No troll, you are the one lying -the one spreading the myth that WMDs was the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
/me waits for conjur to trot out the old "FOAD" line...
CsG
Originally posted by: conjur
Ok, Al Gore. Take your <sigh> and stick it. You know I'm telling the truth. You're just arguing to be the troll you are.
Jesus Christ you're DENSE!Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.
Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.
Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.
CsG
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ you're DENSE!Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.
Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.
Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.
CsG
READ Powell's words, CsG. He, himself, said the President was not seeking authority to use force for any other purpose other than the WMDs.
How much more clear can it get?
NOTE: Powell was addressing the Senate, btw.
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
You are calling them liars if you claim WMDs are not the sole justification. Powell said so and so did Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
I never said they are lying - however what they said is irrelevant to the issue of the justifications for removing Saddam. You are making assertions that just aren't backed up by facts. WMDs were not the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
CsG
Originally posted by: conjur
You are calling them liars if you claim WMDs are not the sole justification. Powell said so and so did Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
I never said they are lying - however what they said is irrelevant to the issue of the justifications for removing Saddam. You are making assertions that just aren't backed up by facts. WMDs were not the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
CsG
Do I have to post their quotes yet again???
Or, are you going to put up or shut up and show proof they were lying?
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Jesus Christ you're DENSE!Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.
Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.
Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.
CsG
READ Powell's words, CsG. He, himself, said the President was not seeking authority to use force for any other purpose other than the WMDs.
How much more clear can it get?
NOTE: Powell was addressing the Senate, btw.
Can you really be that ignorant that you don't see any other justifications for removing Saddam? Are you purposely trying to be a Saddam apologist - is it your new objective now that your Bush hate didn't work during the election?
The problem here is that you ignore everything but WMDs in your quest to hate Bush. There were many justifications(as noted in the Joint Resolution) to remove Saddam. It doesn't matter what you think Powell said -that is irrelevant to the issue of justification in removing Saddam.
CsG
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.
Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.
Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.
:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.
CsG
WMDs.Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
WMDsWhereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
WMDsWhereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
WMDsWhereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
WMDsWhereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Filler that is 100% false. I remember the story of that "missing" airman. That was a lie and was never discussed again. Also, Saddam was not continuing to engage in brutal repression. The No-Fly zones saw to that.Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
WMDs (note the omission that the US condoned those attacks)Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
The assassination attempt is debatable if it was truly that. In any case, it was addressed during the Clinton administration by a missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence HQ. Iraq never bothered or threatened to bother us again. As for the no-fly zones, those were not approved by the UN and are moot.Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Lie.Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Lie.Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Intimation of involvement in the 9/11 attacks...a subtle lie. But, it mentions WMDs.Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
WMDsWhereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
WMDsWhereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Assuming the PNAC vision to be enacted by force...that is not the case...diplomatic means are what Congress meant.Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
More intimation of involvement in the 9/11 attacks...or, more accurately, lies.Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Boils down to legalese.Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
You are calling them liars if you claim WMDs are not the sole justification. Powell said so and so did Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
I never said they are lying - however what they said is irrelevant to the issue of the justifications for removing Saddam. You are making assertions that just aren't backed up by facts. WMDs were not the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
CsG
Do I have to post their quotes yet again???
Or, are you going to put up or shut up and show proof they were lying?
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
I just proved you wrong.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
You are calling them liars if you claim WMDs are not the sole justification. Powell said so and so did Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
I never said they are lying - however what they said is irrelevant to the issue of the justifications for removing Saddam. You are making assertions that just aren't backed up by facts. WMDs were not the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
CsG
Do I have to post their quotes yet again???
Or, are you going to put up or shut up and show proof they were lying?
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
Innocuous paragraph.Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Come on, CsG.
Show me that Powell was lying when he said it was only the WMDs.
Show me how the British were lying when they found only WMDs provided a legal justification for the invasion.
:roll: This isn't about what Powell said, nor is it about what the Brits did. This is about the justification of removing Saddam. WMD was NOT the "sole" justification -despite you and the other Saddam apologists repeating it over and over and over again.
The Joint Resolution speaks for itself as do the numerous UNFULFILLED requirements of the cease-fire agreement and the subsequent UN resolutions. But hey - if WMDs was the only justification in your mind -so be it - just quit claiming it was the "sole" justification -because it clearly was not.
CsG
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
WMDs.Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
WMDsWhereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
WMDsWhereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
WMDsWhereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
WMDsWhereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Filler that is 100% false. I remember the story of that "missing" airman. That was a lie and was never discussed again. Also, Saddam was not continuing to engage in brutal repression. The No-Fly zones saw to that.Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
WMDs (note the omission that the US condoned those attacks)Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
The assassination attempt is debatable if it was truly that. In any case, it was addressed during the Clinton administration by a missile attack on the Iraqi Intelligence HQ. Iraq never bothered or threatened to bother us again. As for the no-fly zones, those were not approved by the UN and are moot.Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Lie.Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Lie.Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Intimation of involvement in the 9/11 attacks...a subtle lie. But, it mentions WMDs.Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
WMDsWhereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
WMDsWhereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Boils down to legalese.Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Oh really?Saddam was not continuing to engage in brutal repression.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I fixed your post and I have figured out that for you it is all about blame. It is so much more than that.Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...
How on Earth can you expect the 56 million people who were stupid enough to vote against Bush to take responsibility for 59 million who voted for him?
Now, In this country we operate on a political theory that we as a country select a president. After that we are one. That is our strength. If you want to tear that down, expect another countless 1200 soul milestones.
I have accepted my part in the responsibility for the deaths of the 1200 souls that you created a thread about, I would expect you and anyone with a spine to do the same. But I already know that you won't.
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
You are calling them liars if you claim WMDs are not the sole justification. Powell said so and so did Wolfowitz.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: conjur
Still waiting on that proof that Powell and Wolfowitz were lying.
Heck, even Ari Fleischer contradicts the White House resolution when he said there was no Iraq/Al Qaeda/9-11 connection but the White House Resolution all but says there is. That's the filler I'm talking about. The rest of that resolution mentions WMDs in about every paragraph.
I never said they are lying - however what they said is irrelevant to the issue of the justifications for removing Saddam. You are making assertions that just aren't backed up by facts. WMDs were not the "sole" justification for removing Saddam.
CsG
Do I have to post their quotes yet again???
Or, are you going to put up or shut up and show proof they were lying?
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
OMG, you're like a little kid throwing a tantrum. You don't like it when mommy or daddy tell you what you don't want to hear even if it's the truth so you'll just repeat yourself over and over and call them names and make them stop.
I assume this isn't news to you, is it? Several people used to call him RoboCad for the robotic way he'd just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. Myself, I like to refer to him as Sir Cad, from the Black Knight from Monty Python. No matter how thoroughly you dismember his lame arguments, he yaps right back. "Did not. It's only a flesh wound."Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, you're like a little kid throwing a tantrum. You don't like it when mommy or daddy tell you what you don't want to hear even if it's the truth so you'll just repeat yourself over and over and call them names and make them stop.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
Originally posted by: conjur
Show me how I just proved myself to be a liar.
I just showed you, paragraph-by-paragraph, that the Iraq invasion was justified solely by known stockpiles of WMDs.
Now, I'm still waiting on your proof that Powell and Wolfowitz lied.
Come on, King of Diversion. Serve it up.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I assume this isn't news to you, is it? Several people used to call him RoboCad for the robotic way he'd just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. Myself, I like to refer to him as Sir Cad, from the Black Knight from Monty Python. No matter how thoroughly you dismember his lame arguments, he yaps right back. "Did not. It's only a flesh wound."Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, you're like a little kid throwing a tantrum. You don't like it when mommy or daddy tell you what you don't want to hear even if it's the truth so you'll just repeat yourself over and over and call them names and make them stop.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
Let's see. You can't prove your claim that Powell and Wolfowitz lied. How in the hell are you going to prove that I lied?Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You served it up yourself. You = liar. WMDs were not the "sole" justification - do you really not see why your claim is a lie?Originally posted by: conjur
Show me how I just proved myself to be a liar.
I just showed you, paragraph-by-paragraph, that the Iraq invasion was justified solely by known stockpiles of WMDs.
Now, I'm still waiting on your proof that Powell and Wolfowitz lied.
Come on, King of Diversion. Serve it up.
CsG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I assume this isn't news to you, is it? Several people used to call him RoboCad for the robotic way he'd just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over and over. Myself, I like to refer to him as Sir Cad, from the Black Knight from Monty Python. No matter how thoroughly you dismember his lame arguments, he yaps right back. "Did not. It's only a flesh wound."Originally posted by: BBond
OMG, you're like a little kid throwing a tantrum. You don't like it when mommy or daddy tell you what you don't want to hear even if it's the truth so you'll just repeat yourself over and over and call them names and make them stop.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I never said they were lying - however what they said does not change the fact that you are a liar when you say WMDs were the "sole" justification - it is simply not true. Simply reading the joint resolution proves you to be a liar.
CsG
Ahhh, my words opposed yours, which were trolling, which makes them perfectly ethical. Now, about my challenge? Are you a spineless pos? Or are you willing to face your Demons for what they are?Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I fixed your post and I have figured out that for you it is all about blame. It is so much more than that.Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: Ozoned
I believe that I will take a share in that Burden of the 1200 souls, if that is okay with you? After-all, I was part of the political process that put him into office. That being said, I believe that you were a part of the Political process that failed to remove him from office. Are you man enough to share the burden with me?Originally posted by: BBond
1,200 -- November 16, 2004 -- 608th day
All due to Bush's lies...
How on Earth can you expect the 56 million people who were stupid enough to vote against Bush to take responsibility for 59 million who voted for him?
Now, In this country we operate on a political theory that we as a country select a president. After that we are one. That is our strength. If you want to tear that down, expect another countless 1200 soul milestones.
I have accepted my part in the responsibility for the deaths of the 1200 souls that you created a thread about, I would expect you and anyone with a spine to do the same. But I already know that you won't.
If you're going to quote another person's post don't do a Bush on it. It isn't ethical and I find it very offensive. Someone could mistake your words for the truth.
Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see. You can't prove your claim that Powell and Wolfowitz lied. How in the hell are you going to prove that I lied?Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You served it up yourself. You = liar. WMDs were not the "sole" justification - do you really not see why your claim is a lie?Originally posted by: conjur
Show me how I just proved myself to be a liar.
I just showed you, paragraph-by-paragraph, that the Iraq invasion was justified solely by known stockpiles of WMDs.
Now, I'm still waiting on your proof that Powell and Wolfowitz lied.
Come on, King of Diversion. Serve it up.
CsG
This ought to be good.
I posted a review of the Joint Resolution and proved it was all about the WMDs. Any other "justification" was invalid on its face.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You've already proved yourself to be a liar. You made the claim that WMDs was the "sole" justification - then you posted the Joint Resolution which proves it wasn't.Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see. You can't prove your claim that Powell and Wolfowitz lied. How in the hell are you going to prove that I lied?Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You served it up yourself. You = liar. WMDs were not the "sole" justification - do you really not see why your claim is a lie?Originally posted by: conjur
Show me how I just proved myself to be a liar.
I just showed you, paragraph-by-paragraph, that the Iraq invasion was justified solely by known stockpiles of WMDs.
Now, I'm still waiting on your proof that Powell and Wolfowitz lied.
Come on, King of Diversion. Serve it up.
CsG
This ought to be good.
Stop diverting and avoiding.And again - I never said Powell or Wolfowitz lied so there is no need to provide anything but keep trying to bring irrelevant things into the discussion.
CsG
"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in Vanity Fair magazine's July issue.
Originally posted by: conjur
I posted a review of the Joint Resolution and proved it was all about the WMDs. Any other "justification" was invalid on its face.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You've already proved yourself to be a liar. You made the claim that WMDs was the "sole" justification - then you posted the Joint Resolution which proves it wasn't.Originally posted by: conjur
Let's see. You can't prove your claim that Powell and Wolfowitz lied. How in the hell are you going to prove that I lied?Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
You served it up yourself. You = liar. WMDs were not the "sole" justification - do you really not see why your claim is a lie?Originally posted by: conjur
Show me how I just proved myself to be a liar.
I just showed you, paragraph-by-paragraph, that the Iraq invasion was justified solely by known stockpiles of WMDs.
Now, I'm still waiting on your proof that Powell and Wolfowitz lied.
Come on, King of Diversion. Serve it up.
CsG
This ought to be good.
Stop diverting and avoiding.And again - I never said Powell or Wolfowitz lied so there is no need to provide anything but keep trying to bring irrelevant things into the discussion.
CsG
To repeat:
Let's see. You can't prove your claim that Powell and Wolfowitz lied. How in the hell are you going to prove that I lied?
This ought to be good.
As I wrote earlier, I figured you out months ago.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I'm not diverting, I'm correcting your claims.
I have not accused Powell or Wolfowitz of lying - that is YOUR diversion.
The joint resolution sufficiently proves you are a liar when you make the claim that WMD was the "sole" justification.
"Any other "justification" was invalid on its face." - oh really? Who says? You? Buahahahaha Oh teh noesss - conjur says it's invalid so it must be. Whether or not you think it is valid is irrelevant. The FACT is that there were many justifications for removing Saddam. Just because you have an opposing opinion does not mean there were not multiple justifications.
Figure it out yet conjur?
CsG