COULD have said that there is NO proof and no direct evidence that they ever discussed uranium sales.

And by the way, you dishonest hack nitwit, it sometimes IS possible to prove a negative. Your base of knowledge is quite shallow.

 

[Faun]

You really are too easy. Probably because you are complete Fauny.

FIRST let us note AGAIN that your post ^ was just another deflection and evasion.

THEN, let us note that, UNLIKE YOU, I conceded a point. I have already conceded that I had overstated my original claim.

Now let's see you stop your endless pussy evasion efforts and just admit that YOU cannot establish that there were "no discussions" between Iraq and Niger about the purchase and sale of uranium.

But you won't.

You are an evasive dishonest cowardly gutless deflection-prone pussy.



Everyone notices, by the way.

You're a complete moron. But then, you are a Conservative.

I've already admitted that my comment was a negative; and by being a negative, it cannot be proven. Who knows why you're incapable of comprehending that concept other than to attribute it to you being a rightwingnut.

You claimed there was no doubt Iraq sought yellowcake.

I said there was no such effort. Do you understand my comment is a negative? Do you understand what that means? How does one prove something DIDN'T happen?

So, in your fantasy world, you pathetic Fauny, it is ok to couch your claims in terms of the negative to EVADE a prospect of being called upon to PROVE UP your contention.

You are a laugh a minute. But you have zero credibility.

You are tenacious in your mendacity, no doubt about that.

You said something happened. I said it didn't. You failed to prove it happened. That makes you wrong and me right (until you prove me wrong).

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You're a complete moron. But then, you are a Conservative.

I've already admitted that my comment was a negative; and by being a negative, it cannot be proven. Who knows why you're incapable of comprehending that concept other than to attribute it to you being a rightwingnut.

You claimed there was no doubt Iraq sought yellowcake.

I said there was no such effort. Do you understand my comment is a negative? Do you understand what that means? How does one prove something DIDN'T happen?

So, in your fantasy world, you pathetic Fauny, it is ok to couch your claims in terms of the negative to EVADE a prospect of being called upon to PROVE UP your contention.

You are a laugh a minute. But you have zero credibility.

You are tenacious in your mendacity, no doubt about that.

You said something happened. I said it didn't. You failed to prove it happened. That makes you wrong and me right (until you prove me wrong).

No. You are merely a confirmed liar.

YOU said that there was "no discussion" about the purchase of uranium.

I then (notice the sequence you deliberately deceptive lying hack) made my claim -- one which I have since conceded was itself overstated. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a good basis to say that it was probably a discussion of uranium since the discussion of cowpeas or onions is ridiculous baseless speculation.

But let's get back to the main point. YOU did not, have not and cannot support YOUR original claim.

You remain totally exposed as the lying hack you are.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

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&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8220;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

The MOST "indisputable fact" in re WMDs is the Bush League lied about them. The filthy fucking scum who herded America's human cattle into supporting shit-for-brains invasions of Asia are headed for the bottom of the barrel of American leadership. That ratty little fucker's maternal ancestor Franklin Pierce can rest easy now because a Pierce descendant is going to replace him as the worst-ever US president.

Even if Obama succeeds at doing more damage to the US economy than the Bush League did, every rational human on earth has enough going on to understand that the damage done by the Bush League is what pissed off the American voter to the extent they voted against war mongering scum like Clinton and McCain as much or more than they voted FOR Obama. No question I'd have voted for the literal Devil before voting for a money grubbing bitch like Clinton or a war mongering idiot who abandoned his first family like Colonel Windsock McCain.

How funny is it that the degenerate nutballs who re elected Junebug Bush in 2004 are directly responsible for electing their new Lord and Master, President Barack Obama? Pretty damn funny, that's how funny.

 

[Mac1958]

Newsflash: chemical and biological weapons don't create a "mushroom cloud".

Aw, that's okay. When they were scaring the living shit out of Americans with ominous talk about nuclear bombs and nuclear programs and mushroom clouds, and when they were creating and leveraging support for their war based on those very fears, they were just kidding.

But I think everyone knows that the thing that REALLY terrified Americans from coast to coast was the possibility that he would smuggle sarin gas suitcases onto American soil. At least I think that scared Americans, I was too busy laughing at their funny jokes about nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds.

Wasn't everyone?

.

 

[Faun]

So, in your fantasy world, you pathetic Fauny, it is ok to couch your claims in terms of the negative to EVADE a prospect of being called upon to PROVE UP your contention.

You are a laugh a minute. But you have zero credibility.

You are tenacious in your mendacity, no doubt about that.

You said something happened. I said it didn't. You failed to prove it happened. That makes you wrong and me right (until you prove me wrong).

No. You are merely a confirmed liar.

YOU said that there was "no discussion" about the purchase of uranium.

So? I quoted the Senate Committee on Intelligence's report on the U.S. Intelligence Comminuty's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq -- same as you did.

And in that report, it states that the Nigerian PM said Uranium was NOT discussed with the Iraqi delegation that he met with.

I quoted the same report you did -- how does that make me a liar, you rightard?

I then (notice the sequence you deliberately deceptive lying hack) made my claim ...

What does the sequence have to do with any of this?

-- one which I have since conceded was itself overstated. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a good basis to say that it was probably a discussion of uranium since the discussion of cowpeas or onions is ridiculous baseless speculation.

That's the lie you keep repeating. But being the Conservative hack you are, you can't help but lie. That's the only way you can make a point. There is no proof that Uranium was even "probably" discussed -- the Nigerian PM said Uranium was NEVER discussed. That removes all probability unless you can prove that claim in the report was either wrong or a lie. Unfortunately for a eunuch like you, you're too impotent to prove either.

But let's get back to the main point. YOU did not, have not and cannot support YOUR original claim.

You remain totally exposed as the lying hack you are.

Unless you can prove it wrong, and thus far, you have failed miserably, my comment remains intact.

 

[expatriate]

So, in your fantasy world, you pathetic Fauny, it is ok to couch your claims in terms of the negative to EVADE a prospect of being called upon to PROVE UP your contention.

You are a laugh a minute. But you have zero credibility.

You are tenacious in your mendacity, no doubt about that.

You said something happened. I said it didn't. You failed to prove it happened. That makes you wrong and me right (until you prove me wrong).

No. You are merely a confirmed liar.

YOU said that there was "no discussion" about the purchase of uranium.

I then (notice the sequence you deliberately deceptive lying hack) made my claim -- one which I have since conceded was itself overstated. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a good basis to say that it was probably a discussion of uranium since the discussion of cowpeas or onions is ridiculous baseless speculation.

But let's get back to the main point. YOU did not, have not and cannot support YOUR original claim.

You remain totally exposed as the lying hack you are.

all this obfuscation is really nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The facts are that Saddam did NOT have any viable WMD's... he did NOT attempt to buy any yellowcake... he did NOT have any viable connection with Al Qaeda or OBL and certainly would never have given them WMD's even if he HAD them. The lies about WMD's and the AQ connection, when conflated, gave Dubya the power to frighten Americans into a war that made us less safe from Islamic extremism.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You are tenacious in your mendacity, no doubt about that.

You said something happened. I said it didn't. You failed to prove it happened. That makes you wrong and me right (until you prove me wrong).

No. You are merely a confirmed liar.

YOU said that there was "no discussion" about the purchase of uranium.

I then (notice the sequence you deliberately deceptive lying hack) made my claim -- one which I have since conceded was itself overstated. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a good basis to say that it was probably a discussion of uranium since the discussion of cowpeas or onions is ridiculous baseless speculation.

But let's get back to the main point. YOU did not, have not and cannot support YOUR original claim.

You remain totally exposed as the lying hack you are.

all this obfuscation is really nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The facts are that Saddam did NOT have any viable WMD's... he did NOT attempt to buy any yellowcake... he did NOT have any viable connection with Al Qaeda or OBL and certainly would never have given them WMD's even if he HAD them. The lies about WMD's and the AQ connection, when conflated, gave Dubya the power to frighten Americans into a war that made us less safe from Islamic extremism.

Your post is nothing but a very transparent effort to stick to your mindless dishonest whine.

Bush did not lie. Saddam DID have viable WMDs but it does appear that after the war, precious few were found.

There is a huge probability that he did attempt to buy yellowcake, so you got that one way the fuck wrong.

He DID have some connections to al qaeda (and your attempt to use the word "viable" to mangle the meaning of words will not alter that fact).

We cannot know whether or not he would have given WMDs to al qaeda if he had them available.

There is no convincing support for your mindless claim that Pres. Bush "lied."

And we were not made less safe from Islamic jihadist extremism based on our actions in Iraq -- even if there might be some merit to a disagreement about hte wisdom of doing that.

You are pretty much, therefore, entirely wrong in your post. You sound almost as stupid as Faun.

 

[expatriate]

No. You are merely a confirmed liar.

YOU said that there was "no discussion" about the purchase of uranium.

I then (notice the sequence you deliberately deceptive lying hack) made my claim -- one which I have since conceded was itself overstated. ON THE OTHER HAND, there is a good basis to say that it was probably a discussion of uranium since the discussion of cowpeas or onions is ridiculous baseless speculation.

But let's get back to the main point. YOU did not, have not and cannot support YOUR original claim.

You remain totally exposed as the lying hack you are.

all this obfuscation is really nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The facts are that Saddam did NOT have any viable WMD's... he did NOT attempt to buy any yellowcake... he did NOT have any viable connection with Al Qaeda or OBL and certainly would never have given them WMD's even if he HAD them. The lies about WMD's and the AQ connection, when conflated, gave Dubya the power to frighten Americans into a war that made us less safe from Islamic extremism.

Your post is nothing but a very transparent effort to stick to your mindless dishonest whine.

Bush did not lie. Saddam DID have viable WMDs but it does appear that after the war, precious few were found.

There is a huge probability that he did attempt to buy yellowcake, so you got that one way the fuck wrong.

He DID have some connections to al qaeda (and your attempt to use the word "viable" to mangle the meaning of words will not alter that fact).

We cannot know whether or not he would have given WMDs to al qaeda if he had them available.

There is no convincing support for your mindless claim that Pres. Bush "lied."

And we were not made less safe from Islamic jihadist extremism based on our actions in Iraq -- even if there might be some merit to a disagreement about hte wisdom of doing that.

You are pretty much, therefore, entirely wrong in your post. You sound almost as stupid as Faun.

it appears that when Bush said there "was no doubt" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's he was lying. If he had said, "there is LITTLE doubt" or, "I PERSONALLY have no doubt", he would have been bullshitting a bit, but it wouldn't have been a LIE. To say that there is a total absence of doubt is wrong, because there ALWAYS some doubt as to the currency of the intelligence and the validity of the intelligence. He overstated his case in order to scare Americans

"Huge probability"??? WTF??? you get to state odds AFTER THE FACT? I don't think so. The fact is, Saddam did NOT try to buy yellowcake from Nigeria. Nobody can show otherwise... only pathetic spinners like you can try to say that it MIGHT have happened and offer ZERO proof to back up your claim. I could give a rat's ass whether YOU think Saddam did or did not try to do that... until you can show proof that he DID, it's just more Bush apologetics.

and NO... Saddam did NOT have any connections with AQ. The purported meeting in Prague never took place. If you knew your ass from a hole in the ground, you would know that the basic overriding "raison d'etre" of Al Qaeda was the elimination of secular arab nation states within the geographic envelope of the former caliphate.... Iraq falls within that envelope. Anyone with any knowledge of the arab world would know that Iraq would NEVER give WMD's to an organization whose primary mission was the destruction of his government.

We WERE made less safe with every moment of effort our military wasted in Iraq rather than spending those efforts on the destruction of AQ. Our invasion of Iraq played precisely into their hands. OBL predicted it. Our invasion completely erased any support that we ever had - even among moderate muslims - in the wake of 9/11.

I have served in the middle east. I have lived amongst arabs. I know the region. I have FORGOTTEN more about that area of the world than you have ever known. You're a moron who is all hat and no cattle. GFY.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

<<snip the old quotes to save space>>

it appears that when Bush said there "was no doubt" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's he was lying.

No. That does NOT "appear." It is your idiotic and ignorant opinion getting mindlessly and baselessly repeated. That's all.

If he had said, "there is LITTLE doubt" or, "I PERSONALLY have no doubt", he would have been bullshitting a bit, but it wouldn't have been a LIE.

Wrong AGAIN. IF he was totally wrong about what he said, that still wouldn't mean "lie," you imbecile. A lie to be a lie must be said with the awareness of it being false. If he understood that there was no doubt that Saddam did have WMDs, then even if his understanding was wrong, that's not a lie.

I didn't bother to read the rest of your typically mindless bullshit stink, because when you start off as ridiculously as you did, the balance never gets better. You are an idiot.