Weapons of Mass destruction found.

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic ...

I've held hope you might have a little integrity left. I see I was mistaken. That you cannot accept that someone might object to Bush based on his dishonesty and abominable performance shows what a close-minded partisan hack you have become.

One of the reasons I find Bush repugnant is because personal integrity matters to me. Bush lacks integrity. I subscribe to the old-fashioned idea that men are measured by their integrity. I know bleating Bush fan-boys find that notion quaint, even self-destructive. You're all about greed and screwing everyone around you to get ahead. You think money proves your worth; the end justifies the means; he who dies with the most toys wins. That is your loss. You are morally bankrupt in my opinion.

I believe in honesty and honor. I do not lie here; I do my best to avoid lying in real life. I've made my success while retaining my values. I haven't screwed my employees or stabbed my competitors in the back. I just went through 360 degree feedback as part of a new Leadership program at my employer. My boss, my employees, and many of my peers rated me in a variety of areas. I scored a perfect 9.0 out of nine on the "Honesty and Integrity" section. I'm proud of that. It's important to me.

I challenge you to find any instance of me lying in this forum. You cannot comprehend truthfulness; it is a foreign concept. Nonetheless, when I say I am an independent, I am stating the truth. Your insinuations to the contrary are the desperate cries of deluded little men who will say or do anything to avoid acknowledging your god in the White House has feet of clay. You are contemptible.

Bleat on, Cad. You and I come from different worlds. Worship your little cowboy god as you must. You will see the truth -- someday -- and you will be ashamed.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

Heartsurgeon has been asked to address this but refuses to do so. Why?

I've also asked CAD (who is adamant about taking things in context) to kindly explain the importance of context to heartsurgeon, but he also refuses to do so. Why?

Three words come to mind when thinking of these two...hypocrates, cowards, and pathetic.

:roll:

I must have missed where you asked me to explain something to HS. Seriously - I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.

Now to your BS name calling. You can have your opinion but you haven't a clue about me if you think that. But since we are name calling I think both you and Bowfinger are hypocrites, cowards, and pathetic when it comes to what you post here. The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic and likewise your repeated quoting of other people's questions to members is equally as pathetic. Do you get off on trying to act superior? We all know you are not superior so why do you even pretend? I know I'm not superior, but I do know where I stand on issues and am willing to post them(unlike some people who like to ask others instead of posting their own).

Now back to this important and serious issue of WMDs in Iraq.

CkG

So WMD's are the important issue this week, you really should have a stickied thread on the front page letting us know the reason for the invasion from week to week.

Like this "as wmd claims proved false, this week it is about liberation" or "now we found traces of something that might be sarin so this week the invasion is about wmd's".

Just an idea, i am sure the mods will allow it.

Klixxer, it seems to hard for you to grasp more than one concept at a time. The invasion of Iraq could be about the WMD and it could also be about the liberation of the people of Iraq. I know it's hard for some of you folks to think of more than one thing at a time but if you work at it you might be able to. I believe there were many more reasons. The social political dynamics of the entire middle east precluded Saddam's Arab brothers from removing him from power. But calculate the damage that was being done to the region by having to keep Iraq isolated. Calculate the damage done by Iraq's support of Palestinian terrorists. Add in all the other reasons why having a brutal dictator in charge of Iraq. Add in the fact that when Saddam died it was very likely that his son, who seemed worse that Saddam himself, would be in charge and you come up with the conclusion that Saddam needed to go.

Now it won't be a quick and easy path to the desirable conclusion and there are many reasons for that also, but if the Iraqis truely desire peace and a stable society than it will get there. It will, if certain people let it.

Iraqs support to palestinian terrorists? Oh, you mean that they gave support to EVERY family who lost a member in the conflict? Like SA is still doing? Ok.

That it was a dictatorship with a cruel ruler, just like SA? Ok, guess we know who is next then, don't we?

May i ask you one question though?

There was never any talk about this before the invasion, just the stockpiles of WMD's and the connections to Al Quaida, now that both of those things have been proven false, it is about liberation. The excuses are piling up and the original reasons have been left.

This was what was presented to the UN by Powell and to the Congress, nothing else, remember that.

Now add in the FACT that the US attacked a soveriegn nation based on LIES, you cannot very well dispute that without lying yourself.

Klixxer, why did Saddam pay the families of suicide bombers more than the families of people that were killed in the conflict?

We'll take you so-called points one by one. Come up with a good answer to that and we'll move on to the next.

edit.
To answer your question those other points were addressed, you weren't listening.

Ok, i will answer your post, i had no idea that Saddam paid the families of the suicide bombers more, got any valid links to that information where it is confirmed? (no, not americanrightwingfundiesdontlie.com)

And then i read your edit, it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you people, why don't you explain to me why the president of the US lied to go to war, why the UN was lied to, the congress was lied to and the people of the US was lied to? Keep it simple, was it because the UN, the congress and the american people are to stupid to grasp the concept or was it just because ... ?

Will the BBC do? Your attempted insult will be ignored. I have learned to expect and as such, dismiss them, from "you people".


Palestinians get Saddam funds

From that article it does seem that one family of a suicide bomber was paid more than one family of a person killed by Israeli army, however, it does not state why, it does not state the size of the family and it does not state that it is always those sums, so basically, it is worthless.

I still want you to answer my last question, if you can, if you can't, just say so.

Saddam stokes war with suicide bomber cash

The Iraqi leader's payments to the families of dead Palestinian terrorists means more trouble for Yasser Arafat, writes Paul McGeough in the West Bank.

The hall was packed and the intake of breath was audible as a special announcement was made to the war widows of the West Bank - Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.

The men at the top table then opened Saddam's chequebook and, as the names of 47 martyrs were called, family representatives went up to sign for cheques written in US dollars.

Those of two suicide bombers were the first to be paid the new rate of $US25,000 and those whose relatives had died in other clashes with the Israeli military were given $US10,000 each.

The $US500,000 doled out in this impoverished community yesterday means that the besieged Iraqi leader now has contributed more than $US10 million to grieving Palestinian families since the new intifada began 18 months ago.

But the timing of this clear signal that Saddam is stoking the Middle East conflict with his new $US15,000 bonus to encourage more suicide bombers - and exclusive pictures from the distribution ceremony, which was attended by the Herald - could make it more difficult for the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to manage his already strained relationship with the United States.
..."


Clear enough for you?


You cannot prove that Pres. Bush lied. He presented intelligence which was not only gathered by the preceding administration but by other countries as well. Your question is based on a unproven allegation.

Indeed, it seems that you are correct. I apologize for doubting you.

However, i can prove that Pres. Bush lied. How can i do that? The entire intelligence community including the inspectors said that they do not know while Pres. Bush knew (note that he did not use the word believe, he stated that he KNEW), and other members of the Admin even knew exactly WHERE.

So yes, i can prove they lied, it is based on a proven fact, your unwillingness to accept that fact doesn't change that fact.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII
conjour,

so you're telling me that the un weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job?

talk about revisionist history

Ayup...they sure were.

k just making sure all the times i heard about the inspectors not being given access to certain locations and not being given private meetings with iraqi scientists was all in my head. thx for clearing this up. im really starting to believe that saddam is a victim in this whole thing. maybe bush could do kerry a favor and pardon saddam and get him citizenship, then maybe he can be kerry's VP. im sure they'd have a grand ol time talking about the mass atrocities theyve commited. probably wont happen but a commie-lib can dream, right?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: etech
Your memory is faulty, It is up to you, the originator of the contention that the weapon is from outside of Iraq to prove it.

You didn't answer, can you do research on the web and find the other items Iraq was in violation of?

No, my bet was that the evidence WILL show the shell to be old or from outside Iraq. We don't know yet, do we? How can I prove it? Feel free to prove it came from Saddam's cache, though.


As for your other question, I don't have to. I have the text of the U.N. resolutions saved to disk...from last year. What you fail to understand, though, is the crux of the justification for going to war were the known-to-exist WMDs. Without WMDs, NO country would have approved of a plan to invade Iraq. Bush knew that. Powell knew that. Cheney knew that. Rumsfeld knew that. EVERYONE knew that.

Conjur, do I need to go back and post your exact quote. You are changing the bet.

No...I'm NOT changing the bet. Go back and read what I wrote. Feel free to quote it, too.

Yes, the WMD's the intelligence agency's indicated they had evidence of were the cornerstone of the argument. They were not the only arguement by any means. Everyone should know that.

Well, you're 1/2 way to admitting the war on Iraq was completely unjustified. Now, go ahead and actually say it. You can do it. Go ahead....you know the intelligence agencies didn't say WMDs existed...come on...you can say it....

The sky won't fall.

I promise!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

you need to understand that this is what liberals really believe...then all their obfuscation about what is or isn't a WMD becomes moot.

they don't care what we find.."no amount will satisfy me..."

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party. Though you've demonstrated again and again you don't give a tinker's damn about accuracy or honesty or context, this is an egregious example even by your so-called standards.

How about we look at what I actually said:

• As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me as justification for Bush's invasion. As I've said here several times, his attack was wrong even if Iraq had "WMDs". We had a process in place to find and destroy any remaining proscribed materials. By George's own admission, Iraq did NOT pose an imminent threat. Therefore, there was no justification for his rush to invade. We had time.
  
  The better question would be what quantity of "WMDs" would satisfy me that Bush and his minions did not lie? That's easy. Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

Got that? The quantity of "WMDs" found does matter ... to King George's integrity. The quantity matters in establishing just how baldly Bush and his minions lied to sell their unholy crusade. It matters to the families of 777 dead American soldiers who died for a lie. It matters to 25+ million Iraqis who wonder if this American-style democracy is truly any better than the despot we unseated. It matters to anyone who loves America and believes in her ideals.

Tragically, it does NOT matter to you, nor to the millions of bleating Bush fan-boys like you. You eagerly swallow whatever spews from the Bush administration. Truth be damned, you don't need no steenk'n facts, right and wrong are irrelevant. George talks to God, so it's all good in your blind eyes. The loss of your personal integrity -- not to mention thousands of innocent people -- is a small price to pay.



You asked for a quantity. I'm not surprised you ignored my answer. Let me give it to you again, just to drive home the fact your feckless leader is a lying slime. No wonder you worship him so:

• Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

Get back to me when you can show me these things are true. Until then, take your single, lame artillery shell diversion and stick it.

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

• Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

We're waiting.

Crickets? Heartsurgeon?

That's what I thought. Drop your little trolls, then slither back under your rock when challenged about your dishonesty. So be it. You cannot defend Bush and his minions so you divert and distort and dissemble. You lose.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII
conjour,

so you're telling me that the un weapons inspectors were allowed to do their job?

talk about revisionist history

Ayup...they sure were.

k just making sure all the times i heard about the inspectors not being given access to certain locations and not being given private meetings with iraqi scientists was all in my head. thx for clearing this up. im really starting to believe that saddam is a victim in this whole thing. maybe bush could do kerry a favor and pardon saddam and get him citizenship, then maybe he can be kerry's VP. im sure they'd have a grand ol time talking about the mass atrocities theyve commited. probably wont happen but a commie-lib can dream, right?

Ah...again josphII fails to admit it when his ass has been handed to him. He has to cut one line out of my post and ignore the explanation behind it and then apply his own spin to my statement. You're next in line to replace Limbaugh or Hannity.

Let's go back and see the explanation behind my statement, shall we?

From Hans Blix's Jan. 27, 2003 report to the U.N.:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field.

With me so far? I know it's so easy for you to get lost w/o being led by the collar.

Here's the clincher:

The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

 

[josphII]

Ah...again josphII fails to admit it when his ass has been handed to him. He has to cut one line out of my post and ignore the explanation behind it and then apply his own spin to my statement. You're next in line to replace Limbaugh or Hannity.

ive already admitted it. it was all in my head! weapons inspectors being denied access to certain locations.... nope never happened! weapons inspectors not being allowed to talk to certain individuals... never happened! whatever you say conjour!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic ...

I've held hope you might have a little integrity left. I see I was mistaken. That you cannot accept that someone might object to Bush based on his dishonesty and abominable performance shows what a close-minded partisan hack you have become.

One of the reasons I find Bush repugnant is because personal integrity matters to me. Bush lacks integrity. I subscribe to the old-fashioned idea that men are measured by their integrity. I know bleating Bush fan-boys find that notion quaint, even self-destructive. You're all about greed and screwing everyone around you to get ahead. You think money proves your worth; the end justifies the means; he who dies with the most toys wins. That is your loss. You are morally bankrupt in my opinion.

I believe in honesty and honor. I do not lie here; I do my best to avoid lying in real life. I've made my success while retaining my values. I haven't screwed my employees or stabbed my competitors in the back. I just went through 360 degree feedback as part of a new Leadership program at my employer. My boss, my employees, and many of my peers rated me in a variety of areas. I scored a perfect 9.0 out of nine on the "Honesty and Integrity" section. I'm proud of that. It's important to me.

I challenge you to find any instance of me lying in this forum. You cannot comprehend truthfulness; it is a foreign concept. Nonetheless, when I say I am an independent, I am stating the truth. Your insinuations to the contrary are the desperate cries of deluded little men who will say or do anything to avoid acknowledging your god in the White House has feet of clay. You are contemptible.

Bleat on, Cad. You and I come from different worlds. Worship your little cowboy god as you must. You will see the truth -- someday -- and you will be ashamed.

That's nice but none of that makes you an independent. YOU may THINK you are but from what you post here it doesn't hold up. It seems that Liberals won't even admit they are such anymore so they think they are "independents" now all of a sudden. I understand the need to feel like you are a sought after political commodity, but atleast be truthful about where your ideology lies. Maybe you were "independent" once but it is clear from your posts on this forum that are on the left side of the spectrum - not just a "tad" either. Your incessant attempts at trying to blame Bush or Conservative has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "open-minded" person you claim to be. And your accusation that others are "close-minded" goes hand in hand with that. Just because YOUR ideology isn't the same as mine doesn't make me close minded.

Now as to your assertion that I worship a "cowboy god" - you can shove it. I worship only one God and despite your blathering - it isn't Bush. Yes, someday I will see the epitome of truth and I will spend eternity bathed in that truth. I am not ashamed and will never be ashamed of that.
Ofcourse you were trying to say that in a political sense but it doesn't matter - you can't seem to see through your hate of Bush and Conservatives. Hopefully someday you will understand, but it seem that today you seem to wish to wallow in your self loathing and hatred. Yes, morally bankrupt seems to be a good description of a few people around here - and you seem to want to be included in that circle.

Now the only thing you *may* have gotten right is the statement that we come from different worlds. I l come from a world where morality and Godliness matters. I come from a world that accepts the fact that there are differing ideologies. I come from a world where there can be a right and wrong. I come from a world that holds personal accountability and self reliance in high regard.
Good day.

Now back to the serious WMD issue.

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: josphII

Ah...again josphII fails to admit it when his ass has been handed to him. He has to cut one line out of my post and ignore the explanation behind it and then apply his own spin to my statement. You're next in line to replace Limbaugh or Hannity.

ive already admitted it. it was all in my head! weapons inspectors being denied access to certain locations.... nope never happened! weapons inspectors not being allowed to talk to certain individuals... never happened! whatever you say conjour!

IN 2003!


The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect .

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
[ ... ]
The fact that Bowfinger "claims" to be an independent is laughably pathetic ...

I've held hope you might have a little integrity left. I see I was mistaken. That you cannot accept that someone might object to Bush based on his dishonesty and abominable performance shows what a close-minded partisan hack you have become.

One of the reasons I find Bush repugnant is because personal integrity matters to me. Bush lacks integrity. I subscribe to the old-fashioned idea that men are measured by their integrity. I know bleating Bush fan-boys find that notion quaint, even self-destructive. You're all about greed and screwing everyone around you to get ahead. You think money proves your worth; the end justifies the means; he who dies with the most toys wins. That is your loss. You are morally bankrupt in my opinion.

I believe in honesty and honor. I do not lie here; I do my best to avoid lying in real life. I've made my success while retaining my values. I haven't screwed my employees or stabbed my competitors in the back. I just went through 360 degree feedback as part of a new Leadership program at my employer. My boss, my employees, and many of my peers rated me in a variety of areas. I scored a perfect 9.0 out of nine on the "Honesty and Integrity" section. I'm proud of that. It's important to me.

I challenge you to find any instance of me lying in this forum. You cannot comprehend truthfulness; it is a foreign concept. Nonetheless, when I say I am an independent, I am stating the truth. Your insinuations to the contrary are the desperate cries of deluded little men who will say or do anything to avoid acknowledging your god in the White House has feet of clay. You are contemptible.

Bleat on, Cad. You and I come from different worlds. Worship your little cowboy god as you must. You will see the truth -- someday -- and you will be ashamed.

That's nice but none of that makes you an independent. YOU may THINK you are but from what you post here it doesn't hold up. It seems that Liberals won't even admit they are such anymore so they think they are "independents" now all of a sudden. I understand the need to feel like you are a sought after political commodity, but atleast be truthful about where your ideology lies. Maybe you were "independent" once but it is clear from your posts on this forum that are on the left side of the spectrum - not just a "tad" either. Your incessant attempts at trying to blame Bush or Conservative has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "open-minded" person you claim to be. And your accusation that others are "close-minded" goes hand in hand with that. Just because YOUR ideology isn't the same as mine doesn't make me close minded.

Now as to your assertion that I worship a "cowboy god" - you can shove it. I worship only one God and despite your blathering - it isn't Bush. Yes, someday I will see the epitome of truth and I will spend eternity bathed in that truth. I am not ashamed and will never be ashamed of that.
Ofcourse you were trying to say that in a political sense but it doesn't matter - you can't seem to see through your hate of Bush and Conservatives. Hopefully someday you will understand, but it seem that today you seem to wish to wallow in your self loathing and hatred. Yes, morally bankrupt seems to be a good description of a few people around here - and you seem to want to be included in that circle.

Now the only thing you *may* have gotten right is the statement that we come from different worlds. I l come from a world where morality and Godliness matters. I come from a world that accepts the fact that there are differing ideologies. I come from a world where there can be a right and wrong. I come from a world that holds personal accountability and self reliance in high regard.
Good day.

Now back to the serious WMD issue.

CkG

Yes, let's return to this SERIOUS WMD issue. LOL

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: josphII

Ah...again josphII fails to admit it when his ass has been handed to him. He has to cut one line out of my post and ignore the explanation behind it and then apply his own spin to my statement. You're next in line to replace Limbaugh or Hannity.

ive already admitted it. it was all in my head! weapons inspectors being denied access to certain locations.... nope never happened! weapons inspectors not being allowed to talk to certain individuals... never happened! whatever you say conjour!

IN 2003!


The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect .

Don't torture the man, he has already realized that it was all in his head, good for him. (hint, don't tell him about the toothfairy too, he will be scarred for life)

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Yes, let's return to this SERIOUS WMD issue. LOL

this isnt a serious matter? i dont really thing that the humiliation of POW's is a serious matter. Hell, similar stuff happens on the playgrounds of Americas schools, but I dont see parents or liberals raising their voices in anger as I have seen them so about a prison of enemy combatants.

come back when you have you priorities straight, fool.

 

[Mill]

RE: terrorism and Saddam, what about his links to terrorists such as Carlos the Jackal and others? Sure, it wasn't anything more than what Castro did...

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Yes, let's return to this SERIOUS WMD issue. LOL

this isnt a serious matter? i dont really thing that the humiliation of POW's is a serious matter. Hell, similar stuff happens on the playgrounds of Americas schools, but I dont see parents or liberals raising their voices in anger as I have seen them so about a prison of enemy combatants.

come back when you have you priorities straight, fool.

I don't know how you Americans treat eachother, i am German, but please, if humiliation is part of your sexual game, go right ahead, why should i care?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's nice but none of that makes you an independent.

No child, I am an independent because I have consistently voted for candidates of both major parties as well as many third-parties throughout my entire voting "career". I have been quite open here about being driven farther from the Republican party over the last few years, primarily due to the unholy influence of religious extremists and the so-called neo-conservatives. Nonetheless, I am not a Democrat. For example, as I've mentioned here before, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. There are a fair number of Republicans who apparently think I am Republican since I'm on their mailing lists.

YOU may THINK you are but from what you post here it doesn't hold up. It seems that Liberals won't even admit they are such anymore so they think they are "independents" now all of a sudden. I understand the need to feel like you are a sought after political commodity,

Wow, you are clueless. I don't give a rat's ass about being a "sought-after political commodity." Who cares?

but atleast be truthful about where your ideology lies. Maybe you were "independent" once but it is clear from your posts on this forum that are on the left side of the spectrum - not just a "tad" either.

Sorry, this is where your partisan blindness does you in. You insist that not-Bush means liberal. It doesn't. I make no secret of my disdain for King George. That doesn't make me a liberal. It just makes me someone who abhors slimeballs who lack integrity and screw this country for the benefit of his imperialist agenda and his wealthy supporters. Ignoring Bush himself, I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others, mostly in the middle, with a modest touch of Libertarianism.

Your incessant attempts at trying to blame Bush or Conservative has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "open-minded" person you claim to be.

You again suffer from partisan blindness. You insist that not-Bush means anti-conservative. Wrong again. More importantly, it's a ridiculous notion in the first place. Bush is so far removed from so many traditional conservative values it's completely irrational to try to tie the two together. As you well know, that's why I reject the label "neo-conservative". It sullies the meaning of conservative.

While I can't say I've never made a critical comment about "conservatives" here, I believe you will find they are few and far between. I will vocally attack several sub-groups of conservatives. I have no problems with conservatives in general. My biggest complaint is they've allowed the Republican Party to be hijacked by the aforementioned religious extremists and "neo-cons." (A complaint I've made several times here.)

And your accusation that others are "close-minded" goes hand in hand with that. Just because YOUR ideology isn't the same as mine doesn't make me close minded.

No, the fact you can't accept someone can dislike Bush without being a liberal is what makes you close-minded. You don't have to agree with others' ideas. You do have to listen to them, consider them, evaluate them.

Now as to your assertion that I worship a "cowboy god" - you can shove it. I worship only one God and despite your blathering - it isn't Bush.

To paraphrase you, maybe you didn't worship Bush once, but it is clear from your posts on this forum that you do now. Your incessant attempts at trying to excuse Bush has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "not worshipping" person you claim to be.

In all seriousness, all I can go by is what you post here. I believe you will find broad agreement from the regulars that you stand out as one of Bush's most strident and most persistent apologists, stretching and twisting arguments to absurd extremes to justify Bush's actions. While I'm sure you do not literally "worship" the man, your behavior closely resembles that of a religious fanatic defending his god.

Yes, someday I will see the epitome of truth and I will spend eternity bathed in that truth. I am not ashamed and will never be ashamed of that.
Ofcourse you were trying to say that in a political sense but it doesn't matter - you can't seem to see through your hate of Bush and Conservatives. Hopefully someday you will understand, but it seem that today you seem to wish to wallow in your self loathing and hatred. Yes, morally bankrupt seems to be a good description of a few people around here - and you seem to want to be included in that circle.

An empty attack. America is supposed to stand for something. I want America to be the greatest country it can be. Bush is hurting America. Bush's apologists are helping him. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between patriotism and self-loathing. I think that says something about you. (Hint: Bush is NOT America.)

Now the only thing you *may* have gotten right is the statement that we come from different worlds. I l come from a world where morality and Godliness matters. I come from a world that accepts the fact that there are differing ideologies. I come from a world where there can be a right and wrong. I come from a world that holds personal accountability and self reliance in high regard.

And yet you accept Bush's immorality without blinking an eye. You applaud his un-Christian, even blasphemous behavior. You twist right and wrong to fit his agenda. You refuse to accept other's ideologies as having worth. You yap about personal accountability, but you support the man who refuses to be accountable for anything.

I am sure you disagree with everything I said in the paragraph above, yet that is exactly how you appear based on your posts here. There is a massive disconnect between those things you say you value and those things you actually endorse. How many people have nailed you about living in Bizarro World, or deluding yourself, or something similar? That's why.

Good day.

Now back to the serious WMD issue.

CkG

LOL, case in point. We know Iraq had WMDs. For multiple reasons, it appers likely most of these WMDs were destroyed by some combination of U.N. inspectors, Clinton's 1998 bombings, and Iraq itself. We know that this destruction was disorganized and often undocumented. Therefore, it should be absolutely no surprise to any rational person that some remnants of these WMDs, some left-overs, would still exist. The fact we found one dusty shell is unremarkable, yet the Bush apologists act like they found the mother lode.

It is totally absurd behavior, it does not begin to match the pre-war claims of the Bush administration, and not even the Bush administration itself is making a big deal of it, yet here you all are, bleating and yapping and carrying on. Like I said earlier, you're like a pack of starving wolves jumping on a lone mouse as if it is significant. Give it a rest already. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The only relevant question is whether Iraq had the "massive stockpiles", etc. Bush claimed they had before his invasion. Maybe so, but this one shell doesn't even begin to support those grandiose claims.

Oh well, sleep well Cad. Glad to hear you finally have something to do at work. It's not a good time for employees to have too little to do (but yes, it looks like we're getting better).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That's nice but none of that makes you an independent.

No child, I am an independent because I have consistently voted for candidates of both major parties as well as many third-parties throughout my entire voting "career". I have been quite open here about being driven farther from the Republican party over the last few years, primarily due to the unholy influence of religious extremists and the so-called neo-conservatives. Nonetheless, I am not a Democrat. For example, as I've mentioned here before, I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. There are a fair number of Republicans who apparently think I am Republican since I'm on their mailing lists.

YOU may THINK you are but from what you post here it doesn't hold up. It seems that Liberals won't even admit they are such anymore so they think they are "independents" now all of a sudden. I understand the need to feel like you are a sought after political commodity,

Wow, you are clueless. I don't give a rat's ass about being a "sought-after political commodity." Who cares?

but atleast be truthful about where your ideology lies. Maybe you were "independent" once but it is clear from your posts on this forum that are on the left side of the spectrum - not just a "tad" either.

Sorry, this is where your partisan blindness does you in. You insist that not-Bush means liberal. It doesn't. I make no secret of my disdain for King George. That doesn't make me a liberal. It just makes me someone who abhors slimeballs who lack integrity and screw this country for the benefit of his imperialist agenda and his wealthy supporters. Ignoring Bush himself, I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others, mostly in the middle, with a modest touch of Libertarianism.

Your incessant attempts at trying to blame Bush or Conservative has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "open-minded" person you claim to be.

You again suffer from partisan blindness. You insist that not-Bush means anti-conservative. Wrong again. More importantly, it's a ridiculous notion in the first place. Bush is so far removed from so many traditional conservative values it's completely irrational to try to tie the two together. As you well know, that's why I reject the label "neo-conservative". It sullies the meaning of conservative.

While I can't say I've never made a critical comment about "conservatives" here, I believe you will find they are few and far between. I will vocally attack several sub-groups of conservatives. I have no problems with conservatives in general. My biggest complaint is they've allowed the Republican Party to be hijacked by the aforementioned religious extremists and "neo-cons." (A complaint I've made several times here.)

And your accusation that others are "close-minded" goes hand in hand with that. Just because YOUR ideology isn't the same as mine doesn't make me close minded.

No, the fact you can't accept someone can dislike Bush without being a liberal is what makes you close-minded. You don't have to agree with others' ideas. You do have to listen to them, consider them, evaluate them.

Now as to your assertion that I worship a "cowboy god" - you can shove it. I worship only one God and despite your blathering - it isn't Bush.

To paraphrase you, maybe you didn't worship Bush once, but it is clear from your posts on this forum that you do now. Your incessant attempts at trying to excuse Bush has blown your "cover" - you are not the objective or "not worshipping" person you claim to be.

In all seriousness, all I can go by is what you post here. I believe you will find broad agreement from the regulars that you stand out as one of Bush's most strident and most persistent apologists, stretching and twisting arguments to absurd extremes to justify Bush's actions. While I'm sure you do not literally "worship" the man, your behavior closely resembles that of a religious fanatic defending his god.

Yes, someday I will see the epitome of truth and I will spend eternity bathed in that truth. I am not ashamed and will never be ashamed of that.
Ofcourse you were trying to say that in a political sense but it doesn't matter - you can't seem to see through your hate of Bush and Conservatives. Hopefully someday you will understand, but it seem that today you seem to wish to wallow in your self loathing and hatred. Yes, morally bankrupt seems to be a good description of a few people around here - and you seem to want to be included in that circle.

An empty attack. America is supposed to stand for something. I want America to be the greatest country it can be. Bush is hurting America. Bush's apologists are helping him. I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between patriotism and self-loathing. I think that says something about you. (Hint: Bush is NOT America.)

Now the only thing you *may* have gotten right is the statement that we come from different worlds. I l come from a world where morality and Godliness matters. I come from a world that accepts the fact that there are differing ideologies. I come from a world where there can be a right and wrong. I come from a world that holds personal accountability and self reliance in high regard.

And yet you accept Bush's immorality without blinking an eye. You applaud his un-Christian, even blasphemous behavior. You twist right and wrong to fit his agenda. You refuse to accept other's ideologies as having worth. You yap about personal accountability, but you support the man who refuses to be accountable for anything.

I am sure you disagree with everything I said in the paragraph above, yet that is exactly how you appear based on your posts here. There is a massive disconnect between those things you say you value and those things you actually endorse. How many people have nailed you about living in Bizarro World, or deluding yourself, or something similar? That's why.

Good day.

Now back to the serious WMD issue.

CkG

LOL, case in point. We know Iraq had WMDs. For multiple reasons, it appers likely most of these WMDs were destroyed by some combination of U.N. inspectors, Clinton's 1998 bombings, and Iraq itself. We know that this destruction was disorganized and often undocumented. Therefore, it should be absolutely no surprise to any rational person that some remnants of these WMDs, some left-overs, would still exist. The fact we found one dusty shell is unremarkable, yet the Bush apologists act like they found the mother lode.

It is totally absurd behavior, it does not begin to match the pre-war claims of the Bush administration, and not even the Bush administration itself is making a big deal of it, yet here you all are, bleating and yapping and carrying on. Like I said earlier, you're like a pack of starving wolves jumping on a lone mouse as if it is significant. Give it a rest already. We all know Iraq had WMDs in the past. The only relevant question is whether Iraq had the "massive stockpiles", etc. Bush claimed they had before his invasion. Maybe so, but this one shell doesn't even begin to support those grandiose claims.

Oh well, sleep well Cad. Glad to hear you finally have something to do at work. It's not a good time for employees to have too little to do (but yes, it looks like we're getting better).

Hi Bowfinger.

CkG

 

[Format C:]

I can sum it all up for you very briefly. Saddam is their hero.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Format C:
I can sum it all up for you very briefly. Saddam is their hero.

*cookie* for hungry troll

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me..

you need to understand that this is what liberals really believe...then all their obfuscation about what is or isn't a WMD becomes moot.

they don't care what we find.."no amount will satisfy me..."

It is lying slime like you that drive independents like me away from the Republican Party. Though you've demonstrated again and again you don't give a tinker's damn about accuracy or honesty or context, this is an egregious example even by your so-called standards.

How about we look at what I actually said:

• As far as quantities of "WMDs", no amount will satisfy me as justification for Bush's invasion. As I've said here several times, his attack was wrong even if Iraq had "WMDs". We had a process in place to find and destroy any remaining proscribed materials. By George's own admission, Iraq did NOT pose an imminent threat. Therefore, there was no justification for his rush to invade. We had time.
  
  The better question would be what quantity of "WMDs" would satisfy me that Bush and his minions did not lie? That's easy. Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

Got that? The quantity of "WMDs" found does matter ... to King George's integrity. The quantity matters in establishing just how baldly Bush and his minions lied to sell their unholy crusade. It matters to the families of 777 dead American soldiers who died for a lie. It matters to 25+ million Iraqis who wonder if this American-style democracy is truly any better than the despot we unseated. It matters to anyone who loves America and believes in her ideals.

Tragically, it does NOT matter to you, nor to the millions of bleating Bush fan-boys like you. You eagerly swallow whatever spews from the Bush administration. Truth be damned, you don't need no steenk'n facts, right and wrong are irrelevant. George talks to God, so it's all good in your blind eyes. The loss of your personal integrity -- not to mention thousands of innocent people -- is a small price to pay.



You asked for a quantity. I'm not surprised you ignored my answer. Let me give it to you again, just to drive home the fact your feckless leader is a lying slime. No wonder you worship him so:

• Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

Get back to me when you can show me these things are true. Until then, take your single, lame artillery shell diversion and stick it.

How about it heartsurgeon? I called you on your vile lies about my position. I reposted what I really said above, for all to see -- in context. You've evaded addressing it so far. What's the problem? Here's your chance to show a little integrity. Will you support Bush by addressing my points, or will you continue to bleat your disinformation and diversions?

• Show me Iraq had the "massive stockpiles" and "thousands of liters" and "reconstitued nuclear weapons programs" and UAVs poised to strike the US mainland with chemical or biological agents, and all the other BS they used to sell their war. Show me that Iraq had all of these things in January, 2003, not in 1990 or 1998. Show me that, and I will believe them. Until then, I'll remain convinced they're a pack of scheming liars.

We're waiting.

Crickets? Heartsurgeon?

That's what I thought. Drop your little trolls, then slither back under your rock when challenged about your dishonesty. So be it. You cannot defend Bush and his minions so you divert and distort and dissemble. You lose.

WMD WMD WMD.... oh shut up goober Saddam had a ton of the crap And that was a FACT never showed us that ha drove them to syria Errrr destoyed them or sold them (hell he would never destroy something that made him money) and the better part of the world thought he had them it was more plausable that he did than if he didn't. It was not all our Intel. Unless Saddam personally told you he was fooling everybody for 10+ years then please button it Heart Surgeon probably had something better to do instead of haggling with you yahoo's that are convinced by the left wing media so easily.

So where did they go ? To disneyworld? to your backyard?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
WMD WMD WMD.... oh shut up goober Saddam had a ton of the crap And that was a FACT never showed us that ha drove them to syria Errrr destoyed them or sold them (hell he would never destroy something that made him money) and the better part of the world thought he had them it was more plausable that he did than if he didn't. It was not all our Intel. Unless Saddam personally told you he was fooling everybody for 10+ years then please button it Heart Surgeon probably had something better to do instead of haggling with you yahoo's that are convinced by the left wing media so easily.

So where did they go ? To disneyworld? to your backyard?

Your argument is a sieve.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: EXman
WMD WMD WMD.... oh shut up goober Saddam had a ton of the crap And that was a FACT never showed us that ha drove them to syria Errrr destoyed them or sold them (hell he would never destroy something that made him money) and the better part of the world thought he had them it was more plausable that he did than if he didn't. It was not all our Intel. Unless Saddam personally told you he was fooling everybody for 10+ years then please button it Heart Surgeon probably had something better to do instead of haggling with you yahoo's that are convinced by the left wing media so easily.

So where did they go ? To disneyworld? to your backyard?

This message authorized by the Bush Apologists of America (BAA). Pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980.

 

[Richdog]

Originally posted by: Passions
HAHAHHAHAHA FINALLY!! Suck it down liberals. Bush was right all along. HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

The mind boggles...

 

[SmokeRngs]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs

Originally posted by: conjur
The inspectors, during the 90s, were part of the dismantling of the WMD programs.

The inspectors back in Iraq in 2003 did not find anything but did find proof of some destruction of items such as Anthrax.

Now, Saddam is an evil dictator and certainly needed to be removed from power (but certainly not in the way it was done.) Perhaps he was tired of having to abide by feckless resolutions and didn't care to provide all of the truth.

All we know now is that it appears everything (oh wait...ONE shell was leftover) really was destroyed.

No, it doesn't appear everything was destroyed. There is no documentation of any kind that it was destroyed. I have yet to see any witnesses, credible or otherwise that witnessed the destruction. There are many ways to prove something was destroyed. It would also be the epitomy of stupidity to kick out the people that are doing the destruction just so you can destroy it secretly so no one knows you did it. That was the reason those people were there, to document the destruction so you were no longer in trouble about it.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:

AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION


Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix

The implementation of resolution 687 (1991) nevertheless brought about considerable disarmament results. It has been recognized that more weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under this resolution than were destroyed during the Gulf War: large quantities of chemical weapons were destroyed under UNSCOM supervision before 1994. While Iraq claims ? with little evidence ? that it destroyed all biological weapons unilaterally in 1991, it is certain that UNSCOM destroyed large biological weapons production facilities in 1996. The large nuclear infrastructure was destroyed and the fissionable material was removed from Iraq by the IAEA

You were saying???



As to unaccounted for weapons:

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

might...not does.

Chemical weapons

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponised. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.

I would now like to turn to the so-called ?Air Force document? that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji.

I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

So...even Blix doesn't state the weapons do exist, just that they are "unaccounted for." They may have been destroyed and just not fully documented, a wholly possible explanation.

Also, other discoveries were under investigation but those investigations were halted when Bush requested the inspectors to leave Iraq so he could invade it. Bush didn't want to give them anymore time to find out that there was nothing there and, hence, shoot a hole in his plan to implement the PNAC vision.

You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: SmokeRngs
You do realize that everything you posted there validates and strengthens my argument don't you? It does not say that it no longer exists, it does say it's unaccounted for. Unaccounted for means it would still exist, just has not been found.

I must thank you for proving yourself wrong.

Wow. You prove yourself to be more ignorant with each new post! Amazing!

How in *the* hell does unaccounted for equate to existing? Hmmm?? Care to define the [ill]logic behind that thought process?

 

[conjur]

http://in.news.yahoo.com/040406/137/2ceq7.html

By the time he resigned in January this year Kay said he had come to believe Iraq did not possess any large stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons when the United States invaded.

"I believe they became incapable after 1998 of really producing a coherent program," he said. "By December I clearly had told everyone that, but it's not true in July."

Vanity Fair reported Kay said he was ready to quit in December but Tenet pleaded with him to stay on because it would look bad if he left early.