Until We Find ONE WMD in Iraq, Republicans Should Really Calm Down About “Obamacare"

maineman said:
[/B]

If generic terror was our target, why weren't we invading Sri Lanka to go after the Tamil Tigers, or storming the streets of Belfast going after the IRA? A shotgun approach and a lack of focus on the enemies that most threatened us limited our effectiveness, imho.
Click to expand...

You might not realize it, because the liberal rags you use to feed your brain do not like to delve into Bush's successes, but shortly into the war on terror the IRA decommissioned itself. And Qadaffi surrendered up his WMDs.
 
Taft2016 said:
Right. So obviously we found him in a jail cell when we arrived and the FBI just hasn't updated their "most wanted" website in 10 years.
Click to expand...

did you happen to see the Stahl interview? did you note his stylish attire? Were you aware that he had been offered up on several occasions by the Iraqi government? I guess not.

You're proof positive of the adage that a little knowledge is dangerous.
 
Taft2016 said:
You might not realize it, because the liberal rags you use to feed your brain do not like to delve into Bush's successes, but shortly into the war on terror the IRA decommissioned itself. And Qadaffi surrendered up his WMDs.
Click to expand...

so... Iraq was the only place where "terror" resided worldwide? Not the Philippines? Not Burma? If our wide ranging war against a tactic was going to take us to countries all over the globe, why did we not actually DO that?

In regards to Bush's successes, I was mightily impressed when Dubya forced Saddam to let the weapons inspectors back into the country. If only the impatient little boy had been able to sit still for a few months he would have found out what we now all know: there were no stockpiles of WMD's and we didn't need to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq in order to disarm it.
 
maineman said:
did you happen to see the Stahl interview? did you note his stylish attire? Were you aware that he had been offered up on several occasions by the Iraqi government? I guess not.

You're proof positive of the adage that a little knowledge is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Right. By the same guy who agreed to no-fly zones and unfettered weapons inspections?

Saddam speaks all truth, Bush all lies. Got it.
 
maineman said:
poor gal. she must be too fucking stupid to know what an idiot she married.
Click to expand...

She didn't marry you dimwit; but when it comes to fucking stupid,you're the champion.

She has an MBA and is a CPA; doesn't sound like someone who is stupid; unlike you who is someone painfully stupid.

Based on your comments, I'd say you're partially retarded. Like a mongoloid. Did your mommy drop you on your head as a baby shit-for-brains?
 
maineman said:
a statement of fact, of course.

If you had data that would cast doubt on that statement of fact, and if you had presented that data to the president before he made it, and he made it anyway, then it would be a lie, just like "THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS STOCKPILES OF WMD's" was a lie. Bush had knowledge of doubt about the absolute certainty and he said there was none.
Click to expand...

Any data for or against is irrelevant to the discussion....the point, according to your logic should be, how could he make such a blanket statement that there
is no doubt....ie, how could he possibly KNOW there was no doubt ?....did he contact every being on the planet to find out if any had doubt ?

Obama had no knowledge, and no proof that there was "no doubt"....he had no facts that could prove "there was no doubt"....therefore he lied, by your own logic....your own parsing. You illogical reasoning must work both ways to be rational.

We've got to think about economic development because although there's not a direct correlation between terrorism and the economy, there is no doubt that if you've got a lot of unemployed, uneducated young men in societies, that there is a greater likelihood that terrorist recruits are available.........http://tinyurl.com/jwo3s6k
Click to expand...

In this statement, Obama first admits to no proof to support the conclusion declares next, yet he proclaims, THERE IS NO DOUBT.....

I'm beginning to agree with some others that 'you really are that stupid'.....not only in comprehending words, but also in basic logic..............
 
Taft2016 said:
Yeah, he was.

Yet this tangent remains irrelevant, because whether an agent of Al Qaeda or not, he was still an Islamic terrorist, hence his presence along with Abu Nidal's and others fit the "war on terror."
Click to expand...

NO... He WASN'T. Zarqawi was NOT a part of AQ until 2004. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Regarding the "war on terror" "fit"....so do the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka... Continuity IRA (CIRA) in Ireland.... Shining Path in Peru.... AAMB and PFLP in Israel.... FARQ in Columbia, ETA in Spain and France.... and the list goes on and on and on and on.

why, when we were attacked by a handful of Saudis on 9/11, did we invade Iraq and NONE of those other places where "terror" resides around the globe? Did you and Dubya just lose interest, like he did in OBL?
 
Taft2016 said:
It's amazing how you can zero in on those four words from Bush, out of context of the millions of words spoken prior to the Iraq invasion by him and leaders all around the world, including Tony Blair, whose argument we can read above and which basically mirrors that of Bush.

Yet, you opt to ignore the precise words of Bush before the House and Senate in September 2001, when he announced a war on "terror."

Not a war on Al Qaeda. Not a war against Afghanistan. Not a war against the Taliban.

A war on terror, that would take us to many countries all over the planet. A war proposal that elicited a standing ovation from all of the Democrats on the floor.

Iraq harbored terrorists, as Hitchens put forth so well. He didn't even get to the $25,000 bounty Saddam Hussein was offering to the surviving family members of suicide bombers in Israel. So, yes, there were terrorists being harbored in Iraq. Saddam being among them as their own international banker and exporter of terrorism. Abu Nidal, once the world's most wanted terrorist, was working out of a government office in Baghdad.

"But ZOMG! They weren't Al Qaeda!"

First of all, they need not have been Al Qaeda to fit Bush's "war on terror" proposal, which if you applied the same carefully word dissection to that you applied to "There is no doubt" you would have to admit the terrorist situation in Iraq justified the invasion. As did the repeated violations of the ceasefire agreement of 1991.

Secondly, there *WAS* Al Qaeda operating in Iraq. Al Zarqawi was leading the operation well before the invasion.

But of course, I could point out your hypocrisies repeatedly, and bury you over and over again with facts, but you'll come back a month from now with the same "Bush lied" lie. You're a phoney.
Click to expand...

Taft; one cannot argue with idiots. They will only drag you down to their lowlife level, then beat you with experience.
 
NOVA said:
Any data for or against is irrelevant to the discussion....the point, according to your logic should be, how could he make such a blanket statement that there
is no doubt....ie, how could he possibly KNOW there was no doubt ?....did he contact every being on the planet to find out if any had doubt ?

Obama had no knowledge, and no proof that there was "no doubt"....he had no facts that could prove "there was no doubt"....therefore he lied, by your own logic....your own parsing. You illogical reasoning must work both ways to be rational.



In this statement, Obama first admits to no proof to support the conclusion declares next, yet he proclaims, THERE IS NO DOUBT.....

I'm beginning to agree with some others that 'you really are that stupid'.....not only in comprehending words, but also in basic logic..............
Click to expand...

We are not talking about some lone tibetian monk in a cave doubting Saddam's stockpiles... we are talking about a whole host of Bush's own employees.... analysts in his own intelligence agencies who loaded up every single NIE on the subject with plenty of doubts, caveats and qualifiers that cast plenty of doubt as to the existence of stockpiles of WMD's. There WAS doubt... right there in his own administration.
 
Maine taking a bitch slappin'.....with rational logic....

this was a good read....and its should be obvious to all that maine's responses are at best, totally irrelevant bullshit trivia, that don't refute Taft's posts....
 
NOVA said:
Maine taking a bitch slappin'.....with rational logic....

this was a good read....and its should be obvious to all that maine's responses are at best, totally irrelevant bullshit trivia, that don't refute Taft's posts....
Click to expand...

again.... if a "war on terror" around the globe was what Bush set out to do....why aren't we invading, conquering and occupying all those other places on the globe where "terror" lives?

And please.... people of intelligence and goodwill can disagree as to whether invading Iraq was the appropriate thing to do.
 
maineman said:
We are not talking about some lone tibetian monk in a cave doubting Saddam's stockpiles... we are talking about a whole host of Bush's own employees.... analysts in his own intelligence agencies who loaded up every single NIE on the subject with plenty of doubts, caveats and qualifiers that cast plenty of doubt as to the existence of stockpiles of WMD's. There WAS doubt... right there in his own administration.
Click to expand...


So now those in doubt must be certain people ?...Is that you next claim....?


"We've got to think about economic development because although there's not a direct correlation between terrorism and the economy, there is no doubt that if you've got a lot of unemployed, uneducated young men in societies, that there is a greater likelihood that terrorist recruits are available".........http://tinyurl.com/jwo3s6k

In this statement, Obama first admits to no proof to support the conclusion declares next, yet he proclaims, THERE IS NO DOUBT.....

No correlation means there is doubt to his conclusion.

yet you declare he is stating a fact and not merely his opinion....reconcile that idiocy...
 
NOVA said:
Any data for or against is irrelevant to the discussion....the point, according to your logic should be, how could he make such a blanket statement that there
is no doubt....ie, how could he possibly KNOW there was no doubt ?....did he contact every being on the planet to find out if any had doubt ?

Obama had no knowledge, and no proof that there was "no doubt"....he had no facts that could prove "there was no doubt"....therefore he lied, by your own logic....your own parsing. You illogical reasoning must work both ways to be rational.



In this statement, Obama first admits to no proof to support the conclusion declares next, yet he proclaims, THERE IS NO DOUBT.....

I'm beginning to agree with some others that 'you really are that stupid'.....not only in comprehending words, but also in basic logic..............
Click to expand...

and bottom line: if Bush actually was totally unaware of the presence of doubt, then "there is no doubt" would not have been a lie, merely an incorrect statement. It is the fact that he KNEW of the existence of doubt and then stated that it did not exist that makes the statement a lie. He knew. Doubts were all through the NIE's... certainty was NOT there. He knew that and purposely, deceitfully said otherwise.
 
maineman said:
again.... if a "war on terror" around the globe was what Bush set out to do....why aren't we invading, conquering and occupying all those other places on the globe where "terror" lives?
Click to expand...

Because not every place needs to be invaded, conquered, and occupied. The Philippines for instance. We're providing them with military and tactical advice to deal with their problem.

Buffalo New York had an Al Qaeda cell, and clearly didn't need invasion, conquering, and occupation.

Boston? Well, Russian and Saudi intelligence gave us the names and addresses of Tsarnaev brothers and Obama opted to ignore the whole thing.
 
Taft2016 said:
If by "duping" you mean presenting them the same intelligence you have, and the all of the world's major intelligence agencies agree with... then no, I don't believe "duping" them is criminal.
Click to expand...

On another thread you just called out Secretary Clinton for having believed him...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top