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

[BlindBoo]

The Bush Administration claimed WMD's - nothing more, nothing less. And WMD's were found (you inability to accept reality because said reality is in direct conflict with your ideology and the false reality you created yourself, does not make that reality any less real)...

They were claiming he was.....oh for fuck sake, let Dick explain it to ya.....

(Good thing they were never taped..........oh wait.......)

We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.

•"Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."

[QUESTION:And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?]

But we do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapons."

What he wants is time and more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms

Or Donald

"Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons.

They have given up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues under the sanctions program so that they could in fact keep those weapons of mass destruction programs going.

He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox."

•"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas."

•"His regime has an active program to acquire nuclear weapons."

And of course my favorite from Donnie....

We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Want more?:

Bush Administration Quotes on Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

So first you people claim that their were no WMD's. When that is proven to be false, you people then claim that the Bush Administration was only talking about nuclear weapons. To "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration which specifically cites "sarin gas" - the very WMD I cited to start this thread...

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

 

[P@triot]

If one uses US law (18 USC §2332a) WMD

"2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.

By that definition every weapon known to man is a weapon of mass destruction.

If you doubt me, follow section 921 and SEE FOR YOURSELF.

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

So just to be very clear here - you're claiming Sarin Gas is not a WMD? Is that correct?

 

[P@triot]

They were claiming he was.....oh for fuck sake, let Dick explain it to ya.....

(Good thing they were never taped..........oh wait.......)

We know he's reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.

•"Well, I think I've just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons."

[QUESTION:And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?]

But we do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapons."

What he wants is time and more time to husband his resources, to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons programs, and to gain possession of nuclear arms

Or Donald

"Well, we know that Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons. And we know he has an active program for the development of nuclear weapons.

They have given up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues under the sanctions program so that they could in fact keep those weapons of mass destruction programs going.

He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox."

•"He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas."

•"His regime has an active program to acquire nuclear weapons."

And of course my favorite from Donnie....

We know where they [weapons of mass destruction] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Want more?:

Bush Administration Quotes on Iraq - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org

So first you people claim that their were no WMD's. When that is proven to be false, you people then claim that the Bush Administration was only talking about nuclear weapons. To "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration which specifically cites "sarin gas" - the very WMD I cited to start this thread...

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

 

[P@triot]

You don't get to make up your own definition.

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saigon - since, like most children, you require more effort and patience to deal with - lets see if we can break this down.

First basic question: are you calling MSNBC liars? Yes or No (simple one word answer required - please do no complicate this).

 

[BlindBoo]

So first you people claim that their were no WMD's. When that is proven to be false, you people then claim that the Bush Administration was only talking about nuclear weapons. To "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration which specifically cites "sarin gas" - the very WMD I cited to start this thread...

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Methinks Rottweiler may soon be fired by Big Brother. His/her effort to fabricate a conclusion from ridiculous evidence violates rule number one at the Ministry of Truth, "Don't Embarrass Big Brother".

 

[P@triot]

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

Methinks Rottweiler may soon be fired by Big Brother. His/her effort to fabricate a conclusion from ridiculous evidence violates rule number one at the Ministry of Truth, "Don't Embarrass Big Brother".

Soooo documented military events, eyewitnesses, and even left-wing media acknowledgement constitutes "ridiculous evidence" in your mind?

Just out of curiousity - what is your idea of "reliable evidence"?

 

[P@triot]

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

Where did I ever say that (and I quote) "the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq"?!?!? Please show us the post #. I've said a 1,000x's that the administration explicitly said WMD's - which includes nukes you fuck'n fool.

Now you're just flat out lying and making shit up because I'm owning you with FACTS.

 

[P@triot]

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

The administration said WMD's - which included nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. What was Collin Powell holding in the now famous picture in front of the UN? Was he holding a nuclear weapon or was he holding a vial of (pretend) biological weapon to make his point? This is a simple question - please answer.

If the concern was ONLY nuclear weapons (as you idiots are now claiming in a desperate attempt to move the goalposts out of range), then why was Powell holding a vial?

The issue was WMD's - period. Game. Set. Match. Come back and talk to me when you can grow up and have an honest conversation instead of constantly trying to desperately rewrite history to fit your radical wing-nut narrative.

 

[P@triot]

Read this very slowly so you can comprehend. The Bush administration was claiming Iraq was an immedialte threat to the worlds remaining superpower by actively producing and stockpiling large amounts of chemical and biological weapons and had an active nuclear weapons program. None of which turn out to be true. The premise of your thread is ignorant of the facts. You are disingenuous in your denial of what was claimed in the run up to the invasion and occupation.

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

Then why are we arguing? I stand firmly in the FACT that the Bush Administration clearly outlined a WMD threat (nuclear and/or biological and/or chemical). If you're not disagreeing with that FACT, then why the are you arguing with me?

Are you just bored?

Just a desperate housewife?

 

[BlindBoo]

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

Where did I ever say that (and I quote) "the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq"?!?!? Please show us the post #. I've said a 1,000x's that the administration explicitly said WMD's - which includes nukes you fuck'n fool.

Now you're just flat out lying and making shit up because I'm owning you with FACTS.

"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."

See that link (you know the words with the line under them) That's the link to your post saying the above quote.

"There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES"

You posted it. You own that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Please - have someone who actually knows how to read, read your own posts to you. You're contradicting yourself. You claim that the Bush Administration was only worried about nuclear weapons, and to "prove" this - you post quotes from the Bush Administration where they not only state CHEMICAL weapons, they specifically cite SARIN GAS - the very chemical that started this thread

If you're really so stupid as to post quotes about Sarin Gas from the Bush Administration as "proof" that they were only focused on nuclear weapons, there is nothing I can say or do to help you. You obviously require professional help far beyond what I can provide you over a thread.

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

Then why are we arguing? I stand firmly in the FACT that the Bush Administration clearly outlined a WMD threat (nuclear and/or biological and/or chemical). If you're not disagreeing with that FACT, then why the are you arguing with me?

Are you just bored?

Just a desperate housewife?

So are you going to retract your earlier post to NYcarbineer where you said clearly "There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES"?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You better go back and check what Bush was actually claiming. He was not claiming one roadside bomb, dipshit.

He claimed WMD's - nothing less, nothing more. And that's exactly what was found in Iraq.

Gee.....how "odd" there were no PHOTOS of such a significant "find"!!!

I guess Lil' Dumbya was too modest to show-'em-off, huh?

 

[P@triot]

Never once have I claimed what you say. Your claim, on the other hand, was that the Bush administration never claimed there was a nuclear threat from Iraq but only his Chemical and Biological weapons production and stockpiles.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-themselves-on-the-wmd-issue.html#post6855221

Then why are we arguing? I stand firmly in the FACT that the Bush Administration clearly outlined a WMD threat (nuclear and/or biological and/or chemical). If you're not disagreeing with that FACT, then why the are you arguing with me?

Are you just bored?

Just a desperate housewife?

So are you going to retract your earlier post to NYcarbineer where you said clearly "There was NEVER a claim that it was NUKES"?

Actually, yes...

That was supposed to say: "There was never a claim that it was JUST nukes".

My apologies for inadvertently omitting that key word (though for the record - I would think taking all of my posts about WMD's should make it rather obvious where I stood on this issue).

Again, I apologize for inadvertently leaving that key word out....

 

[Billo_Really]

Is a nuclear weapon a "WMD" in your own made up definition?

A nuclear weapon satify's the FBI's definition of a WMD in a link provided by you.

 

[Billo_Really]

First, there is no clear definition of WMDs.

Like loinboy, you're just making up your own definition (man, you guys are both ARROGANT and IGNORANT). You don't get to make up your own definition.

Why are you throwing me under the bus?

I happen to disagree with his point and agree with you.

You've shown there is a clear definition of what a WMD is.

You've also shown other things, but I'll comment on those at a later time.

 

[P@triot]

Is a nuclear weapon a "WMD" in your own made up definition?

A nuclear weapon satify's the FBI's definition of a WMD in a link provided by you.

Well, in post #61 you state (and I quote directly here): "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as: These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

As I stated in my previous post, minor injuries to two soldiers, does not constitute a "large-scale impact on people".

(end quote).

Now here's the problem my friend - North Korea just set of nuclear weapons in which no one was killed and there was no large scale impact on property or infrastructure.

So, by your definition (mind you, not the official definition but your definition that two people being affected by the Sarin Gas in Iraq are simply not enough people to make the Sarin Gas a WMD), then nuclear weapons are not WMD's as North Korea just set one off without an injury to a single person. Also, between the years of 1945 to 1980, the U.S. set off nearly 80 nuclear bombs in New Mexico and Nevada during testing - and again there was no one injured or killed (to the best of my knowledge anyway - and certainly not on a large scale).

Now, would you like to retract your position on what constitutes a WMD so we can have an honest discussion? Sarin Gas is a WMD - period. And Sarin Gas (along with other chemcial weapons) was located in Iraq. These are fundamental facts that cannot be disputed.

 

[P@triot]

First, there is no clear definition of WMDs.

Like loinboy, you're just making up your own definition (man, you guys are both ARROGANT and IGNORANT). You don't get to make up your own definition.

Why are you throwing me under the bus?

I happen to disagree with his point and agree with you.

You've shown there is a clear definition of what a WMD is.

You've also shown other things, but I'll comment on those at a later time.

Are you drunk right now? Go read post #61 and tell me you "agree with me". You've been bashing me through the entire thread claiming that sarin gas does not constitute a WMD

 

[JoeB131]

So you support throwing away trillions in these wars and then blame Obama and democrats for it?

Only the left considers money spent on defense "waste" while money spent on waste, fraud, abuse, and pork in the U.S. to be "money well spent"

I think it depends on how you define waste.

Money spent on a bomb that is dropped, kills a lot of innocent people, creates people who otherwise hate us and turns them into terrorists... that's 'waste'.

But bridge or a school or a water filtration plant is "waste" in Conservatard Land.

And they wonder why they lose elections.

 

[JoeB131]

Methinks Rottweiler may soon be fired by Big Brother. His/her effort to fabricate a conclusion from ridiculous evidence violates rule number one at the Ministry of Truth, "Don't Embarrass Big Brother".

Maybe Poodle is trying to get this guy's old Job...