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

NOVA said:
You don't even comprehend what you own post claims.....Bush was not speaking for anyone but himself, he certainly did not say "there is no doubt in the US Intelligence community, etc, etc"...........so its irrelevant if there was one person or anyone held different beliefs, ie, that had doubts
.....which is a claim YOU can't make with any certainty....thats what is known as conjecture; the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence; guess....thats what you do to satisfy your preconseived beliefs.....
(what if his chefs grandson didn't believe Saddam had wmd and Bush was aware of that, wtf difference would it make? Hes not speaking for the chefs grandson.

A speaker speaks for himself unless he specifically says otherwise, ie, includes others in some claim........


President Bill Clinton (D)
Vice President Al Gore (D)
Sec. of State Madeline Albright (D)
Nat. Sec. Adviser Sandy Berger (D)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D)
Sen. Bob Graham (D)
Sen. Carl Levin (D)
Sen. Tom Daschle (D)
Sen. John Kerry (D)
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D)
Sen. Robert Byrd (D)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D)
Rep. Henry Waxman (D)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D)
President Bush

You could make that same stupid, narrow-minded claim about any or all of these people concerning what they said about Saddam, Iraq and WMD. Its quite irrelevant
to what degree they professed certainty.....I doubt any of them said anything that they did not whole-hearted believe to be true....
Even I'm not partisan to claim all Democrats are liars....especially about Saddam....the claims
they made in their public statements over all those years tells me, they believed what they claimed.....
As a matter historical fact....Saddam having wmd was believed by just about every government in the Western World, and there is no doubt thats especially true
about the United States....Oops...did I just lie?
The fact that Bush made the same claim, and irrelevant though it is, with the same certainty as some of the Democrats, proves to reasonable people, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he is no more lying than those Democrats....

I say, "There is no doubt that Pres. Bush was not lying when he claimed that Saddam had wmd"......is that a lie because you believe otherwise....?
what you believe is irrelevant to what claims I or others make about anything.....I can be right or wrong, but I can't be lying.

So, because you're proving to be a dolt and simpleton with 3rd grade English comprehension, I'm sad to inform you, that you just don't qualify for 4th grade level
work in this subject....I believe that you can find plenty of uneducated and illiterate Mexican peons what can surely help get a grasp on the fact that
declarative statements usually mean EXACTLY what they say, while at the same time considering that a deliberate exaggeration could be used for effect (hyperbole), or
an expression that uses words in a nonliteral way, like a metaphor, or in an unusual way.
Click to expand...

If someone want to make the factual statement, "there is no doubt" into a personally held opinion, all that needs to be added is the prepositional phrase, "in MY mind". Absent that qualifier, the statement stands as a statement of fact, and not an opinion. "There is no doubt that the earth revolves around the sun" is a true statement of fact. "There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a false statement of fact which Dubya knew to be false when he said it. He knew full well that many subordinates of his in his own intelligence community did indeed have doubt... There WAS doubt and he lied to us when he told us there was none.

You can have the Bush shit stains on your nose memorialized in bronze and it still won't turn his statement into anything but a lie.

Again... You're dismissed.
 
Crashk said:
what does this incoherent, rambling almost-paragraph have to do with anything? Show me more info on the 3 ships. Backup your stupidity with some real facts and links. The only thing you win is the dipshit award for today and you wear it well.

Dumb as a fence post, but at least a fence post has a purpose.
Click to expand...
My post was to Poet Fool, not you Neanderthal Boy, butt you came right in to help out your Lib cohor, Poet Fool. Poet Fool cannot claim he never read my post to him/it but he "Thanks" you here for this sheet...LOL...Poet Fool does not have the courage to take me on, butt he thanks you, are you Poet Fool's stooge, his stepin fetchshit?..................

"Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

Uncovering such a deadly cargo on board would give George Bush and Tony Blair the much sought-after "smoking gun" needed to justify an attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, in the face of massive public opposition to war.

The ships were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are flying under the flags of three different countries. The continued radio silence since they left port, in addition to the captains' failure to provide information on their cargoes or their destinations, is a clear breach of international maritime laws.

The vessels are thought to have spent much of their time in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean, berthing at sea when they need to collect supplies of fuel and food. They have berthed in a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen.

American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled. If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.

Washington and London might also want to orchestrate any raids so that they can present the ships as "evidence" that President Saddam is engaged in "material breach" of UN resolutions. This could provide the trigger for military strikes. While security sources in London last night were unable to provide information on any surveillance operation, the movement of the three ships is the source of growing concern among maritime and intelligence experts.

A shipping industry source told The Independent: "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now. These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and, for a considerable time, they have been steaming around in ever-decreasing circles."

The ships are thought to have set sail from a country other than Iraq to avoid running the gauntlet of Western naval vessels patrolling the Gulf. Defence experts believe that, if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction, these could have been smuggled out through Syria or Jordan.

Despite hundreds of searches by UN inspectors, no evidence has yet been found of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. A succession of "dossiers" presented by Downing Street has been criticised for providing inaccurate information, with the most recent one subject to ridicule because a student's 11-year-old doctoral thesis was being passed off as current intelligence. There was a further setback for Washington and London when the accuracy of satellite photographs shown to the United Nations by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, purporting to show Iraqi officials moving incriminating evidence from a suspected site, was questioned by Hans Blix.

Mr Blix said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection."

Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qa'ida and other Islamist groups have also been met with scepticism. The UN says, though, that Iraq has failed to account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from the war against Iran; to reveal the whereabouts of 6,500 missing chemical rockets; to produce evidence it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; and to account for 380 rocket engines smuggled into Iraq with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems.

Intelligence reports, and some Iraqi defectors, have maintained that incriminating material and documents relating to weapons of mass destruction have been buried in remote parts of the country and have also been hidden in a variety of locations including homes of officials and scientists, as well as mosques. There have also been claims that chemical and biological products have been smuggled into Syria.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sh...hips-are-tracked-over-suspected-weapons-cargo
 
maineman said:
If someone want to make the factual statement, "there is no doubt" into a personally held opinion, all that needs to be added is the prepositional phrase, "in MY mind". Absent that qualifier, the statement stands as a statement of fact, and not an opinion. "There is no doubt that the earth revolves around the sun" is a true statement of fact. "There is no doubt that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" is a false statement of fact which Dubya knew to be false when he said it. He knew full well that many subordinates of his in his own intelligence community did indeed have doubt... There WAS doubt and he lied to us when he told us there was none.

You can have the Bush shit stains on your nose memorialized in bronze and it still won't turn his statement into anything but a lie.

Again... You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


Now you're really getting stupid.....who the hell else's mind would the speaker be referring to, if not his own....absent that qualifer, its understood....
he certainly can't be referring to some other person's mind, fool....what you're proposing is laughable.

He said EXACTLY what that list of Democrats were saying for years before he left Texas....
 
SJJRSJJS said:
My post was to Poet Fool, not you Neanderthal Boy, butt you came right in to help out your Lib cohor, Poet Fool. Poet Fool cannot claim he never read my post to him/it but he "Thanks" you here for this sheet...LOL...Poet Fool does not have the courage to take me on, butt he thanks you, are you Poet Fool's stooge, his stepin fetchshit?..................

"Three giant cargo ships are being tracked by US and British intelligence on suspicion that they might be carrying Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Each with a deadweight of 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes, the ships have been sailing around the world's oceans for the past three months while maintaining radio silence in clear violation of international maritime law, say authoritative shipping industry sources.

The vessels left port in late November, just a few days after UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal on their return to the country.

Uncovering such a deadly cargo on board would give George Bush and Tony Blair the much sought-after "smoking gun" needed to justify an attack on Saddam Hussein's regime, in the face of massive public opposition to war.

The ships were chartered by a shipping agent based in Egypt and are flying under the flags of three different countries. The continued radio silence since they left port, in addition to the captains' failure to provide information on their cargoes or their destinations, is a clear breach of international maritime laws.

The vessels are thought to have spent much of their time in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean, berthing at sea when they need to collect supplies of fuel and food. They have berthed in a handful of Arab countries, including Yemen.

American and British military forces are believed to be reluctant to stop and search the vessels for fear that any intervention might result in them being scuttled. If they were carrying chemical and biological weapons, or fissile nuclear material, and they were to be sunk at sea, the environmental damage could be catastrophic.

Washington and London might also want to orchestrate any raids so that they can present the ships as "evidence" that President Saddam is engaged in "material breach" of UN resolutions. This could provide the trigger for military strikes. While security sources in London last night were unable to provide information on any surveillance operation, the movement of the three ships is the source of growing concern among maritime and intelligence experts.

A shipping industry source told The Independent: "If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, then a very large part of its capability could be afloat on the high seas right now. These ships have maintained radio silence for long periods and, for a considerable time, they have been steaming around in ever-decreasing circles."

The ships are thought to have set sail from a country other than Iraq to avoid running the gauntlet of Western naval vessels patrolling the Gulf. Defence experts believe that, if they are carrying weapons of mass destruction, these could have been smuggled out through Syria or Jordan.

Despite hundreds of searches by UN inspectors, no evidence has yet been found of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. A succession of "dossiers" presented by Downing Street has been criticised for providing inaccurate information, with the most recent one subject to ridicule because a student's 11-year-old doctoral thesis was being passed off as current intelligence. There was a further setback for Washington and London when the accuracy of satellite photographs shown to the United Nations by Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, purporting to show Iraqi officials moving incriminating evidence from a suspected site, was questioned by Hans Blix.

Mr Blix said: "The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of an imminent inspection."

Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to al-Qa'ida and other Islamist groups have also been met with scepticism. The UN says, though, that Iraq has failed to account for 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents from the war against Iran; to reveal the whereabouts of 6,500 missing chemical rockets; to produce evidence it has destroyed 8,500 litres of anthrax; and to account for 380 rocket engines smuggled into Iraq with chemicals used for missile propellants and control systems.

Intelligence reports, and some Iraqi defectors, have maintained that incriminating material and documents relating to weapons of mass destruction have been buried in remote parts of the country and have also been hidden in a variety of locations including homes of officials and scientists, as well as mosques. There have also been claims that chemical and biological products have been smuggled into Syria.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/sh...hips-are-tracked-over-suspected-weapons-cargo
Click to expand...


Uh, it's called "debate", based on "the rules of engagement". You expect me to engage you, in a civil debate, when you can't even be civil, and avoid ad hominem attacks? To engage you would be to condone your incivility. You might as well follow your true heart and resort to racial pejoratives.....I read "code" very well. And I will not dignify your response with a contextual response. Capice?

And just so you know, there is no context for a white man being a Stephin Fetchit.....you, obviously don't understand the precept or the reference, to use it effectively and accurately, such as it is. LOL
 
Last edited:
NOVA said:
Now you're really getting stupid.....who the hell else's mind would the speaker be referring to, if not his own....absent that qualifer, its understood....
he certainly can't be referring to some other person's mind, fool....what you're proposing is laughable.

He said EXACTLY what that list of Democrats were saying for years before he left Texas....
Click to expand...

what an idiot.

What else would the speaker be referring to? I say many things in life that are not simply opinions that spring up in my mind, but are factual statements to others.

"Your mother just called."

"We're out of milk."

"It's raining."

"The Dow was up last Friday."

or better yet...

"there is no doubt the Dow was up last Friday."

statements of fact, not offerings of opinion.

face it... you're too stupid and too stubborn to admit you comprehend the difference. That's fine... it's no surprise to me...

you're dismissed.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:


And what do you say about the intelligence being fixed around the facts, after bush became president?

• As originally reported in the The Sunday Times, May 1, 2005 SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your spin, er, response, bravs.
 
You don't get to set requirements for exposing Obamas incompetence.

His health care "solution" is a mess.

Deal with it, instead of frantically using the past in a feeble attempt to distract.
 
Big money said:
You don't get to set requirements for exposing Obamas incompetence.

His health care "solution" is a mess.

Deal with it, instead of frantically using the past in a feeble attempt to distract.
Click to expand...

I didn't set requirements for anything. The original post pointed out the hypocrisy of repubs and their selective outrage.

And my original response was to bravs using his list from the PAST as a poor comeback to the topic.
 
christiefan915 said:
I didn't set requirements for anything. The original post pointed out the hypocrisy of repubs and their selective outrage. And my original response was to bravs using his list from the PAST as a poor comeback to the topic.
Click to expand...

So?

Weren't you objecting about certain events being "17 years ago" recently?

Speaking of selective...

189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
189654d1363885092-hva-lytter-du-til-i-dag-del-3-20120622052737-rofl.gif
 
If Obama care had been implemented as planned and by all the states cooperating this thing would have run out much smoother.


why the hell didn't you people on the right help the law be better and cooperate ?


because you don't want anything to work


Your only goal is to prove government is evil and should be killed
 
Now, back in the present administration...Obamacare...


A couple in Wisconsin, both suffering from cancer, recently learned that their existing coverage through the state’s high-risk pool will be taken away. They’ll be eligible for subsidies through Obamacare’s exchanges — that is, if the exchanges ever get up and running. Thanks to the technical difficulties plaguing HealthCare.gov, they haven’t been able to get a clear read on their insurance options.

Even with subsidies, this particular couple is looking at out-of-pocket costs that are double what they previously paid.

And these are the sorts of folks with pre-existing conditions that Obamacare was supposed to help!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2013/11/11/president-obama-actually-meant-if-you-like-your-insurance-plan-too-bad/2/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top