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

[jtpr312]

This topic always seems to devolve into minutia. Like arguing for days about how many angels can dnance on the head of a pin. The overarching fact is: Team Dubya scared us by telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and yellowcake and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction, but that he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden - AND HAD BEEN SINCE BEFORE 9/11 - and he would, no doubt, give those weapons of MASS destruction to Osama to use against US if we didn't immediately invade conquer and occupy Iraq. Bush scared the sheeple with lies. And to this day, republicans continue to deny that fact. Sad.

Here's the overarching fact son. Years BEFORE Bush came to DC, and during his first 3yrs in office for that matter, the democrats scared us by repeatedly telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction but that he would probably use them.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

::yawn::

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how righties on the internet repatedly show what troglodytes they are when it comes to the wonderful, subtle nuances available to educated folks who really can use words and the english language like artists use paint. In contrast, righties can only use words like a house painter uses paint.

An experienced reader would quickly ascertain that only one of those many quotes from democrats actually DOES express absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.

To educated adults, words have meanings, not merely approximations of meaning. That difference is ONE of the reasons folks on opposite sides seem to be talking PAST each other instead of communicating WITH each other. For all intents and purposes, we speak two different languages

You're right douche, words can be used in many different ways, and any educated person reading these quotes can tell that EVERY one of them was implying that sadam not only had WMD's but was looking to expand his arsenal of them and the abillity to deliver them. It's obvious by their words, that they where not only worried about his stockpiles, but his delivery capabilities and his furtherence of his WMD programs, and they thought we had to put a stop to them. I understand you may lack decent reading comprehension skills as you're probably a product of the US PS system, so I did you a favor and boldened the relevent portions of the quotes for you. See son, when speaking to educated adults people don't have to resort to such 2nd grade english as See Dick run. Run Dick, run. Educated people can read the nuances in what is written and determine what the speaker is implying from reading their words, but in this case there isn't even any need to do that as they CLEARLY state that they beleive Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, he's working on getting more, he expanidng his WMD delivery programs and he is a threat to the region and maybe the US.

 

[jtpr312]

And I also am amazed that jtpr312 felt compelled to spam the board with identical lengthy cut and paste jobs in consecutive posts. I see moronic American tourists like him walking the streets of my town all the time. They ask a native a question in English, and when they are met with an incomprehending stare, they simply repeat themselves... usually at a higher volume. I expect jtpr312 to use a larger font next time.

Answers to different people douche.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Here's the overarching fact son. Years BEFORE Bush came to DC, and during his first 3yrs in office for that matter, the democrats scared us by repeatedly telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction but that he would probably use them.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

::yawn::

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how righties on the internet repatedly show what troglodytes they are when it comes to the wonderful, subtle nuances available to educated folks who really can use words and the english language like artists use paint. In contrast, righties can only use words like a house painter uses paint.

An experienced reader would quickly ascertain that only one of those many quotes from democrats actually DOES express absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.

To educated adults, words have meanings, not merely approximations of meaning. That difference is ONE of the reasons folks on opposite sides seem to be talking PAST each other instead of communicating WITH each other. For all intents and purposes, we speak two different languages

You're right douche, words can be used in many different ways, and any educated person reading these quotes can tell that EVERY one of them was implying that sadam not only had WMD's but was looking to expand his arsenal of them and the abillity to deliver them. It's obvious by their words, that they where not only worried about his stockpiles, but his delivery capabilities and his furtherence of his WMD programs, and they thought we had to put a stop to them. I understand you may lack decent reading comprehension skills as you're probably a product of the US PS system, so I did you a favor and boldened the relevent portions of the quotes for you. See son, when speaking to educated adults people don't have to resort to such 2nd grade english as See Dick run. Run Dick, run. Educated people can read the nuances in what is written and determine what the speaker is implying from reading their words, but in this case there isn't even any need to do that as they CLEARLY state that they beleive Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, he's working on getting more, he expanidng his WMD delivery programs and he is a threat to the region and maybe the US.

Yes.

But you are addressing a bunch of idiot true believer liberals who ignore evidence and logic.

It's like talking to a wall.

My apologies to walls.

 

[expatriate]

Here's the overarching fact son. Years BEFORE Bush came to DC, and during his first 3yrs in office for that matter, the democrats scared us by repeatedly telling us there was an absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of MASS destruction. They talked about mushroom clouds and told us with absolute certainty that not only did Saddam have these enormous stockpiles of weapons of MASS destruction but that he would probably use them.


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--Presidentt Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

::yawn::

It never ceases to amaze and amuse me how righties on the internet repatedly show what troglodytes they are when it comes to the wonderful, subtle nuances available to educated folks who really can use words and the english language like artists use paint. In contrast, righties can only use words like a house painter uses paint.

An experienced reader would quickly ascertain that only one of those many quotes from democrats actually DOES express absolute certainty that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's.

To educated adults, words have meanings, not merely approximations of meaning. That difference is ONE of the reasons folks on opposite sides seem to be talking PAST each other instead of communicating WITH each other. For all intents and purposes, we speak two different languages

You're right douche, words can be used in many different ways, and any educated person reading these quotes can tell that EVERY one of them was implying that sadam not only had WMD's but was looking to expand his arsenal of them and the abillity to deliver them. It's obvious by their words, that they where not only worried about his stockpiles, but his delivery capabilities and his furtherence of his WMD programs, and they thought we had to put a stop to them. I understand you may lack decent reading comprehension skills as you're probably a product of the US PS system, so I did you a favor and boldened the relevent portions of the quotes for you. See son, when speaking to educated adults people don't have to resort to such 2nd grade english as See Dick run. Run Dick, run. Educated people can read the nuances in what is written and determine what the speaker is implying from reading their words, but in this case there isn't even any need to do that as they CLEARLY state that they beleive Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, he's working on getting more, he expanidng his WMD delivery programs and he is a threat to the region and maybe the US.

The fact remains...only one democrat quoted in your repetitive spam post expresses absolute certainty concerning Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's... which shows your lack of understanding of the nuances of our language. And I will match my educational pedigree up with yours any fucking day. I AM a product of US public schools. I am a graduate of a federally funded military service academy, and went on to get a graduate business degree after retiring from the service. You?

 

[expatriate]

And I also am amazed that jtpr312 felt compelled to spam the board with identical lengthy cut and paste jobs in consecutive posts. I see moronic American tourists like him walking the streets of my town all the time. They ask a native a question in English, and when they are met with an incomprehending stare, they simply repeat themselves... usually at a higher volume. I expect jtpr312 to use a larger font next time.

Answers to different people douche.

Do you think that they each needed the same lengthy spam piece addressed to them individually?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And I also am amazed that jtpr312 felt compelled to spam the board with identical lengthy cut and paste jobs in consecutive posts. I see moronic American tourists like him walking the streets of my town all the time. They ask a native a question in English, and when they are met with an incomprehending stare, they simply repeat themselves... usually at a higher volume. I expect jtpr312 to use a larger font next time.

Answers to different people douche.

Do you think that they each needed the same lengthy spam piece addressed to them individually?

Did it cause you discomfort to have to see it submitted multiple times?

Didn't submitting it multiple times increase the prospect that each intended recipient would actually see it?

You have a lot on your mind. But, it's all petty.

 

[expatriate]

Answers to different people douche.

Do you think that they each needed the same lengthy spam piece addressed to them individually?

Did it cause you discomfort to have to see it submitted multiple times?

Didn't submitting it multiple times increase the prospect that each intended recipient would actually see it?

You have a lot on your mind. But, it's all petty.

Spam by any other name is still spam.... Filling the board with other people's word instead of one's own.

And my point still stands unrefuted. Only ONE of those democratic quotes expressed absolute certainty in Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's. Even Dubya admitted that he was wrong and that Saddam did not have them.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Do you think that they each needed the same lengthy spam piece addressed to them individually?

Did it cause you discomfort to have to see it submitted multiple times?

Didn't submitting it multiple times increase the prospect that each intended recipient would actually see it?

You have a lot on your mind. But, it's all petty.

Spam by any other name is still spam.... Filling the board with other people's word instead of one's own.

And my point still stands unrefuted. Only ONE of those democratic quotes expressed absolute certainty in Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's. Even Dubya admitted that he was wrong and that Saddam did not have them.

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

 

[expatriate]

Did it cause you discomfort to have to see it submitted multiple times?

Didn't submitting it multiple times increase the prospect that each intended recipient would actually see it?

You have a lot on your mind. But, it's all petty.

Spam by any other name is still spam.... Filling the board with other people's word instead of one's own.

And my point still stands unrefuted. Only ONE of those democratic quotes expressed absolute certainty in Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's. Even Dubya admitted that he was wrong and that Saddam did not have them.

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

He DID lie outright. Stating that there was absolute certainty when he knew full well that there were varying degrees of doubt and uncertainty was a LIE. That lie, along with the conflated lie of a Iraq/AQ connection allowed him to scare America into invading Iraq. That is beyond dispute.

 

[Billo_Really]

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

Bush told a lot of lies.

We spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars on this illegal and immoral war and I'd like to know what we got in return for that investment?

I'd like someone to tell me how I have personally benefited from this war and how my life is better because of it?

You got the stones to answer that?

 

[Mac1958]

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

Bush told a lot of lies.

We spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars on this illegal and immoral war and I'd like to know what we got in return for that investment?

I'd like someone to tell me how I have personally benefited from this war and how my life is better because of it?

You got the stones to answer that?

Well, isn't it obvious?

Sure, we've lost thousands of American lives, limbs and minds, sure we've destroyed thousands of American families, sure the war killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, sure it cost us trillions of borrowed dollars, but look at the bright side!

We kicked Mooooooooooslim ass! We blew the SHIT outta that place! We showed THEM who's boss 'n stuff!

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

<burp>

<drink some Budweiser>

<scratch>

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

hyuk hyuk!!

.

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, isn't it obvious?

Sure, we've lost thousands of American lives, limbs and minds, sure we've destroyed thousands of American families, sure the war killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, sure it cost us trillions of borrowed dollars, but look at the bright side!

We kicked Mooooooooooslim ass! We blew the SHIT outta that place! We showed THEM who's boss 'n stuff!

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

<burp>

<drink some Hamm's beer>

<scratch>

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

hyuk hyuk!!

.

Don't forget that monster embassy we built that's about as large as the country of Luxemborg.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

Bush told a lot of lies.

We spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars on this illegal and immoral war and I'd like to know what we got in return for that investment?

I'd like someone to tell me how I have personally benefited from this war and how my life is better because of it?

You got the stones to answer that?

Wrong.

He said lots of things and you happen not to believe them. Some turned out to be incorrect. But your mindless repetition that he lied is still not proof, not even evidence, that he "lied."

The money spent on war is not an "investment," you pathetic fucking moron.

The reasons we went to war were spelled out by Congress, you hapless, helpless, hopeless fuckwit.

You don't have the stones to admit that.

Saddam is no longer in power, killing his own people, defying the sanctions, threatening his neighbors or invading them. He is no longer a threat to have or secure WMDs and thus poses far less of a risk to the region, the world and to us.

You will never have the stones to tell the truth.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wrong.

He said lots of things and you happen not to believe them. Some turned out to be incorrect. But your mindless repetition that he lied is still not proof, not even evidence, that he "lied."

The money spent on war is not an "investment," you pathetic fucking moron.

The reasons we went to war were spelled out by Congress, you hapless, helpless, hopeless fuckwit.

You don't have the stones to admit that.

Saddam is no longer in power, killing his own people, defying the sanctions, threatening his neighbors or invading them. He is no longer a threat to have or secure WMDs and thus poses far less of a risk to the region, the world and to us.

You will never have the stones to tell the truth.

He never was a threat, that was Bush's biggest lie.

But feel free to have your own fantasy debate and make up your own reasons for the things I say. You don't need me for that. We both know when you have to make up my own point for me, it's because you're too big of a pussy to deal with reality on it's own terms. So you make up your own thing to argue against and ride like the wind, wild one.

 

[expatriate]

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

Bush told a lot of lies.

We spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars on this illegal and immoral war and I'd like to know what we got in return for that investment?

I'd like someone to tell me how I have personally benefited from this war and how my life is better because of it?

You got the stones to answer that?

Wrong.

He said lots of things and you happen not to believe them. Some turned out to be incorrect. But your mindless repetition that he lied is still not proof, not even evidence, that he "lied."

The money spent on war is not an "investment," you pathetic fucking moron.

The reasons we went to war were spelled out by Congress, you hapless, helpless, hopeless fuckwit.

You don't have the stones to admit that.

Saddam is no longer in power, killing his own people, defying the sanctions, threatening his neighbors or invading them. He is no longer a threat to have or secure WMDs and thus poses far less of a risk to the region, the world and to us.

You will never have the stones to tell the truth.

You cannot escape the fact that, when he told America there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's, and he was well aware of the caveats and qualifiers which did, in fact, spell out the varying degrees of UNCERTAINTY about those stockpiles, that was clearly a lie. He KNEW there was not absolute certainty, yet he told us there was. That makes Bush a LIAR.

And Saddam NO LONGER being in power means that he is unable to do the three things that we would love to be able to do as well as he did:

Keep sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another
Keep islamic extremists from using Iraq as a staging ground and a recruiting gold mine
Act as an effective foil against Iranian aspirations for regional hegemony.

 

[P@triot]

So what?

You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?

Bush told a lot of lies.

We spent over a trillion US taxpayer dollars on this illegal and immoral war and I'd like to know what we got in return for that investment?

I'd like someone to tell me how I have personally benefited from this war and how my life is better because of it?

You got the stones to answer that?

Well, isn't it obvious?

Sure, we've lost thousands of American lives, limbs and minds, sure we've destroyed thousands of American families, sure the war killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, sure it cost us trillions of borrowed dollars, but look at the bright side!

We kicked Mooooooooooslim ass! We blew the SHIT outta that place! We showed THEM who's boss 'n stuff!

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

<burp>

<drink some Budweiser>

<scratch>

U-S-A!! U-S-A!!

hyuk hyuk!!

.

Spoken like true, new wave, 100% pure American pussy...

The weak spined pussies who can't stomach what it takes to win a fight forget how much they cried and sniffled-sniffled over 9/11. They literally completely forget that even happened until you remind them that's what first took us into the first military operations.

 

[P@triot]

Wrong.

He said lots of things and you happen not to believe them. Some turned out to be incorrect. But your mindless repetition that he lied is still not proof, not even evidence, that he "lied."

The money spent on war is not an "investment," you pathetic fucking moron.

The reasons we went to war were spelled out by Congress, you hapless, helpless, hopeless fuckwit.

You don't have the stones to admit that.

Saddam is no longer in power, killing his own people, defying the sanctions, threatening his neighbors or invading them. He is no longer a threat to have or secure WMDs and thus poses far less of a risk to the region, the world and to us.

You will never have the stones to tell the truth.

He never was a threat, that was Bush's biggest lie.

But feel free to have your own fantasy debate and make up your own reasons for the things I say. You don't need me for that. We both know when you have to make up my own point for me, it's because you're too big of a pussy to deal with reality on it's own terms. So you make up your own thing to argue against and ride like the wind, wild one.

Seriously folks, this is how unhinged idiot here has become. He's one of the few who will actually try to rewrite history and claim Saddam Hussein was "never a threat". This is a man who invaded Iran. This was a man who invaded Kuwait. This was a man who used WMD's against his own people.

But idiot here is going to try and convince the world that he was an innocent man living a life of peace. Can you say flat-earther?

 

[P@triot]

The dems were backing a move to protect the country and made that decision on a stack of lies they were given by the then president of the US.

Yes they made the wrong decision but post 911 was a pretty scary time for most Americans.

They were lied to just like we were

Wait a second - the dumbocrats have Congressional oversight. They have dumbocrats sitting on the Intelligence Oversight committee - giving them FULL and unfettered access to all classified and top secret information and evidence. Can you explain that one?

 

[expatriate]

Wrong.

He said lots of things and you happen not to believe them. Some turned out to be incorrect. But your mindless repetition that he lied is still not proof, not even evidence, that he "lied."

The money spent on war is not an "investment," you pathetic fucking moron.

The reasons we went to war were spelled out by Congress, you hapless, helpless, hopeless fuckwit.

You don't have the stones to admit that.

Saddam is no longer in power, killing his own people, defying the sanctions, threatening his neighbors or invading them. He is no longer a threat to have or secure WMDs and thus poses far less of a risk to the region, the world and to us.

You will never have the stones to tell the truth.

He never was a threat, that was Bush's biggest lie.

But feel free to have your own fantasy debate and make up your own reasons for the things I say. You don't need me for that. We both know when you have to make up my own point for me, it's because you're too big of a pussy to deal with reality on it's own terms. So you make up your own thing to argue against and ride like the wind, wild one.

Seriously folks, this is how unhinged idiot here has become. He's one of the few who will actually try to rewrite history and claim Saddam Hussein was "never a threat". This is a man who invaded Iran. This was a man who invaded Kuwait. This was a man who used WMD's against his own people.

But idiot here is going to try and convince the world that he was an innocent man living a life of peace. Can you say flat-earther?

There is no doubt that Saddam was a prick, but the world was, and remains full of pricks at the helm of governments all over the globe. I happen to believe that we would have been much more effective in our fight against islamic extremists if we had allowed Saddam to remain in power and let him continue to do the things he could do better than we could or can and thus freeing ourselves to focus all of our attention on our real enemies, and do so with much more support from the arab world than we got after we had invaded a country that had fuck-all to do with the attack against us. I can only imagine how much safer we would be today if we had focused our blood and treasure on marginalizing and defeating islamic extremism rather than pouring it like we did uselessly on the sands of Iraq with nothing substantive to show for it.

 

[Faun]

Well, maybe like so many of his fellow Americans, you know like the idiots that voted for obama twice, he was duped by the slick words and lies of the democratic party, words they spouted even as late as 2002-2003.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Guess Bush was too stupid to know that liberal democrats are liars and should never be trusted.

Umm, which of those Democrats had access to the full 96 page classified NIE that Bush had?

You're kidding right? Most of these democrats had access to ALL the intelligence available. You do understand that Bill Clinton WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, right? You do know Madeleine Albright Sectratary of State right? You do know that Pelosi was a member of the House Intelligence Committee right? You do know that Sandy Berger was the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISON right? You do know that Sen Bob Graham was a 10yr member of the Senate Intelligence committee right? You do know that Sen Hillary Clinton was married to THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, right?

Holy fuck, are you ever retarded.

That NIE was released in late 2002. Neither Bill Clinton nor Albright nor Berger were in office, so they didn't have access to it. Neither did Hillary Clinton since she was not on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So yeah, Graham, Bayh, Pelosi, and Rockefeller were the only ones you quoted who sat on intelligence committees and had access to the full NIE. So no, "most" of those Democrats did not have access to "all" of the intel available.

Strike #1

Piss off dude, it's obvious you get your information from Chris Matthews, Kieth Oberlman or Racheal Madcow. It would be a good idea to actually research a subjectbefore you bloviate on that subject.

No, I don't watch any of those people. My information comes mostly from news agencies like AP, CNN, and Reuters.

Strike #2

You also do know that the NIE you're speaking of came out in Oct 02 right? These dems where warning aobut he weapons they KNEW sadam had WMD's throughout the 90's and after.

With the exception of Albright's quote, the quotes from the 90's were exclusively from before Operation Desert Fox, at which time, Hussein's abilities to build and store WMD were destroyed. And even Albright's comment, made in 1999, does not state he currently had WMD. So it's entirely possible that Hussein still had some WMD prior to Desert Fox, but there were none built after that and there was no "gathering threat" as Bush proclaimed.

Strike #3 -- you're out for being too stupid to compete.