I've had plenty of reasonable debates here... am I a one noter because I stand by my convitions?
Standing by ones convictions is entirely separate from making it your quest to expose one particular group for it's shortcomings while simultaneously looking past the same shortcomings of the separate group that you choose to affiliate yourself with.
I'm sure Al knows there are liberal liars. He's not an idiot. But he chooses not to address the issue. That takes away from his credibility.
I agree with some of what you said right up until you go into your anti-Bush administration rant. It is your opinion Bush lied to go to war (incidently I share the same opinion) but that does not mean said opinion is correct.
No. It is fully supported by all of the facts. I have researched this to death and can provide you will enough info it would take you months to sift through. In fact, there is no evidence for him actually being correct, just a lot of claims by completely discredited 'intel sources' and wishful thinking.
Quote:
Even Hillary Clinton has come out recently saying the Clinton Administration had substantial amount of intelligence showing Saddam possessed WMD.
And she's full of shit as well. Guess what. I don't like the Clintons. I don't know enough to fully pin anything on them, but it is my uninformed opinion that they are crooks. However, compared to the Bush admin, they are saints.
Furthermore, I don't know how much beyond this, but many people, including Clark, cite the young PNAC as being the force behind the Clinton Iraq policy.
No. It is fully supported by all of the facts. I have researched this to death and can provide you will enough info it would take you months to sift through. In fact, there is no evidence for him actually being correct, just a lot of claims by completely discredited 'intel sources' and wishful thinking.
I'm going to assume that all of this "evidence" could also be contradicted by reports I could dig up. Not that I disagree with you, but I'm saying we could get into an endless war of "facts."
What we need to remember is that when weapons inspectors were in Iraq, it took them 4 years to find the illegal weapons they eventually tried to destroy, and even then they only found them because someone close to Saddam defected and told us where they were.
I do not belive there was an "imminent threat" from Hussein. But I also don't believe there are no weapons simply because they haven't shown up on the 6:00 news yet.
I know for a fact they're both mouthpieces for their respective parties and anything they say needs to be weighed heavily against the ways in which they choose to present what it is they have to say.
I'm going to Burger King. Thanks for the intelligent debate! Look forward to more in the future.
I'm going to assume that all of this "evidence" could also be contradicted by reports I could dig up.
Let's roll.
Quote:
What we need to remember is that when weapons inspectors were in Iraq, it took them 4 years to find the illegal weapons they eventually tried to destroy, and even then they only found them because someone close to Saddam defected and told us where they were.
That's sweet that you think you can make an inference regardless of the facts.
and maybe you didn't realize that the shift caused by his defection allowed us to fully document the Iraqi weapons programs.
Look at it this way: what was Iraq physically capable of having?
Quote:
I do not belive there was an "imminent threat" from Hussein. But I also don't believe there are no weapons simply because they haven't shown up on the 6:00 news yet.
Then let's look at what Iraq was physically capable of having. Go ahead and demonstrate it.
Conservatives and the Mainstream media were already going after Clinton... to be balanced Al should of piled on too???
If anything AL should of been around to point out Newt's conservative revolution hypocrisy...
After all the millions spent on Whitewater and Travelgate... what in the end did Clinton lie about? Having oral sex with an intern. We need al to point that out?
Where has been the investigation into Bush's connections to Enron? OR the closed door energy meeting with Cheney?
This is a two party system.
Ann Coulter LIES... Al doesn't. Don't act like their two sides of the same coin... because they're not.
I'm sure there's several liberal writers who lie and distort the way Ann does... I don't deny that... but Al isn't one of them and I know I don't see their faces on the TV all the time either.
( I took forever to post this... and I didn't see your post that partly agrees with me)
What you seem to be missing, giant, is the fact that I agree with you.
The fact I oppose some of the things you say does not mean I disbelieve or even disagree with them. I am merely trying to offer a neutral point of view.
I'm not really interested in engaging in another Iraq debate with someone. It is a tired internet topic.
I enjoyed talking to you about the topic at hand, Ann and Al.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
I've had plenty of reasonable debates here... am I a one noter because I stand by my convitions?
Standing by ones convictions is entirely separate from making it your quest to expose one particular group for it's shortcomings while simultaneously looking past the same shortcomings of the separate group that you choose to affiliate yourself with.
I'm sure Al knows there are liberal liars. He's not an idiot. But he chooses not to address the issue. That takes away from his credibility.
Originally posted by rageous
But Al's book wasn't about Ann's
I agree with some of what you said right up until you go into your anti-Bush administration rant. It is your opinion Bush lied to go to war (incidently I share the same opinion) but that does not mean said opinion is correct.
No. It is fully supported by all of the facts. I have researched this to death and can provide you will enough info it would take you months to sift through. In fact, there is no evidence for him actually being correct, just a lot of claims by completely discredited 'intel sources' and wishful thinking.
Even Hillary Clinton has come out recently saying the Clinton Administration had substantial amount of intelligence showing Saddam possessed WMD.
And she's full of shit as well. Guess what. I don't like the Clintons. I don't know enough to fully pin anything on them, but it is my uninformed opinion that they are crooks. However, compared to the Bush admin, they are saints.
Furthermore, I don't know how much beyond this, but many people, including Clark, cite the young PNAC as being the force behind the Clinton Iraq policy.
Originally posted by giant
No. It is fully supported by all of the facts. I have researched this to death and can provide you will enough info it would take you months to sift through. In fact, there is no evidence for him actually being correct, just a lot of claims by completely discredited 'intel sources' and wishful thinking.
I'm going to assume that all of this "evidence" could also be contradicted by reports I could dig up. Not that I disagree with you, but I'm saying we could get into an endless war of "facts."
What we need to remember is that when weapons inspectors were in Iraq, it took them 4 years to find the illegal weapons they eventually tried to destroy, and even then they only found them because someone close to Saddam defected and told us where they were.
I do not belive there was an "imminent threat" from Hussein. But I also don't believe there are no weapons simply because they haven't shown up on the 6:00 news yet.
I do believe Ann is indeed a liar.
I don't believe Al is a liar.
I know for a fact they're both mouthpieces for their respective parties and anything they say needs to be weighed heavily against the ways in which they choose to present what it is they have to say.
I'm going to Burger King. Thanks for the intelligent debate! Look forward to more in the future.
Originally posted by rageous
I'm going to assume that all of this "evidence" could also be contradicted by reports I could dig up.
Let's roll.
What we need to remember is that when weapons inspectors were in Iraq, it took them 4 years to find the illegal weapons they eventually tried to destroy, and even then they only found them because someone close to Saddam defected and told us where they were.
That's sweet that you think you can make an inference regardless of the facts.
Guess what else Kamel said? http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
and maybe you didn't realize that the shift caused by his defection allowed us to fully document the Iraqi weapons programs.
Look at it this way: what was Iraq physically capable of having?
I do not belive there was an "imminent threat" from Hussein. But I also don't believe there are no weapons simply because they haven't shown up on the 6:00 news yet.
Then let's look at what Iraq was physically capable of having. Go ahead and demonstrate it.
If anything AL should of been around to point out Newt's conservative revolution hypocrisy...
After all the millions spent on Whitewater and Travelgate... what in the end did Clinton lie about? Having oral sex with an intern. We need al to point that out?
Where has been the investigation into Bush's connections to Enron? OR the closed door energy meeting with Cheney?
This is a two party system.
Ann Coulter LIES... Al doesn't. Don't act like their two sides of the same coin... because they're not.
I'm sure there's several liberal writers who lie and distort the way Ann does... I don't deny that... but Al isn't one of them and I know I don't see their faces on the TV all the time either.
( I took forever to post this... and I didn't see your post that partly agrees with me)
The fact I oppose some of the things you say does not mean I disbelieve or even disagree with them. I am merely trying to offer a neutral point of view.
I'm not really interested in engaging in another Iraq debate with someone. It is a tired internet topic.
I enjoyed talking to you about the topic at hand, Ann and Al.
Istanbul was once Constantinople and Bill O'really has a temper...
(infamous booksellers convention dialog with al fraken)
(scroll down)
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/en.../bill-oreilly/