Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must think Bush was an "idiot true believer liberal who ignored evidence and logic" ...::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.
WTF? Bush didn't lie???Bush told a lot of lies.So what?
You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?
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.
He never was a threat, that was Bush's biggest lie.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.
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?
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?
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.
::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?
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.
Bush told a lot of lies.So what?
You accuse President Bush of lying outright, but when he says something you happen to agree with, he can't be mistaken?
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?
That's what the nazis said about the jews and we all know who got "put down" in that one!Saying killing muslims is immoral, is much like saying killing rabid dogs is immoral. Both pose a danger to innocent people, both need to be put down.
Purge them from government..
What in the world is the GOP going to do with people like this?
.
People that go along with a lie that someone else created, are guilty of complicity, not guilty of the whole lie.Wow! It's not an act, you really are a flipping dumbass aren't you? How can I use my own words when the topic of the post is WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP SAID. You do understand that when you are telling what other's said, you use THEIR quotes right? You must have me confused with some slimy liberal democrat who when telling others what the opposition says, ignore what the actual person is quoted as saying and instead make up their own quotes and attribute them to their enemies. I don't do that son, most honest people don't. When I'm trying to tell people others what the opposition says, I acutally use their own words. Man if you really are a US Miliatry Academy Grad, which I'm doubting more and more, you speak volumes for the decline of our Academy's academic standards in the name of diversity.
Holy fuck, are you ever retarded.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?
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
No, I don't watch any of those people. My information comes mostly from news agencies like AP, CNN, and Reuters.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.
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.
That's what the nazis said about the jews and we all know who got "put down" in that one!Saying killing muslims is immoral, is much like saying killing rabid dogs is immoral. Both pose a danger to innocent people, both need to be put down.
You treat them like dogs, yet claim "they're the animals?"
People like you, are the reason God made at least one sin, from which there is no salvation. No forgiveness.
By the way dumbass, there is ONLY one unpardonable sin and it's not No forgiveness, it is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. By the way, I don't think of them as dogs, I actually like dogs and think they contribute greatly to society, I think of them as RABID dogs, with the key word being rabid.
By the way dumbass, there is ONLY one unpardonable sin and it's not No forgiveness, it is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. By the way, I don't think of them as dogs, I actually like dogs and think they contribute greatly to society, I think of them as RABID dogs, with the key word being rabid.
Oh no.
This one's claiming to be a Christian.
Yikes.
.
By the way dumbass, there is ONLY one unpardonable sin and it's not No forgiveness, it is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. By the way, I don't think of them as dogs, I actually like dogs and think they contribute greatly to society, I think of them as RABID dogs, with the key word being rabid.
Oh no.
This one's claiming to be a Christian.
Yikes.
.
Here's a clue son, God hates muslims also.
"relvent"? And you're the one giving the lecture?I always thought our Military Academies required more than a 5th grade readling comprehension level of it's students. If you realy did attend one of our Military Acadamies I must have been wrong about that one. You certainly don't sound like a West Point or Annapolis Grad. You sound much more like some sleazeball lawyer trying to explain to a jury how your client didn't mean what you think he meant on those survellience tapes you're listening to, "only one expresses ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY concerning Sadam's STOCKPILES", lol. Flipping tool. Let's take a look shall we. I'll make it easier for you. I'm thinking there may be too many words for you to be able to decipher the meaning of what's said, so I'll just give you the relvent...
But he didn't say he "thought" something, he said he "knew" something.portions of each quote and try my best to explain them to you. See douche, you don't have to SPECIFICALLY say the words, "It's an absolute certainty" to impy that you think something to be true.
We'll see about that?You wsih to tell us how words are used like an artist's brush, ok, but the problem seems to be that you may need the boldness of a Gaffitti artist's sray paint can to get the message as the soft mild strokes of the brush seem to go over your head.
That is dependent on whether or not you have proven he has them. If you do not have a "smoking gun", then you cannot make this claim.We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."--Says that Iraq has a WMD program and the weapons produced by that program are a threat.
Another dependent claim. See above.He will use those weapons of mass destruction again--Says that Saddam had and still has WMD's.
Another dependent claim. See above.threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs--Implies that Iraq has a WMD program current in effect and is producing weapons.
Another dependent claim. See above.Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology--Says that saddam has developed WMD's and their delivery systems.
Another dependent claim. See above.Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction--Says saddam has WMD's
Now this is a "lie". The only credible reports on this subject at the time, came from Hans Blix, whose "job" it was to determine this. And everyone of those reports, did not make this claim.Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status--Guess you would have to know what Iraq's pre-Gulf War NBC Program status means so I'll give you this one. I mean you obviously can't read beyond a 4th grade level so I doubt you know what Iraq'a pre-Gulf War NBC weapons stockpiles and programs actaully included.
And we all know now your source for this one was a cokehead named "curveball" that British and Italian intelligence told us couldn't be trusted.Saddam Hussein is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." I don't even know how to dumb this one down for you. I mean it just says, Saddam IS building WMD's. Is it the defintion of the word "is" you're having trouble with? Maybe, so I'll help you out. Is-3rd person singular present of be (Verb). I know this may be above your comprehension level, but I'm not an elementary school teacher so probably not much help to you.
Another dependent claim. See above.he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."--Says Saddam has WMD's
At the same time UN inspectors were driving all around his country in white vans? Right?Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction--Says Saddam currently has WMDs and is seeking more.
Earlier, he said he "knew", which has now been downgraded to "confident".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.--Says Saddam has WMDs and is lloking to enlarge his number of WMDs.
You disarm someone from "arms they have". You cannot disarm someone from "arms they don't have".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."--Hmm, disarm him of what? His gold plated .45's? Nope, this says he has WMDs and we need to take them from him.
Which was the jurisdiction of the UNSC to decide, not a member state assisting in the resolution's (1441) compliance."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,-- Destroy what? This one also says he has WMDs that need to be destroyed.
At the same time UN inspectors were driving all around his country in white vans? Right?intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock/ Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,--Says that Saddam has rebuilt his WMD sockpile, and is continuing to develop more.
"confident", has now been downgraded to "believe", when earlier, we were told he "knew".Now if you want to sit there and spew crap like some shyster lawyer, whining "They didn't say certainly, absolutely, without a doubt, .......be my guest, but EVERY person with more than a 4th grade comprehension level, forget that, I bet most 4th graders can get this stuff, will come to the conclusion that EVERY quote shows the speaker believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and wanted more WMDs.
Okay, since you brought up "US Military Officer(s)", let's take a look at this from their perspective.It's a sad state of affairs when a supposed US Military Officer, rather than standing for the black and white of truth and honesty, must insted delve into the shady grey area like some two bit shyster lawyer to make his point. No need to "match pedigrees", it's obvious you're either a dishonest scrote or a moron, so you keep holding on to those "pedigrees" son, it's all you got, but then again my dog has one too.
And according to West Point grads, here are the laws they say Bush broke...There is considerable evidence that Bush's plans are fundamentally illegal, from both an international and domestic perspective. If the war is indeed illegal, members of the armed forces have a legal and moral obligation to resist illegal orders, according to their oath of induction.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
So now, why don't you tell me why your comments contradict the conclusions of what these Military Academics (with a higher than 5th grade education), have said?Among the international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may violate are:
The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946 Nuremberg International Military Tribunals.
Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War.
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978.
The Charter of the United Nations.
The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing."
Just like you're doing to the muslims now.The Nazis where wrong about the Jews and based their beliefs regarding them on nothing that showed them as a threat to the German's security or the lives of the German Citizens.
Just like Hitler claimed jews were responsible for the Reistag Fire.I am right and base my belief on the over 20,000 murderous terrorist attacks, with tens of thousands of innocents murdered by muslims, just since 9/11 and the tens of thousands murdered by them in the thousands upon thousands of murderous attacks prior to 9/11.
Someone GOD probably doesn't like, shouldn't be commenting on HIS message.By the way dumbass, there is ONLY one unpardonable sin and it's not No forgiveness, it is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. By the way, I don't think of them as dogs, I actually like dogs and think they contribute greatly to society, I think of them as RABID dogs, with the key word being rabid.
Oh no.
This one's claiming to be a Christian.
Yikes.
.
Here's a clue son, God hates muslims also.
LMAO. Hey, post up your "proof" that God hates Muslims any more than God hates supposed Chrisitians. btw. Does it say God hates Muslims in your bible?
No really what you should have said is JTPR hates Muslims and that makes you feel very god like.
But I don't think God has much to do with your hate. It's all on you. Son.
