The Politics of Diversion!

[NOVA]

You've been proven wrong about the Iraq/Bush and Dim quotes...many times...
You're just to thick headed to let the facts penetrate...

I don't give a rats ass how many Dims voted yes or no...the fact is they voted in sufficient numbers to pass the resolution...and they are now as responsible as everyone else....

Whether Bush said "no doubt"

or Gore said "WE KNOW"

or Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and other Dims said, "There is no doubt" that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs, again makes no difference at all....

Or Kennedy saying , "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Or Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), saying, "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 .

Or Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), saying, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. .....,...... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

To the American populace,( that is, those of use that are not hacks and will not suck Dem dicks to stretch the truth and bend the words to further advance obvious lies), WE read all those quotes and they are essentially saying the same things, different words, different phases, SAME MEANINGS.....

You're back to that crap like "Clinton didn't use the word LIE or PERJURY...so fuckin' what....
that was explained to you too ....it make no difference at all....
Again..a rapist doesn't have to utter the word rape to confess to it....

If I say "there is no doubt" or I say "WE have no doubt" or I say "I have no doubt"....so what....its a distinction without an iota of difference....no one but a Koolade overdosed hack would try to make something out it....

I'm tired of explaining over and over what most of us know...you and your hack buddies aren't worth the trouble it takes to type this again and again.....

 

[maineman]

You've been proven wrong about the Iraq/Bush and Dim quotes...many times...
You're just to thick headed to let the facts penetrate...

I don't give a rats ass how many Dims voted yes or no...the fact is they voted in sufficient numbers to pass the resolution...and they are now as responsible as everyone else....

Whether Bush said "no doubt"

or Gore said "WE KNOW"

or Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and other Dims said, "There is no doubt" that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs, again makes no difference at all....

Or Kennedy saying , "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Or Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), saying, "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 .

Or Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), saying, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. .....,...... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...

To the American populace,( that is, those of use that are not hacks and will not suck Dem dicks to stretch the truth and bend the words to further advance obvious lies), WE read all those quotes and they are essentially saying the same things, different words, different phases, SAME MEANINGS.....

You're back to that crap like "Clinton didn't use the word LIE or PERJURY...so fuckin' what....
that was explained to you too ....it make no difference at all....
Again..a rapist doesn't have to utter the word rape to confess to it....

If I say "there is no doubt" or I say "WE have no doubt" or I say "I have no doubt"....so what....its a distinction without an iota of difference....no one but a Koolade overdosed hack would try to make something out it....

I'm tired of explaining over and over what most of us know...you and your hack buddies aren't worth the trouble it takes to type this again and again.....

I have no love for the New York Yankees.

there is no love for the New York Yankees.

two different statements... two different meanings.

Like I said, democrats did not state absolute certainty about the presence of Iraqi stockpiles of WMD's..which was exactly what Dubya used - along with his bogus claims of Iraqi/Al Qaeda collaboration - to justify invading sooner than later....

if he had waited just a little bit longer, the weapons inspectors THAT HE HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING BACK INSIDE IRAQ would have told us all what we now know: Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's and anyone who claimed that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that he did had been LYING.


and above all...it is what Dubya DID with his lies that is so criminal.... he started a war he didn't need to start. Democrats did not do that.

 

[NOVA]

I have no love for the New York Yankees.

there is no love for the New York Yankees.

two different statements... two different meanings.

If I hear YOU making those statements, without further clarification, I must in fairness assume you are speaking for yourself and not for your wife, your city, or your gay lover.... therefore they mean the same thing as stand alone statements

Answered, actually proven, many many times over by Clinton admin. actions in Iraq for at least 5+ of his reign, the Dim quotes, etc. I'll not waste my time on it again

Like I said, democrats did not state absolute certainty about the presence of Iraqi stockpiles of WMD's..which was exactly what Dubya used - along with his bogus claims of Iraqi/Al Qaeda collaboration - to justify invading sooner than later....

Read the 911 Commission Report...it states that it was Richard Clark that made the connection between Saddam and Al Qaedo around the time of the aspirin factory missile attack, I'm not going to research it again, its there if your interested

if he had waited just a little bit longer, the weapons inspectors THAT HE HAD SUCCEEDED IN GETTING BACK INSIDE IRAQ would have told us all what we now know: Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's and anyone who claimed that THERE WAS NO DOUBT that he did had been LYING.

And no ongoing nuclear research program either, as the Democrats insisted he had, (shrugs)..

and above all...it is what Dubya DID with his lies that is so criminal.... he started a war he didn't need to start. Democrats did not do that.

Bush escalated an already ongoing military action against Saddam with ground forces rather than just air and missile strikes as Clinton did for a number of years....no war was declared, and Bush sought and received Congressional approval before acting....and the Democrats are a party to that approval...without them, it would not and could not occur.....that the simple unspun truth

 

[maineman]

"I personally have no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of opinion.

"There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of fact.

I realize that, to imprecise morons like you, they sound similar, but that does not make them synonymous. sorry.

and when you say, "and the Democrats are a party to that approval" we both know, but you like to ignore, that a MINORITY of congressional democrats were party to that approval whereas the overwhelming majority of congressional democrats were party to it.

 

[NOVA]

"I personally have no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of opinion.

"There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a statement of fact.

I realize that, to imprecise morons like you, they sound similar, but that does not make them synonymous. sorry.

No need to be sorry...to Bush it was fact...its exactly what the NIE told him...it was what 16 of our nations intell. agencys agreed on....no ifs, ands, or buts,....not in the October NIE....the only issue they hedged on was if Saddam had a viable nuclear weapons program...and even in that they believed more likely than not....
the bottom line is ...BUSH blieved it to be fact, and stated it as fact...exactly like Al Gore...neither lied, both were wrong....

Its akin to Gore and his global waring phobia....he believes it, hes wrong but he doesn't know it, therefore he is not lying...to him its real...

and when you say, "and the Democrats are a party to that approval" we both know, but you like to ignore, that a MINORITY of congressional democrats were party to that approval whereas the overwhelming majority of congressional democrats were party to it.

So what...without DEMOCRAT votes to approve the resolution...IT COULD NOT HAVE PASSED....

 

[NOVA]

If you hit a golf shot and after watching it, yell, "IT WENT IN THE HOLE"....
is that not a statement of fact....? Of course it is....its undeniably a statement of fact

but when arrive at the green you see the ball didn't go in to hole....are you now a liar....only and idiot, fool or hack would say you are a liar....you were simply mistaken...

When you yelled..you believed it went in the hole...you didn't say I think it went in the hole or it may have gone in the hole, or that might have gone in the hole....
YOU BELIEVED IT DID and STATED SUCH...wrong but not a lie...

I take no joy in PWNING you...why force me to do it....?

 

[Onceler]

Bravo, 2 days before Bush gave his State of the Union to make the case for war, he got a personal daily briefing about a spy named "Curveball." In that PDB, intel basically discredited Curveball, and said he was a completely unreliable source. This is important, because Curveball was the ONLY source they had asserting that there were mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.

2 days later, he said in the State of the Union that "several" (more than 1), "reliable" sources had provided "proof" of mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.

Stop w/ this charade. I get it, but it's wearing thin. If Iraq was the right thing to do, and we had found tons of WMD's, you wouldn't be rushing to give Democrats "credit." Like I said, I get it; you don't want this to be "Bush's war." But it is, and always will be.

 

[NOVA]

Bravo, 2 days before Bush gave his State of the Union to make the case for war, he got a personal daily briefing about a spy named "Curveball." In that PDB, intel basically discredited Curveball, and said he was a completely unreliable source. This is important, because Curveball was the ONLY source they had asserting that there were mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq.

2 days later, he said in the State of the Union that "several" (more than 1), "reliable" sources had provided "proof" of mobile bio-weapons labs in NY.

You have inside information to all the intell. coming into the Oval Office, do you? I think not....
the belief that Iraq had WMD was a universal belief by every important county in the UN...proven by the resolutions against Saddam for the previous few years....unanimous resolutions I might add...
and one issue, mobile bio-weapons is just that, one particular issue..giving you the benefit of the doubt..


Stop w/ this charade. I get it, but it's wearing thin. If Iraq was the right thing to do, and we had found tons of WMD's, you wouldn't be rushing to give Democrats "credit." Like I said, I get it; you don't want this to be "Bush's war." But it is, and always will be.

Right or wrong ? that is irrelevant to this debate...the ousting of Saddam isn't at issue here...by any fair measure, it isn't Bush's war....factually, it was an escalation of military action that had been ongoing for years....coverning 3 Presidents....an issue voted on in Congress and approved...It didn't start in March of 03...it was expanded....sorry , but that is historical fact....

 

[Onceler]

this is irrelevant to this debate...the ousting of Saddam isn't at issue here...by any fair measure, it isn't Bush's war....factually, it was an escalation of military action that had been ongoing for years....coverning 3 Presidents....an issue voted on in Congress and approved...It didn't start in March of 03...it was expanded....sorry , but that is historical fact....

That's lunacy.

To try to marginalize the Iraq War as merely an "escalation" of what was already going on is just crazy.

History won't be kind to that rather outrageous revision.

 

[Onceler]

Oh, and Bush's PDB on Curveball has been made public.

He lied, in a State of the Union.

 

[NOVA]

Oh, and Bush's PDB on Curveball has been made public.

He lied, in a State of the Union.

I don't recall seeing any PDB on Curveball, but these things took place 5, 6 years ago so I don't have a perfect memory on this stuff...

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. He warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions.

Is that your contention ?

I fully realize that after all this shit hit the fan, many investigations took place to see what happened...and 20/20 hindsight proves Bush and his supporters wrong on many things....I don't believe Bush or anyone on down the line, lied; to Colin Powell and the rest ...they passed on beliefs that were not proven? Absolutely...Stressed beliefs that should have been questioned....Believed what meshed with their biases and tunnelvision......sure....THEY WERE WRONG...
I think Clinton believed it and all the rest of those Dems believed what they said...we now know they were all wrong too, that doesn't make them liars...and the same goes for Bush....

 

[Onceler]

I posted a documented lie. Information that he knew was false, but repeated to the nation, anyway.

Bush lied.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't recall seeing any PDB on Curveball, but these things took place 5, 6 years ago so I don't have a perfect memory on this stuff...

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. He warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions.

Is that your contention ?

I fully realize that after all this shit hit the fan, many investigations took place to see what happened...and 20/20 hindsight proves Bush and his supporters wrong on many things....I don't believe Bush or anyone on down the line, lied; to Colin Powell and the rest ...they passed on beliefs that were not proven? Absolutely...Stressed beliefs that should have been questioned....Believed what meshed with their biases and tunnelvision......sure....THEY WERE WRONG...
I think Clinton believed it and all the rest of those Dems believed what they said...we now know they were all wrong too, that doesn't make them liars...and the same goes for Bush....

Ya know, in 2004 my argument was that Bush either purposely mislead this nation or they were just plain incompetent and that I didn't believe that they were incompetent......four years later I have changed my mind as they proved that yes, they certainly were that incompetent.

 

[maineman]

I posted a documented lie. Information that he knew was false, but repeated to the nation, anyway.

Bush lied.

exactly, and the purpose of his lie was to convince the American people we needed to immediately invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

 

[NOVA]

exactly, and the purpose of his lie was to convince the American people we needed to immediately invade, conquer and occupy Iraq.

Prove it !


Prove it was any different than what was told to the American people for the previous 6 years by Clinton...

Prove he KNEW it was false...
Not just that some people said it was suspect data
Not that the information could not be 100% substanciated

Intelligence is NEVER 100% accurate...but we STILL and WILL IN THE FUTURE form our conclusions from whatever intell is available at any given moment in time....from what intell we deem to put our trust in,

Will we trust intell from Great Britain more than from the Soviets???
Will we trust intell from Israel more than from Germany???
Will we trust our own intell more than another countrys????

These are the kinds decisions made every day and only a fool imagines mistakes will never be made or a statement made that might prove incorrect in future months or years...
instead of existing in your make-believe utopias you need to visit the real world of constant change we actually live in....

Right, we didn't find stockpiles of WMD.....but then who the hell would have imagined we would find between 30 and 40 new aircraft buried in the sands of Iraqi ... there are things we thought that were wrong and things we never imagined came to be....get the fuck over it already

 

[Onceler]

"Prove he KNEW it was false..."

I did; you keep ignoring it.

 

[maineman]

Prove it !


Prove it was any different than what was told to the American people for the previous 6 years by Clinton...

Clinton did not advocate, nor start, a ground war of conquest and occupation

Prove he KNEW it was false...
Not just that some people said it was suspect data
Not that the information could not be 100% substanciated
you miss the point...the FACT that some people said it was suspect data precludes him from HONESTLY saying, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" When he said that, he was LYING

refute that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

their constitution is not theocratic in nature? really? Here is the text of Article Two:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.


I railed about sunnis and shiites not being able to get along without an occupying army present. If and when we leave, and they get along, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

No, they are not a theocracy. Yes, they are a democracy. I don't recall US troops being present in the Iraqi Parliament, keeping the sunni's and shiites from going at each other. I don't recall the US Government having to approve their Constitution or any of the other legislation the Iraqi people have endorsed, or representatives elected. I didn't see US soldiers marching Iraqi's to the polls by the million, at gunpoint. In fact, I saw a lot of Iraqi's proudly holding up that purple thumb, to show they defied threats of death from alQaeda, to cast their votes. (this, contrary to your previous position that Iraqi's didn't want or desire a democracy.)

When American forces leave Iraq, there will certainly be some challenges by the anti-democracy forces within the country. And of course, you will proudly boast of your "correctness" in predicting there would be problems. However, it is important (even for the retarded) to examine why the anti-democratic forces will challenge Iraqi authority. In this case, it will be, to overthrow a democratically established government, so as to replace it with a radical Islamic theocracy, ruled by an Ayatollah. Now, let's just forget about the fact that a vast and overwhelming majority of Iraqi's have already clearly gone on record in opposition to this form of government, the reason for establishing it, is to deny freedom to the people. Democracy brings power to the people, and enables them with the means to change their situation for the better. They can say NO to the radicalism, they can REJECT the extremists. THIS is the fundamental principle which will be the only way to ever effect change in the region. Guns and bombs will not work! Economic sanctions will not work! It is through DEMOCRACY that we can hope the PEOPLE OF IRAQ will instigate change, and it will spread throughout the region.

Of course... you're leading the cheerleading against this all the way. Apparently, you had rather Iraqi's be slaves to radical Islam. My question to you, has always been, why do you favor this? Is it because the principles of democracy are not worth American lives to defend and protect? Is it because you have some better plan for combating radical Islam? Or, is it that you are racially prejudiced against people from that region, and don't really give two shits if they are forced to live in bondage to radicalism?

 

[maineman]

No, they are not a theocracy. Yes, they are a democracy. I don't recall US troops being present in the Iraqi Parliament, keeping the sunni's and shiites from going at each other. I don't recall the US Government having to approve their Constitution or any of the other legislation the Iraqi people have endorsed, or representatives elected. I didn't see US soldiers marching Iraqi's to the polls by the million, at gunpoint. In fact, I saw a lot of Iraqi's proudly holding up that purple thumb, to show they defied threats of death from alQaeda, to cast their votes. (this, contrary to your previous position that Iraqi's didn't want or desire a democracy.)

When American forces leave Iraq, there will certainly be some challenges by the anti-democracy forces within the country. And of course, you will proudly boast of your "correctness" in predicting there would be problems. However, it is important (even for the retarded) to examine why the anti-democratic forces will challenge Iraqi authority. In this case, it will be, to overthrow a democratically established government, so as to replace it with a radical Islamic theocracy, ruled by an Ayatollah. Now, let's just forget about the fact that a vast and overwhelming majority of Iraqi's have already clearly gone on record in opposition to this form of government, the reason for establishing it, is to deny freedom to the people. Democracy brings power to the people, and enables them with the means to change their situation for the better. They can say NO to the radicalism, they can REJECT the extremists. THIS is the fundamental principle which will be the only way to ever effect change in the region. Guns and bombs will not work! Economic sanctions will not work! It is through DEMOCRACY that we can hope the PEOPLE OF IRAQ will instigate change, and it will spread throughout the region.

Of course... you're leading the cheerleading against this all the way. Apparently, you had rather Iraqi's be slaves to radical Islam. My question to you, has always been, why do you favor this? Is it because the principles of democracy are not worth American lives to defend and protect? Is it because you have some better plan for combating radical Islam? Or, is it that you are racially prejudiced against people from that region, and don't really give two shits if they are forced to live in bondage to radicalism?

I noticed you ignored the quoted sections from the Iraq constitution. Not surprising.

I disagree with your assumption that it will be radical islamic extremists who seek to bring down the shiite dominated government. I tend to think that the real threat to the existing government will be from former ba'athists and other sunnis who will chafe at the shiite dominated legislative agenda.

I also disagree with your presumption that a "vast majority" of Iraqis are antagonistic to Iran. The shiite leaders of Iraq all have close ties to the religious leaders of Iran and I have always suggested that Iraqi shiites will welcome a closer association with Iran. Time will tell which of our views proves correct.

and I have NEVER wanted Iraqis to be slaves to radical Islam... your question is ridiculous and without merit.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I noticed you ignored the quoted sections from the Iraq constitution. Not surprising.

I disagree with your assumption that it will be radical islamic extremists who seek to bring down the shiite dominated government. I tend to think that the real threat to the existing government will be from former ba'athists and other sunnis who will chafe at the shiite dominated legislative agenda.

I also disagree with your presumption that a "vast majority" of Iraqis are antagonistic to Iran. The shiite leaders of Iraq all have close ties to the religious leaders of Iran and I have always suggested that Iraqi shiites will welcome a closer association with Iran. Time will tell which of our views proves correct.

and I have NEVER wanted Iraqis to be slaves to radical Islam... your question is ridiculous and without merit.

Yes, I ignored the quoted sections of the Iraqi Constitution, because it's just more of your silly semantics and word games. Establishing the free democratic government based on Islamic principles is no different than establishing a free democratic government based on Judeo-Christian principles! It doesn't make it a THEOCRACY... go and fucking look the word up, if you have trouble with the definition! I won't sit here and play your silly semantics game.

I don't know what kind of radical extremists will try to bring down Iraq, I didn't say. I do believe it will be forces who do not favor a democracy, because a democracy gives the people freedom, and radicalism simply can't flourish in a free society. And I don't really have a problem with Iraqis getting along with Iranians.... perhaps the democratic governed Iraqis will serve as an example to the fanatic-controlled Iranians, and the people of Iran will demand freedom as well? So fucking what, if they believe in Islam? My beef is not with Muslims, not with the religion of Islam... it is with EXTREME RADICALS!

You seem to oppose anything associated with Islam having anything to do with the government of Iraq... and that is pretty un-fucking-realistic, don't you think? Especially since you don't seem to have ANY ideas on how we effect a change in the region. No.... if it were up to you, we'd just continue to turn our backs on the problem, pretend it doesn't matter what we do, persist in our indifference, and exploitation of their resources. THAT has been your only suggestion for a solution, and it hasn't worked. It's precisely why we have the problems we have now in that region!


[EDITORIAL REMINDER: I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD HAS BEEN DIVERTED YET AGAIN BY THE LEFT, IN ORDER TO REHASH THE IRAQ WAR, INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING THE TOPIC AT HAND. THIS MARKS THE 2nd SUCH DIVERSION IN THIS THREAD.]