Come off it! Just about everybody's had enough of the smoke and mirror, Bush for lunch bunch.
I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's the truth.
You can't tell me he didn't know people would misconstrue what he said and take it a certain way.
If miscontrue was the truth that is.
Clarification was in order.
He didn't because he knew it would further his goals.
That's it pretty much in a nutshell.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Jimmac, I reread the posts and I am afraid that i may have knee-jerked at your post a bit. This issue has become so convoluted that I fell into the trap.
I assumed that you were saying the link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq was implied by Bushco., which it wasn't. A link, though, was always stated, not implied.
So anyway, If I jumped the gun, apologies.
On another, yet similar note. Yet another piece of evidence surfaces to show an ongoing relationship between Iraq and AQ:
You know that's NOT what Bush was inplying or what everyone ( who took him seriously ) was thinking. Please don't be stupid about this.
I'm really getting tired of this " Well he didn't actually say there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda ". " He didn't actually say they would attack the contenential U.S. ". " And if you think that it's your fault not Bush ".
Please!
Just dumb!
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.
As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......
This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.
Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.
As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......
This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.
So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.
That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.
That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.
You're fighting a losing battle here SDW.
You're crazy. How can you prove an implication? We also were not just talking about nuclear bombs, but dirty bombs and bio/chem weapons.
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.
He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.
I wasn't fooled into anything. I support our actions in Iraq for many reasons. The real hilarity is found in the fools that argue that Saddam was no threat and that we had no real reason to invade.
I guess some people are still fools . .. even after they have seen the gold float
and some fools, the worst kind get puffed-up chests and teary-eyed at their own idea about their idea of principles
note, its not their principles, its their idea about their idea of principles that makes them see the floating gold
but enough poetry, back to the topic shall we:
25 killed one day after 100 killed . . . even if those 25 are 'in'surgents that is a very bad 'kill ratio . . . hardly satisfying for "beepbeep kicked" . . .
Unfortunately . . . let us hope that they really are 'in'surgents rather than wedding guests . . .
oh yeah?!?! What ever happeed to that investigation of the wedding masacre?!?
I guess some people are still fools . .. even after they have seen the gold float
and some fools, the worst kind get puffed-up chests and teary-eyed at their own idea about their idea of principles
note, its not their principles, its their idea about their idea of principles that makes them see the floating gold
but enough poetry, back to the topic shall we:
25 killed one day after 100 killed . . . even if those 25 are 'in'surgents that is a very bad 'kill ratio . . . hardly satisfying for "beepbeep kicked" . . .
Unfortunately . . . let us hope that they really are 'in'surgents rather than wedding guests . . .
oh yeah?!?! What ever happeed to that investigation of the wedding masacre?!?
seriously curious here
You know, I just thought of something, and you just inadvertently brought it up:
You read that report that I posted, and you totally ignored the fact that 100 were slain despite being obvious innocents. And in the same post you imply that the US is killing innocent people and then claiming they are insurgents to cover that wrongdoing.
Was it you that was calling for Bush/s head over that wedding party thing?
BTW, where is your outrage over the 400 lives that were effected by these needless bombings? Bush's head over forty and flippant ho-hum over 400 souls negatively effected plus multiple beheadings. I am a bit confused as to where your loyalties are, other than maybe the FLW.
I hope I am wrong but fear that there are far too many of you out there. I thought it was the democrats that claimed to be the party of the people, the lowly and mistreated. I just don't see it.
Don't be a prick . . . I find it 'unfortunate' and I found it very unfortunate that anybody had to get killed . . . if you want to start throwing body counts around to win political cudos (as you seemed to want to do by citing the article that you did) then at least live up to those same numbers being reflected in another light
You 'fearing' your own idiotic arse . . . I did not want this war to happen and I find every death, except for those of genuine terrorists, an absolute tragedy!
'Outrage' outrage?
Im outraged by this war . . . perhaps Im outraged by your willingness to take glee in American airstrikes that kill 25 people
I am also outraged by the deaths of 100 in bombings
if you think otherwise you are a complete shitfuckwad!!!!
You cited the article about the attacks . . . and I know that you cited that article in some form of 'see, i told you we're gettin em' . . . well . . . we are not just 'gettin em' they are getting people as well . . . and the whole thing is OUTRAGEOUS
Your insinuation is disgusting and you make me fucking sick . . . but what makes me even more sick is that that perspective seems to get published currency by you right-wing nut jobs
Perhaps it is tasteless to point out that your citing that article was not so appropriate concerning the ratio of deaths . . . but I am not flippant about 100 deaths . . . lives that would not have been lost . . . if what?
Don't be a prick . . . I find it 'unfortunate' and I found it very unfortunate that anybody had to get killed . . . if you want to start throwing body counts around to win political cudos (as you seemed to want to do by citing the article that you did) then at least live up to those same numbers being reflected in another light
You 'fearing' your own idiotic arse . . . I did not want this war to happen and I find every death, except for those of genuine terrorists, an absolute tragedy!
'Outrage' outrage?
Im outraged by this war . . . perhaps Im outraged by your willingness to take glee in American airstrikes that kill 25 people
I am also outraged by the deaths of 100 in bombings
if you think otherwise you are a complete shitfuckwad!!!!
You cited the article about the attacks . . . and I know that you cited that article in some form of 'see, i told you we're gettin em' . . . well . . . we are not just 'gettin em' they are getting people as well . . . and the whole thing is OUTRAGEOUS
Your insinuation is disgusting and you make me fucking sick . . . but what makes me even more sick is that that perspective seems to get published currency by you right-wing nut jobs
Perhaps it is tasteless to point out that your citing that article was not so appropriate concerning the ratio of deaths . . . but I am not flippant about 100 deaths . . . lives that would not have been lost . . . if what?
I'll let you finish that sentence . .
...if SH and his cronies were peace loving people? ... if SH did not kill countless people? ... if SH was not actively looking for a way to cause death and destruction? ... if SH did not harbor terrorists? ... if SH just wanted to be part of the rest of the world?
...if SH and his cronies were peace loving people? ... if SH did not kill countless people? ... if SH was not actively looking for a way to cause death and destruction? ... if SH did not harbor terrorists? ... if SH just wanted to be part of the rest of the world?
Take your pick, end it any way you want.
TAKE YOUR PICK . . . any of the above could have been said of Saddam Hussain during our long and illustrious career supporting him militarily and financialy . . .
and can be currently said of many of our supposed friends . . . Uzbeckistan, Tajickistan, Ukrain (to some extent) Packistan, Saudi Arabia . . . keep trying . . .
and what the HELL does your reply have to do with the post that you quoted from?
BTW, I think an apology for your assinine innuendo is appropriate.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Come off it! Just about everybody's had enough of the smoke and mirror, Bush for lunch bunch.
I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's the truth.
You can't tell me he didn't know people would misconstrue what he said and take it a certain way.
If miscontrue was the truth that is.
Clarification was in order.
He didn't because he knew it would further his goals.
That's it pretty much in a nutshell.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Jimmac, I reread the posts and I am afraid that i may have knee-jerked at your post a bit. This issue has become so convoluted that I fell into the trap.
I assumed that you were saying the link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq was implied by Bushco., which it wasn't. A link, though, was always stated, not implied.
So anyway, If I jumped the gun, apologies.
On another, yet similar note. Yet another piece of evidence surfaces to show an ongoing relationship between Iraq and AQ:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123757,00.html
.
Originally posted by jimmac
You know that's NOT what Bush was inplying or what everyone ( who took him seriously ) was thinking. Please don't be stupid about this.
I'm really getting tired of this " Well he didn't actually say there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda ". " He didn't actually say they would attack the contenential U.S. ". " And if you think that it's your fault not Bush ".
Please!
Just dumb!
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.
As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......
This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Originally posted by bunge
It's pathetic, SDW2001, when you can't even admit you're wrong.
Bah, in these discussions people not admitting they're wrong is business as usual.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Bah, in these discussions people not admitting they're wrong is business as usual.
It is not!
Originally posted by jimmac
Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.
As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......
This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.
Originally posted by bunge
It's pathetic, SDW2001, when you can't even admit you're wrong.
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. But, I'm not wrong here.
Originally posted by SDW2001
So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.
That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.
You're fighting a losing battle here SDW.
Originally posted by tonton
Blame it all on Naim.
You know . . . I remember Naim . . . and I wouldn't doubt one it that that guy is somehow linked up with more nefarious creatures out there . . .
that is, if you are mentioning the long winded crack-pot that used to plop bombs of posts here?
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://cdn.moveonpac.org/gore/clips/...20They%203.mov
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho...ore-inside.jpg
THAT"S RIGHT BABY!!!
FIRED UP AND FOR A GREAT REASON!!!
Right on Brother
Originally posted by jimmac
That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.
You're fighting a losing battle here SDW.
You're crazy. How can you prove an implication? We also were not just talking about nuclear bombs, but dirty bombs and bio/chem weapons.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.
Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?
And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.
Originally posted by pfflam
He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.
I wasn't fooled into anything. I support our actions in Iraq for many reasons. The real hilarity is found in the fools that argue that Saddam was no threat and that we had no real reason to invade.
do I really have to say it?!
ok . . . I guess . .
I guess some people are still fools . .. even after they have seen the gold float
and some fools, the worst kind get puffed-up chests and teary-eyed at their own idea about their idea of principles
note, its not their principles, its their idea about their idea of principles that makes them see the floating gold
but enough poetry, back to the topic shall we:
25 killed one day after 100 killed . . . even if those 25 are 'in'surgents that is a very bad 'kill ratio . . . hardly satisfying for "beepbeep kicked" . . .
Unfortunately . . . let us hope that they really are 'in'surgents rather than wedding guests . . .
oh yeah?!?! What ever happeed to that investigation of the wedding masacre?!?
seriously curious here
Originally posted by pfflam
well . . . .
do I really have to say it?!
ok . . . I guess . .
I guess some people are still fools . .. even after they have seen the gold float
and some fools, the worst kind get puffed-up chests and teary-eyed at their own idea about their idea of principles
note, its not their principles, its their idea about their idea of principles that makes them see the floating gold
but enough poetry, back to the topic shall we:
25 killed one day after 100 killed . . . even if those 25 are 'in'surgents that is a very bad 'kill ratio . . . hardly satisfying for "beepbeep kicked" . . .
Unfortunately . . . let us hope that they really are 'in'surgents rather than wedding guests . . .
oh yeah?!?! What ever happeed to that investigation of the wedding masacre?!?
seriously curious here
You know, I just thought of something, and you just inadvertently brought it up:
You read that report that I posted, and you totally ignored the fact that 100 were slain despite being obvious innocents. And in the same post you imply that the US is killing innocent people and then claiming they are insurgents to cover that wrongdoing.
Was it you that was calling for Bush/s head over that wedding party thing?
BTW, where is your outrage over the 400 lives that were effected by these needless bombings? Bush's head over forty and flippant ho-hum over 400 souls negatively effected plus multiple beheadings. I am a bit confused as to where your loyalties are, other than maybe the FLW.
I hope I am wrong but fear that there are far too many of you out there. I thought it was the democrats that claimed to be the party of the people, the lowly and mistreated. I just don't see it.
You 'fearing' your own idiotic arse . . . I did not want this war to happen and I find every death, except for those of genuine terrorists, an absolute tragedy!
'Outrage' outrage?
Im outraged by this war . . . perhaps Im outraged by your willingness to take glee in American airstrikes that kill 25 people
I am also outraged by the deaths of 100 in bombings
if you think otherwise you are a complete shitfuckwad!!!!
You cited the article about the attacks . . . and I know that you cited that article in some form of 'see, i told you we're gettin em' . . . well . . . we are not just 'gettin em' they are getting people as well . . . and the whole thing is OUTRAGEOUS
Your insinuation is disgusting and you make me fucking sick . . . but what makes me even more sick is that that perspective seems to get published currency by you right-wing nut jobs
Perhaps it is tasteless to point out that your citing that article was not so appropriate concerning the ratio of deaths . . . but I am not flippant about 100 deaths . . . lives that would not have been lost . . . if what?
I'll let you finish that sentence . .
Originally posted by pfflam
Don't be a prick . . . I find it 'unfortunate' and I found it very unfortunate that anybody had to get killed . . . if you want to start throwing body counts around to win political cudos (as you seemed to want to do by citing the article that you did) then at least live up to those same numbers being reflected in another light
You 'fearing' your own idiotic arse . . . I did not want this war to happen and I find every death, except for those of genuine terrorists, an absolute tragedy!
'Outrage' outrage?
Im outraged by this war . . . perhaps Im outraged by your willingness to take glee in American airstrikes that kill 25 people
I am also outraged by the deaths of 100 in bombings
if you think otherwise you are a complete shitfuckwad!!!!
You cited the article about the attacks . . . and I know that you cited that article in some form of 'see, i told you we're gettin em' . . . well . . . we are not just 'gettin em' they are getting people as well . . . and the whole thing is OUTRAGEOUS
Your insinuation is disgusting and you make me fucking sick . . . but what makes me even more sick is that that perspective seems to get published currency by you right-wing nut jobs
Perhaps it is tasteless to point out that your citing that article was not so appropriate concerning the ratio of deaths . . . but I am not flippant about 100 deaths . . . lives that would not have been lost . . . if what?
I'll let you finish that sentence . .
...if SH and his cronies were peace loving people? ... if SH did not kill countless people? ... if SH was not actively looking for a way to cause death and destruction? ... if SH did not harbor terrorists? ... if SH just wanted to be part of the rest of the world?
Take your pick, end it any way you want.
Originally posted by NaplesX
...if SH and his cronies were peace loving people? ... if SH did not kill countless people? ... if SH was not actively looking for a way to cause death and destruction? ... if SH did not harbor terrorists? ... if SH just wanted to be part of the rest of the world?
Take your pick, end it any way you want.
TAKE YOUR PICK . . . any of the above could have been said of Saddam Hussain during our long and illustrious career supporting him militarily and financialy . . .
and can be currently said of many of our supposed friends . . . Uzbeckistan, Tajickistan, Ukrain (to some extent) Packistan, Saudi Arabia . . . keep trying . . .
and what the HELL does your reply have to do with the post that you quoted from?
BTW, I think an apology for your assinine innuendo is appropriate.