Heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, by chrisisall

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap
Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion.

Rue
Except the people who did the NIE in 2003.
***************************************************************

Rap,

You know, I hope, that the NIE is a report compiled by the CIA from all the various intelligence agencies on a particular topic, written in conference with those agencies. The 2003 NIE nearly unanimously said Hussein would not be a threat unless the US attacked Iraq, except for State Department intelligence, which said he would not be a threat even then.

Given your belief 'everyone knew' Hussein was a threat: what is it you tell yourself to shuffle away the NIE conclusion Hussein was NOT a threat ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

bump

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:38 PM

SWISH

"Rue, Iraq was a threat, everyone knew that. End of discussion."

Kind of like "everyone" knew that Roe v Wade was a bad decision. Rap never did explain how "everyone" doesn't include the majority of Supreme Court Justices who made the ruling. Perhaps Rap needs to look up the word "everyone". dictionary.com works nicely.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:00 PM

America loves a winner!

Rue, what did the director of the CIA tell Bush, BEFORE we went into Iraq ? What did Clinton's own SecDef say, of Iraq ? My fucking god, how the hell you imbeclies selectively look at ONLY what you want to look at.

SLAM DUNK

IRAQ HAD WMD!

game over.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out ." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Not " I'm sorta sure" , or that " Gee, I think MAYBE there might be ", but " I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THERE ARE WEAPONS " .

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:04 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, ahem, what the NIE said was they they didn't have hard information and that they were outlining a worst-case scenario.

Even given their worst-case scenario, they said Hussein was NOT a threat.

So, how do you mantain your belief 'everyone knew' he was a threat, in the face of the NIE which said he was not ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

IRAQ HAD WMD!

game over.

BUSH HAD TRUTHOPHOBIA!

game over.

The rebutting Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Dumbass, the NIE was covering it's ass, after saying there WAS WMD for 10 yrs, now Bush was calling them on their intel, and they didn't want to be the ones responsible for anything, only there's one TINY small problem. It's SPECIFICALLY their job TO know, and that's why so much $$, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS is paid to the intelligence agencies, for the purpose OF knowing. Everyone believed them when no one thought we'd go to war, and they LOVED that, but when Bush decides enough is enough, and we have to put an end to this threat, they do an about face and say " oh, there's no threat, none what so ever! ". So, we were caught w/ our pants down on 9/11, and we're suppose to believe these guys NOW ?

bullshit. The NIE was nothing more than a collective pant load , done by folks who were having their very worth called into question, and they failed. Failed MISERABLY, and they were trying to cover the mess.

Director Tenet - " SLAM DUNK "

SecDef Cohen - " I AM ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED THERE ARE WEAPONS " .

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 1:57 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have no idea what you're trying to say. You have your timelines scrambled, implying the intelligence agencies went back in time.

Can you repeat this a little bit more coherently ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:07 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
My fucking god, how the hell you imbeclies selectively look at ONLY what you want to look at.

Easy, we just follow your example.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 2:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kinda' waiting Rap for you to unscramble your post.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 3:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Bump for Rap.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 4:35 PM

DREAMTROVE

Why are we still talking about what's already been decided?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 10, 2008 6:56 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
So, we were caught w/ our pants down on 9/11, and we're suppose to believe these guys NOW ?

So you can so easily dismiss the NIE that says Iraq was no threat, and then claim that we were caught with our pants down on 9/11, DESPITE the fact that there was an NIE just prior to 9/11 that was titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the U.S." - and even mentioned airliners as possible weaopns!

So we see that ignoring the NIEs is something that historically hasn't had good results. Ignore the one about Bin Laden, and 9/11 occurs. Ignore the one about Iraq, and the Iraq war occurs.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:38 AM

RIVERLOVE

Mr. Bin Laden was interviewed on 60 Minutes in the late 1990's from Afghanistan. He said then, very clearly, that he was at war with America. He called for a fiery death to America, and said he would reign death from the skies. Everyone dismissed his rantings as insaneness. Who ever would have thought he would pull it off. I guess he became more emboldened after his attacks on 2 US embassies and a US warship went off without any response from the US. Bush had the best opportunity to capture or kill him, but for some reason he failed. Almost seems like he was left in place to be a poster-boy for an endless war on terror. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 6:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey RiverLove

Do you remember when shortly after 9/11 Bush said he had proof - he used that word, PROOF - that it was bin Laden ? Then, before the US invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban said it would be happy to turn bin Laden over under two conditions - that the US show some kind of PROOF bin Laden was involved, and that he be turned over to the ICC - a deal the US refused to consider. On his part, Bush moved the goalposts from bin Laden 'dead or alive', to bin Laden and his followers, to the Taliban, to supporters of terrorism wherever they were, to 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists'. During the invasion, the US let bin Laden slip away. Then after the Taliban was defeated, US troops spent nearly two years looking for PROOF it was bin Laden - proof, remember, that Bush claimed to have days after 9/11. And finally, Bush said he just didn't think about bin Laden very much anymore.

Maybe it was bin Laden. And then again, maybe it wasn't. Going by Bush's ACTIONS, it mostly looks like it wasn't.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Mr. Bin Laden was interviewed on 60 Minutes in the late 1990's from Afghanistan. He said then, very clearly, that he was at war with America. He called for a fiery death to America, and said he would reign death from the skies. Everyone dismissed his rantings as insaneness. Who ever would have thought he would pull it off. I guess he became more emboldened after his attacks on 2 US embassies and a US warship went off without any response from the US. Bush had the best opportunity to capture or kill him, but for some reason he failed. Almost seems like he was left in place to be a poster-boy for an endless war on terror. "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Couple points:

First off, anyone who knew anything about terrorism KNEW that Bin Laden wasn't to be taken lightly, and they knew it at least as early as the first WTC bombing. That the mainstream media didn't pick up on the guy until the late 90s just shows how behind the curve they tend to be. If you ever watch things, REALLY watch current events, you'll notice things months (if not years) before you see it bandied about on the evening news.

Secondly, it's a common claim that the U.S. *could have* gotten Bin Laden while Clinton was in office, but "did nothing". It's a common claim, but patently untrue. How quickly people tend to forget the whole "wag the dog" episode, where Clinton was accused of launching Tomahawk cruise missile attacks merely to take attention away from the ongoing Whitewater investigation. In point of fact, Clinton launched no less than two, and probably as many as four or five, attacks specifically aimed at killing Bin Laden. Not capturing him, not turning him over to someone else, KILLING him outright. He failed, just as Bush failed, but it cost us a whole hell of a lot fewer American lives in the process.

Don't ever for a minute think that know one could have foreseen this. The fact that they COULD have, that they SHOULD have, and that they IGNORED it is the worse failure.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Manning memo proves Bush is guilty of murder
by Christian Dem in NC

Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM PST

Bugliosi refers to a meeting Bush held on January 31, 2003 with Tony Blair and six of Bush and Blair's top aides to discuss the Iraq issue. According to a memo summarizing the meeting that was written by David Manning (then Blair's foreign policy adviser and later British ambassador to Washington), Bush actually indicated that he was willing to provoke a confrontation with Saddam. This summary has never been disputed by the White House.

Among the ways Bush proposed to provoke a confrontation was to paint U2s to look like UN airplanes. The theory was that if Saddam tried to fire on them, it would justify military action. I have to say that in reading this, a chill went down my spine. The image I immediately got was of how Hitler started World War II--with a purported violation of the German border by Poland. SS men disguised as Polish soldiers were to stage a phony attack on a German radio station located right on the border, and leave drugged concentration camp inmates dying as "casualties."

This Manning memo got limited play in the press--it was mentioned only in passing in an NYT front-page story in March 2006. However, even without the plans to use U2 aircraft disguised in UN colors, the memo is absolutely damning and proves that the invasion of Iraq is a criminal act.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he (Bush) made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin." (emphasis mine)
It's one thing for a president to mislead his own people about a threat to the nation. But if Bugliosi and this NYT story are to be believed, then the invasion of Iraq is an American war of aggression, and all of the deaths of the American soldiers up to this point amount at the very least to second-degree murder. As Bugliosi puts it in his book:

(I)f a conspirator (or anyone for that matter) deliberately sets in motion a chain of events that he knows will cause a third-party innocent agent to commit an act (here, the killing of American soldiers by Iraqis), the conspirator is criminally responsible for that act.

As most of us know, Bush knew as early as 2002 that there was no evidence of an imminent Iraqi threat. ... So any assertion of our right to self-defense on Bush's part goes up in smoke. Without an American claim of self-defense, we can only assume that the Iraqis were well within their rights to defend themselves against an unlawful invasion--and under the law, this makes every American death a murder for which Bush is guilty. ...
***************************************************************

Regrettably, despite scouring the internet, I couldn't find the text of the 5 page memo.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Kwicko

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:05 AM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

I can agree with the last part about Bush, but I cannot agree with the Clinton part. Clinton himself has stated that he didn't pursue the opportunity to get Bin Laden because he felt Americans didn't even know who Bin Laden was, and would not have had the national will to do it. That's typical Bill, very calculating, very poll-conscious. But the bottom line to this is that Bush dropped the ball. He had world sympathy and unity at home. First mistake was waiting 30 days to go into Afghanistan. Second mistake was sending in a pathetically pawlty force. Third mistake was cutting deals with opium warlords to try to help us. From there on the mistakes are too numerous to recite.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey RiverLove

THANKS for the reply.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:08 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap

The US energy people realized the supposed centrifuge tubes were completely unsuited as 'centrifuge' equipment - one even said - in writing - that the best way to slow Hussein down would be to give him even more tubes to use for centrifuges. The yellowcake claim - even the Italians knew it was bogus. WMD claims - other intelligence agencies realized 'curveball' was - at best - not truthful. The presentation before the UN was DOA. No one was convinced, which is why the US never put its attack plans up for the required second vote. The inspectors were on the ground and finding no WMDs - not the thousands of litres of anthrax or facilities or anything. And so on.

In the end EVEN BUSH knew there was no rationale for war. Which is why Bush told Hussien the ONLY WAY left to avoid an attack was for Hussein and his government to leave in 48 hours.

Where can I find that in any UN resolution ? Just wondering b/c that has been given over and over as the basis for the attack on Iraq.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:38 AM

RIVERLOVE

Looking back in hindsight I think one can make a good case that Bush was indeed fixated to invade Iraq at all costs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 10:26 AM

STORYMARK

And we'll never see Rappy in this thread again. Or, on the outside chance he does return, he will ignore this info. Again.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

While there is plenty of information that bin Laden generally was involved in anti-US terrorism, and while Clinton took him seriously, there's no data showing he was Bush's real target at any time. Bush seemed to treat him more as a pretext than anything else.

I can agree with the last part about Bush, but I cannot agree with the Clinton part. Clinton himself has stated that he didn't pursue the opportunity to get Bin Laden because he felt Americans didn't even know who Bin Laden was, and would not have had the national will to do it. That's typical Bill, very calculating, very poll-conscious. But the bottom line to this is that Bush dropped the ball. He had world sympathy and unity at home. First mistake was waiting 30 days to go into Afghanistan. Second mistake was sending in a pathetically pawlty force. Third mistake was cutting deals with opium warlords to try to help us. From there on the mistakes are too numerous to recite.

I think what Clinton meant when he said we "didn't go after" Bin Laden was that there was not the American support or will to go after him with an inasion-sized military force of 200,000 or so. In that, he was correct - America wouldn't have backed him at the time. But what WAS done was several attempts to kill Bin Laden - those were talked about openly, released to the press, and no secret was ever made about the fact that Clinton's people wanted Bin Laden dead, and damned quick. I'd wager there were alos incidents that *weren't* talked about; incedents where we shared info with the Israelis, for instance, in an effort to get THEM to capture Bin Laden and sock him away in a dank cell somewhere.

But the gist of it is, none of it came to fruition.

But Clinton did indeed TRY to get the sumbitch. I didn't care much for him, but on that score I'll give him a pass for trying to take Bin Laden out. (Anyone remember when we bombed that "baby formula factory" That was on intel that said Bin Laden was hiding there. He was probably hiding across town at a moustache factory...)

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
And we'll never see Rappy in this thread again. Or, on the outside chance he does return, he will ignore this info. Again.

Would you expect any less from him?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:24 PM

America loves a winner!

I don't ignore facts, that's y'all's department. What I do ignore are the misleading and distorted conclusions you idiots arrive at, simply because it fits your twisted world view that Bush is evil and Saddam wasn't.

Rue,

For the 10 millionth time, it wasn't OUR job to play hide and seek w/ Iraq and what ever WMDs it had,didn't have, it was Saddam's job to show he had discarded of the ones he admitted to having had, to show us HOW he discarded them, and , oh..... there's no point. I've see this play a hundred times before.

I'm out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
it fits your twisted world view that Bush is evil and Saddam wasn't.

Candy WRApper, Bush was WRONG; Saddam was EVIL- there's a big difference.

Quote:

I'm out.

*And the crowd goes wild*

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 2:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah, OK. Run away. As usual.

***************************************************************

It's not about the WMDs, it's about the THREAT ! It's not about the threat, it's about the MANDATE ! It's not about the mandate, it's about the WMDS !

Except, in the real world:
there were no WMDs
there was no threat
there was no mandate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:07 PM

And in another thread, 'RapTard posted this:

Quote:
...it may come as a shock to you, but when folks, like Presidents Elect, have such people as SPOKESPERSONS who do their speaking for them, all the spokespersons are allowed to say is what has been approved. In this case, that person being Barack Obama would be doing the approving in the first place.

Which, to my feeble mind, comes awfully close to saying that if Bush Administration wonks say that Saddam is "an imminent threat", then that's what Bush has told them to say, and that's what he's approved of them saying...

But I guess a spokesperson for Bush plays by a different set of rules, eh?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:14 PM

America loves a winner!

You're talking in circles. You absolutely refuse to accept reality.

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons." - Sec Def William Cohen.

You idiots continue to play monday morning qb, intermixing what we know NOW to what everyone thought, pre 2003. And when I say EVERYBODY, I specifically am talking about the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, and the intelligence people they put in place.

You mindless morons ignore all that, and for good reason. It makes you look bad. Facing reality makes you have to give up your ' Bush lied ' mantra. This silly game of denying the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 5 yrs ago.

That is why there's no point in talking to you. Not running away, but parrots are more original in their talking points than you pin heads.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:18 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And in another thread, 'RapTard posted this:

Quote:
...it may come as a shock to you, but when folks, like Presidents Elect, have such people as SPOKESPERSONS who do their speaking for them, all the spokespersons are allowed to say is what has been approved. In this case, that person being Barack Obama would be doing the approving in the first place.

Which, to my feeble mind, comes awfully close to saying that if Bush Administration wonks say that Saddam is "an imminent threat", then that's what Bush has told them to say, and that's what he's approved of them saying...

But I guess a spokesperson for Bush plays by a different set of rules, eh?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

It is different because this was a specific question, with a specific answer, and not a generalized point which the Bush administration was trying to get out.

Word of advice, keep your thoughts and your threads in order. Might make you seem more credible. This mixing of thread and point surely doesn't

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"You idiots continue to play monday morning qb, intermixing what we know NOW to what everyone thought, pre 2003."

No, I was saying the same things back then, before the unprovoked attack the US made on Iraq.

***************************************************************

What you are having such a hard time with, I think, is that some people thought more and to better effect than you did. You OTOH choose to trust people you shouldn't have trusted, and that burns you. You can't admit that other people were right, and you were wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're talking in circles. You absolutely refuse to accept reality.

If you're directing this bit to a mirror, good- you're beginning to let got of a smaller world.

Quote:

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

A mugger is a threat, but, y'know, not if he has no access to you.

Quote:

You mindless morons ignore all that, and for good reason. It makes you look bad. Facing reality makes you have to give up your ' Bush lied ' mantra.

LOL, uh, not. I makes us repeat a truism.

Quote:
This silly game of denying the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 5 yrs ago.

This silly game of twisting the facts on your part grew old the minute you started it, 35 yrs ago.

Quote:

but parrots are more original in their talking points than you pin heads.

Pin heads, Ditto heads, doodie heads- dude, you & yours have the corner on those I'm afraid.

Like I said in the PM, hold tight to your little quarter-truths, it seems to be all you have to connect you in any way, however tenuously, to reality.

The uh-huh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 3:50 PM

America loves a winner!

chris... .it's a fact, you know , but refuse to allow yourself to accept, because you hate Bush that much.

Must suck to be you.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Rap

What you are having such a hard time with, I think, is that some people thought more and to better effect than you did. You OTOH choose to trust people you shouldn't have trusted, and that burns you. You can't admit that other people were right because they thought, and you were wrong because you trusted.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

You can't prove a negative, Asshat.

And did you, or did you not, just state that Saddam needed to do that, which is factually impossible, to avoid being invaded by the same folk who sold him most of that shit ?

Come on, man, only reason we suspected he had it was that we were holding the reciepts, ya damn fool.

And every time you open your mouth on this topic you prove your absolute incompetence on the subject at hand - bio/chem WMD isn't something you can toss in a cardboard box and throw on a truck you nincompoop, it requires quite stringent care and safety procedures, leastways if you want the folk handling it to remain in service, and to avoid it from going bad, which is damn difficult in a desert environment.

Temperature, humidity, pressure, hell even shock and vibration to a degree can degrade this stuff, which makes the idea they loaded it on trucks and shipped it out quite laughable, especially in light of the fact that the same satellite which picked up the trucks, DID, yanno, see them unload - something with an eyeblinks worth of rational thought would have brought to your mind if you were ever even capable of such you ignorant dittohead.

What was in those trucks was LOOT, not WMD, some of So-Damn-Insane's folks who were not as loyal as he thought grabbed anything valuable that wasn't nailed down and hauled ass for the nearest border so as to not get mowed down by US Troops, and paid their passage and a couple bribes with them trucks fulla goodies - hell if anything you should THANK those assholes, cause it's stuff like that which left Saddams army just about leaderless (all the higher ups bailed out) and hit his ability to finance operations pretty hard, ya can't pay an army with no money, yanno.

But no, once again you show quite clearly that you're operating outside of your competence zone, although for you - that's anything outside of the pathetic plastic bubble world of the "reality" that exists only in your own head.

I'd further humilate you, but I am kinda busy right now and you're doing such a fine job yourself it's just not worth the bother.

-Frem

PS, Local: I am sooo very, very fired, imma check with the attorney and see how much of that I can relate, cause horrific that the middle was, the ending was just out and out wacky, not to mention downright funny if you've got the sense of humor to appreciate it - Blofeld couldn't have done it no better.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
the ending was just out and out wacky, not to mention downright funny if you've got the sense of humor to appreciate it - Blofeld couldn't have done it no better.

*Waits with breath that is baited*

The curious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Must suck to be you.

Sometimes, yanno, when the back acts up, or when I get waterboarded by the neighbourhood kids who've learnt from DC yahoos that it isn't torture, yeah, it can.

You pathetic pubescent pencil-neck pipsqueek, I'll break it down in tiny words for ya:

Pro-torture
Anti-freedom
Pro-misinformation
Anti-Goddamn piece of paper
Pro-rich buddies
Scumbags
Bush & Cheney

Got it?
No.
Voted for it?
Yep.

You child.

The BURNing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:02 PM

Quote:

There was a threat. It's beyond childish to claim there wasn't.

You say this, yet still cling to the notion that, according to Bush, he wasn't an IMMINENT threat.

But according to his spokespeople, he WAS an imminent threat.

So were his people lying? Did they misspeak? Or was it Bush who lied and misspoke? Or are Bush and his spokespeople, and the things they say, inextricably tied together?

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Bush wasn't an IMMINENT threat?
What do you mean.

Oops. sorry. misread :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 11, 2008 8:00 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

You pathetic pubescent pencil-neck pipsqueek, I'll break it down in tiny words for ya:

Pro-torture ( Absolutely, for throat cutting cowards who murder for Allah, every day of the damn week. You bet )
Anti-freedom ( That's you, not me )
Pro-misinformation ( Again, your dept., not mine )
Anti-Goddamn piece of paper ( Urban legend the Left loves to promote )
Pro-rich buddies ( Well, poverty DOES suck. I mean, c'mon. )
Scumbags ( Your family )
Bush & Cheney ( Fine President and V.P., who served w/ distinction )

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Pro-torture ( Absolutely, for throat cutting cowards who murder for Allah, every day of the damn week. You bet )

Stand up to be counted with the other enemies of humanity, why doncha?

Quote:

Anti-Goddamn piece of paper ( Urban legend the Left loves to promote )

So, he didn't say that? (Let me play your idiotic game for a second) PROVE THAT HE DIDN'T!!!

The stinging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2008 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

But according to his spokespeople, he WAS an imminent threat.

So were his people lying? Did they misspeak? Or was it Bush who lied and misspoke? Or are Bush and his spokespeople, and the things they say, inextricably tied together?

Again Mike, this is AU here... and you're asking a four-part essay question?

'RAPtor is a child; I suggest you treat it as such.

The Vulcan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2008 8:03 AM

STORYMARK

We all know the score.

It's a fact, Rappy knows it, but refuses to allow himself to accept, because he loves Bush that much.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 12, 2008 8:12 AM