Shame On you, President Obama

He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”
Click to expand...

1) credible to whom?
2) do we base such major decisions, like initiating military conflict with another nation, because somebody who remains unaccountable for their actions claims credible evidence that can't be ruled out, which means it can't be ruled in either?

This is how one governs a country?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) credible to whom?
2) do we base such major decisions, like initiating military conflict with another nation, because somebody who remains unaccountable for their actions claims credible evidence that can't be ruled out, which means it can't be ruled in either?

This is how one governs a country?
Click to expand...

The decision for war had already been made. The point of this exercise is to show a credible method of how Saddam got rid of many of his WMDs, and why the too-late posturing of Democrats years later is disingenuous at best.

If Syria did in fact receive these weapons, isn't that something that we and our allies should know?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
1) credible to whom?
2) do we base such major decisions, like initiating military conflict with another nation, because somebody who remains unaccountable for their actions claims credible evidence that can't be ruled out, which means it can't be ruled in either?

This is how one governs a country?
Click to expand...


And don't forget Rummy's remarks. "War was an option we could afford."

The only conclusion they could draw from not being able to find the weapons is that they must be hidden and if they're hidden it shows they must be weapons he wasn't supposed to possess :rolleyes:
 
DamnYankee said:
The decision for war had already been made. The point of this exercise is to show a credible method of how Saddam got rid of many of his WMDs, and why the too-late posturing of Democrats years later is disingenuous at best.
Click to expand...
posturing, late or early, is disingenuous period. saying that hussein got rid of his WMDs because somebody told us about a convoy of trucks is about as credible as my saying that the russians actually killed JFK.
 
DamnYankee said:
The decision for war had already been made. The point of this exercise is to show a credible method of how Saddam got rid of many of his WMDs, and why the too-late posturing of Democrats years later is disingenuous at best.

If Syria did in fact receive these weapons, isn't that something that we and our allies should know?
Click to expand...

There's only one way to find out. INVADE!

Right?
 
apple0154 said:
And don't forget Rummy's remarks. "War was an option we could afford."

The only conclusion they could draw from not being able to find the weapons is that they must be hidden and if they're hidden it shows they must be weapons he wasn't supposed to possess :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

you do understand that this is a tactic used by both republicans and democrats, right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
posturing, late or early, is disingenuous period. saying that hussein got rid of his WMDs because somebody told us about a convoy of trucks is about as credible as my saying that the russians actually killed JFK.
Click to expand...

Who's being disingenuous now?

Besides, LBJ killed JFK.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you do understand that this is a tactic used by both republicans and democrats, right?
Click to expand...

The general information passed to the Dems was cherry-picked. All they could do was base their decision on what they were told. Furthermore, the Dem's constituents, through listening to Bush and his band of bandits on TV, supported their decision to go to war after being told half the story.
 
apple0154 said:
The general information passed to the Dems was cherry-picked. All they could do was base their decision on what they were told. Furthermore, the Dem's constituents, through listening to Bush and his band of bandits on TV, supported their decision to go to war after being told half the story.
Click to expand...

Right, there were NO Democrats involved in any high levels of the CIA, and DOD that were willing to provide the whole story to ANY prominent Democrat politician. I didn't realize that Bush 43 was so powerful, like a god.
 
DamnYankee said:
Right, there were NO Democrats involved in any high levels of the CIA, and DOD that were willing to provide the whole story to ANY prominent Democrat politician. I didn't realize that Bush 43 was so powerful, like a god.
Click to expand...

Puleese. It has been reported numerous times the White House wanted information that supported a war. As for Bush being a God we saw what the White House did to Plame.
 
apple0154 said:
In msg 65 you wrote,

I was referring to Syria. Do we invade to find out?
Click to expand...

I never suggested that. In fact I'm suggesting taking the weapons transfer investigation seriously, instead of pretending that all that shit just magically disappeared.
 
apple0154 said:
Puleese. It has been reported numerous times the White House wanted information that supported a war. As for Bush being a God we saw what the White House did to Plame.
Click to expand...

"It has been reported" is right up there in credibility with "experts say".
 
apple0154 said:
The general information passed to the Dems was cherry-picked. All they could do was base their decision on what they were told. Furthermore, the Dem's constituents, through listening to Bush and his band of bandits on TV, supported their decision to go to war after being told half the story.
Click to expand...

don't get stuck on this one incident. open your mind to the entire realm of politics as it concerns the government pushing the populace in the direction it wants to go.
 
DamnYankee said:
I'll just show this this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/hillary-clinton-defends-2_n_81261.html
Click to expand...

Right...yeah!

So in your opinion that is hillary "lobbying for war"?

OMG you are so full of shit!

Here's what was ACTUALLY said:

...This morning on Meet the Press, Hillary Clinton defended her 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution, saying that she "thought it was a vote to put inspectors back in" so Saddam Hussein could not go unchecked. She insisted that she and others were "told by the White House personally" that this was the purpose of the resolution, and cited President Bush's assurances to defend her position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top