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

[expatriate]

<<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.

Here's the deal... Even Tenant said that all the intell came with "caveats and qualifiers". That is intel-speak for "we're not entirely certain about this". Bush may have been a bit lacking in his intellectual prowess, but he certainly understood whar "caveats and qualifiers" meant. It meant that there WAS doubt and he told the American people the was NO doubt. THAT was a lie.

and you can tapdance around addessing my post AND my credentials. it only confirms your MORON status.

 

[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.

Here's the deal... Even Tenant siad that all the intell came with "caveats and qualifiers". That is intel-speak for "we're not entirely certain about this". Bush may have been a bit lacking in his intellectual prowess, but he certainly understood whar "caveats and qualifiers" meant. It meant that there WAS doubt and he told the American people the was NO doubt. THAT was a lie.

and you can tapdance around addessing my post AND my credentials. it only confirms your MORON status.

No. HERE is the deal. The prior Administration (at the time, you moron, that means Bill "oops I left a spot on your dress" Clinton) had declared that saddam HAD WMDs. So had almost all the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate.

OF COURSE intel comes with caveats. But people formulate their conclusions on it all the same. And despite the usual qualifiers, some intel is so strong and persistent that it can be deemed "the truth" EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN with the proverbial grain of salt.

Again, none of anything you have siad changes the fact that you are wrong. You cannot properly accuse anybody of "lying" unless you can establish that such person KNEW that what he was saying was false at the time he states it.

YOU cannot establish any such thing.

So calling Pres. Bush a "liar" is nothing more than you stating an opinion. Stating it as a "fact" doesn't change a thing. You remain wrong.

You are the MORON. Yep. You = moron. Confirmed fact.

 

[expatriate]

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



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.

Here's the deal... Even Tenant siad that all the intell came with "caveats and qualifiers". That is intel-speak for "we're not entirely certain about this". Bush may have been a bit lacking in his intellectual prowess, but he certainly understood whar "caveats and qualifiers" meant. It meant that there WAS doubt and he told the American people the was NO doubt. THAT was a lie.

and you can tapdance around addessing my post AND my credentials. it only confirms your MORON status.

No. HERE is the deal. The prior Administration (at the time, you moron, that means Bill "oops I left a spot on your dress" Clinton) had declared that saddam HAD WMDs. So had almost all the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate.

OF COURSE intel comes with caveats. But people formulate their conclusions on it all the same. And despite the usual qualifiers, some intel is so strong and persistent that it can be deemed "the truth" EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN with the proverbial grain of salt.

Again, none of anything you have siad changes the fact that you are wrong. You cannot properly accuse anybody of "lying" unless you can establish that such person KNEW that what he was saying was false at the time he states it.

YOU cannot establish any such thing.

So calling Pres. Bush a "liar" is nothing more than you stating an opinion. Stating it as a "fact" doesn't change a thing. You remain wrong.

You are the MORON. Yep. You = moron. Confirmed fact.

Words have meanings. "There is NO doubt" means that there is a total absence of doubt. When he said that, he was telling Americans and the rest of the world that there was total certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and that was NOT a true statement.

The AQ connection was also a lie.

Those two lies, when conflated, let Bush convince America that an immediate invasion of Iraq was necessary for our survival.

 

[Polk]

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.

Seriously overblown? The Bush White House pimped the fears of a nuclear first strike for months in the run-up to the war. Rice got on television and said "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." That's the hype.

 

[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.

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.

Still waiting ... how am I a liar about there being no discussion of Uranium when I was quoting the same source you quoted?

And what about the "sequence" makes me a liar?

It's amusing how you're the one who's lying and then trying to project that onto me.

 

[Faun]

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).

You flaming imbecile, when do your lies end ... ?

Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.​

 

[Dubya]

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



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.

Here's the deal... Even Tenant siad that all the intell came with "caveats and qualifiers". That is intel-speak for "we're not entirely certain about this". Bush may have been a bit lacking in his intellectual prowess, but he certainly understood whar "caveats and qualifiers" meant. It meant that there WAS doubt and he told the American people the was NO doubt. THAT was a lie.

and you can tapdance around addessing my post AND my credentials. it only confirms your MORON status.

No. HERE is the deal. The prior Administration (at the time, you moron, that means Bill "oops I left a spot on your dress" Clinton) had declared that saddam HAD WMDs. So had almost all the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate.

OF COURSE intel comes with caveats. But people formulate their conclusions on it all the same. And despite the usual qualifiers, some intel is so strong and persistent that it can be deemed "the truth" EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN with the proverbial grain of salt.

Again, none of anything you have siad changes the fact that you are wrong. You cannot properly accuse anybody of "lying" unless you can establish that such person KNEW that what he was saying was false at the time he states it.

YOU cannot establish any such thing.

So calling Pres. Bush a "liar" is nothing more than you stating an opinion. Stating it as a "fact" doesn't change a thing. You remain wrong.

You are the MORON. Yep. You = moron. Confirmed fact.

Try this for a fact! You have people from the Bush administration saying they were told to look for an Iraq connection the day after 9/11. They say Bush didn't like it when he was told that UBL and Saddam hated each other.

Everyone knows Saddam had what is called WMD, because he used it, but the point is whether he had it when we attacked Iraq and not whether he had it before then. The fact that many countries have that same type of WMD should also be considered. We didn't attack places that actually had that WMD and attacked a place that Bush admitted didn't have WMD. He justified the attack by saying Saddam was an asshole. The problem is we don't attack countries, because someone is an asshole.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here's the deal... Even Tenant siad that all the intell came with "caveats and qualifiers". That is intel-speak for "we're not entirely certain about this". Bush may have been a bit lacking in his intellectual prowess, but he certainly understood whar "caveats and qualifiers" meant. It meant that there WAS doubt and he told the American people the was NO doubt. THAT was a lie.

and you can tapdance around addessing my post AND my credentials. it only confirms your MORON status.

No. HERE is the deal. The prior Administration (at the time, you moron, that means Bill "oops I left a spot on your dress" Clinton) had declared that saddam HAD WMDs. So had almost all the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate.

OF COURSE intel comes with caveats. But people formulate their conclusions on it all the same. And despite the usual qualifiers, some intel is so strong and persistent that it can be deemed "the truth" EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN with the proverbial grain of salt.

Again, none of anything you have siad changes the fact that you are wrong. You cannot properly accuse anybody of "lying" unless you can establish that such person KNEW that what he was saying was false at the time he states it.

YOU cannot establish any such thing.

So calling Pres. Bush a "liar" is nothing more than you stating an opinion. Stating it as a "fact" doesn't change a thing. You remain wrong.

You are the MORON. Yep. You = moron. Confirmed fact.

Try this for a fact! You have people from the Bush administration saying they were told to look for an Iraq connection the day after 9/11. They say Bush didn't like it when he was told that UBL and Saddam hated each other.

Everyone knows Saddam had what is called WMD, because he used it, but the point is whether he had it when we attacked Iraq and not whether he had it before then. The fact that many countries have that same type of WMD should also be considered. We didn't attack places that actually had that WMD and attacked a place that Bush admitted didn't have WMD. He justified the attack by saying Saddam was an asshole. The problem is we don't attack countries, because someone is an asshole.

I assume they did look for a Saddam connection to 9/11, the very next day.

And I am also quite confidant that they also looked for clearer links between al qaeda and Saddam.

In that time frame, to do anything else would have been negligent.

And since everyone knew Saddam had WMDs, and given that he had thumbed his petty tyrant knows at the inspectors who were supposed to inspect the tyrant's lair to ascertain what had happened to the stockpiles which had not been verifiably destroyed or turned-over, the logical conclusion was that Saddam still had them and was just actively hiding them.

You can spin all you want, but nothing you have said captures that "Bush lied" picture you try to paint.

Your words are quite empty.

 

[jtpr312]

Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[expatriate]

No. HERE is the deal. The prior Administration (at the time, you moron, that means Bill "oops I left a spot on your dress" Clinton) had declared that saddam HAD WMDs. So had almost all the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate.

OF COURSE intel comes with caveats. But people formulate their conclusions on it all the same. And despite the usual qualifiers, some intel is so strong and persistent that it can be deemed "the truth" EVEN IF IT SHOULD BE TAKEN with the proverbial grain of salt.

Again, none of anything you have siad changes the fact that you are wrong. You cannot properly accuse anybody of "lying" unless you can establish that such person KNEW that what he was saying was false at the time he states it.

YOU cannot establish any such thing.

So calling Pres. Bush a "liar" is nothing more than you stating an opinion. Stating it as a "fact" doesn't change a thing. You remain wrong.

You are the MORON. Yep. You = moron. Confirmed fact.

Try this for a fact! You have people from the Bush administration saying they were told to look for an Iraq connection the day after 9/11. They say Bush didn't like it when he was told that UBL and Saddam hated each other.

Everyone knows Saddam had what is called WMD, because he used it, but the point is whether he had it when we attacked Iraq and not whether he had it before then. The fact that many countries have that same type of WMD should also be considered. We didn't attack places that actually had that WMD and attacked a place that Bush admitted didn't have WMD. He justified the attack by saying Saddam was an asshole. The problem is we don't attack countries, because someone is an asshole.

I assume they did look for a Saddam connection to 9/11, the very next day.

And I am also quite confidant that they also looked for clearer links between al qaeda and Saddam.

In that time frame, to do anything else would have been negligent.

And since everyone knew Saddam had WMDs, and given that he had thumbed his petty tyrant knows at the inspectors who were supposed to inspect the tyrant's lair to ascertain what had happened to the stockpiles which had not been verifiably destroyed or turned-over, the logical conclusion was that Saddam still had them and was just actively hiding them.

You can spin all you want, but nothing you have said captures that "Bush lied" picture you try to paint.

Your words are quite empty.

and your words are inaccurate. In the wake of 9/11, Bush had scored an impressive diplomatic victory. He had FORCED Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq. If Bush had been patient, he would have found out what we all now know: Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's, but he didn't WANT to wait.

And you ignore the continued insistence about a real and credible Iraq-AQ connection that Bush claimed existed PRIOR TO 9/11 which nwas a complete and total fabrication. The supposed Atta meeting in Prague was total bullshit and Team Bush KNEW it was.

Two lies...conflated to scare America, and that does not seem to bother you in the least. Sad.

 

[candycorn]

It's March 3. There still were no WMDs found in Iraq. Back to the show.

 

[rdean]

You gotta admit, it's funny that the right wing believed Bush and Cheney when they said Iraq had WMD's but refused to believe them when they said Iraq didn't. The right only wants to believe the lie.

 

[Faun]

You gotta admit, it's funny that the right wing believed Bush and Cheney when they said Iraq had WMD's but refused to believe them when they said Iraq didn't. The right only wants to believe the lie.

Because they're sycophants.

 

[dunndatt]

rubbish.

 

[P@triot]

It's March 3. There still were no WMDs found in Iraq. Back to the show.

It's March 3rd - and candycorn continues to do what all liberals do - ignore facts and reality in favor of ideology.

WMD's were found - even your MSBNC has admitted it.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

You gotta admit, it's funny that the right wing believed Bush and Cheney when they said Iraq had WMD's but refused to believe them when they said Iraq didn't. The right only wants to believe the lie.

So you're admitting that MSNBC lies?

 

[P@triot]

In the wake of 9/11, Bush had scored an impressive diplomatic victory. He had FORCED Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq.

How is that even remotely relevant? Saddam's regime took the inspectors around Iraq and showed them exactly what they wanted them to see - nothing less, nothing more. It's not like the weapons inspectors had free reign in Iraq and unrestricted access to anything and everything they wanted, dummy...

If Bush had been patient, he would have found out what we all now know: Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's, but he didn't WANT to wait.

Really, then why has everyone from members of our military to MSBNC reported on all of the WMD's located and even used against our military?

Two lies...conflated to scare America, and that does not seem to bother you in the least. Sad.

Sadly, facts do not seem to bother you in the least....

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

 

[expatriate]

From YOUR link:

"Two former weapons inspectors - Hans Blix and David Kay - said the shell was likely a stray weapon that had been scavenged by militants and did not signify tat Iraq had large stockpiles of such weapons."

And:

"Kay, the former chief U.S weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery does not provide evidece that Saddam was secretly producing weapons of mass destruction after the Gulf War, as alleged by the Bush administration to justify the war that removed him from power."

Two lies:

Saddam had massive stockpiles of WMD's

Saddam was in cahoots with AQ even before 9/11 and would undoubtedly give those stockpiles to AQ to create a mushroom cloud over an American city.

 

[expatriate]

You gotta admit, it's funny that the right wing believed Bush and Cheney when they said Iraq had WMD's but refused to believe them when they said Iraq didn't. The right only wants to believe the lie.

So you're admitting that MSNBC lies?

So YOU'RE admitting that Bush lied?

 

[Faun]

In the wake of 9/11, Bush had scored an impressive diplomatic victory. He had FORCED Saddam to allow UN weapons inspectors back IN to Iraq.

How is that even remotely relevant? Saddam's regime took the inspectors around Iraq and showed them exactly what they wanted them to see - nothing less, nothing more. It's not like the weapons inspectors had free reign in Iraq and unrestricted access to anything and everything they wanted, dummy...

It's amusing how you continue to embarrass yourself by posting such idiocies. Now for the truth, which I hope even a low information imbecile like you can recognize...

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix, 2.14.2002

If Bush had been patient, he would have found out what we all now know: Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's, but he didn't WANT to wait.

Really, then why has everyone from members of our military to MSBNC reported on all of the WMD's located and even used against our military?

Imbecile, those weren't from the stockpiles Bush warned us about but were leftovers from decades earlier that were scattered around Iraq. And even you posted how the only use against our troops was done by insurgents who didn't even realize the bomb they used had any chemical agents.

Two lies...conflated to scare America, and that does not seem to bother you in the least. Sad.

Sadly, facts do not seem to bother you in the least....

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.

How can you deny ... ?

"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," ~ Bush, 8.21.2006