Re: Obama bans firearms
Stephen Peters
"Bill Gamelson" <bill.g...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
> news:hd9mv2$nli$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >
> > Naw, you've got lots of military left over. You could make two or three
> > more unnecessary wars anywhere in the world if you wanted to, and still
> > have enough left over to invade Cuba.
> >
>
> So you're saying the war in Iraq was unnessessary? Exactly how?
Where were the Democrats' weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
found?
Lookout
Yes the war was unnecessary.
There were no WMDs in Iraq when bush went in.
Al Smith
And the occupation continues to be completely unnecessary ... not to
mention totally evil as well.
-Al-
PLMerite
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sqchf5pmgb9oqsaeg...@4ax.com...
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
Jim Alder
@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com:
> "Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:sqchf5pmgb9oqsaeg...@4ax.com...
>>
Ya know, if you spin those statements just right and read between the
lines, you could almost believe that Democrats believed there were WMDs in
Iraq when they were insisting Bush do something about it...
Just sayin'....
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
You...you..you wouldnt be talking about these Democrats....would you?
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In
addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless
using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam
is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves,
but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the
cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if
you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post,
listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02
worth."
Lookout
PLMerite
Amazing what Dhims will do when it's politically expedient, eh?
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CBF5247DB50j...@216.196.97.142...
Lookout
He was as wrong as bush
>"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
>allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
>Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
>means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
>used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
>more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
>and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
>Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
He read bush's lies. The entire Senate did.
>"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
>mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
He also read bush's lies.
>"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
>should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
>weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
>has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
>continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
He also read bush's lies.
>"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
>weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
He also read bush's lies.
>"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
>to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
>that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
>and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
He also read bush's lies.
>"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
>Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
>systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
>significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
>chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
>refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
>international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
>time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
>Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
>simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
He also read bush's lies.
>Regards, PLMerite
What you're leaving out is that bush lied to the US and to the UN. Why
are you not admitting that? Each one was reacting to the intel
provided by bush..which we all know now were lies.
And the fact remains there were no WMDs and bush knew it.
So what was your point again?
Lookout
wrote:
>"PLMerite" <stoc...@smokebombhill.com> wrote in news:Ua4Km.155552$Xw3.14038
But if you know the truth you know they believed bush's intel..which
we now know were lies.
Just sayin'...
Jim Alder
news:ao1if5dqraj9d0e4k...@4ax.com:
Well, not Clinton. You could never believe a word that guy said.
--
Jim Alder
@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com:
>
> Amazing what Dhims will do when it's politically expedient, eh?
You mean denand at the top of your voice that the President do something,
then complain for eight years that he did something? It would be 'amazing' if
were someone else, but Democrats? Nah.
Jim Alder
news:uf2if5h3jmiho5jb5...@4ax.com:
> Just lyin'...
Uh huh. Didn't believe that back then and don't believe it now.
Curly Surmudgeon
Yes, just like you said Saddam Hussein shipped his Weapons of Mass
Destruction to Iran. All 500,000 liters of chemical and biological
toxins, 2,000 arial drones and 5,000 SCUD's.
You say lots of things. A few may be true however you're singularly
unable to substantiate them.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
So, Bush's justification to engage our nation in war is predicated upon
the opinion of Democrats?
Curly Surmudgeon
> So who was lying here and where did that Intel come from?
How does the opinion of Democrats justify Bush lying?
Lookout
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:36:33 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>So who was lying here and where did that Intel come from?
Bush lied. We know he lied because he fabricated Intel against Iraq.
Bill Clinton left office in 2001. Bush attacked Iraq in 2003. Any
Intel from Clinton was old and should have been verified. In many
cases when it was checked and found to be wrong the bush
administration ignored the new reports. The latest reports on WMDs
were authored by Hans Blix who said there were no indications of any
WMDs in Iraq. That was the latest Intel and that's what bush should
have heeded. Instead he ignored that. The Intel bush released to the
Senate was full of wholes and lies.
All this has been proven by the bipartisan 9/11 Report.
>
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
>That is our bottom line."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
>clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
>weapons of mass destruction program."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
>great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
>use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
>is the greatest security threat we face."
>--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
>times since 1983."
>--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
>the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
>if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
>respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
>weapons of mass destruction programs."
>Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
>-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
>others,
>Oct. 9, 1998
>
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
>destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
>and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
>-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
>destruction and palaces for his cronies."
>-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
You're absolutely out of touch with reality if you think any of what
you posted is relevant.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:37:32 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>Look what these people were sayin & when. I guess Bush's Intel team
>got an early start.
>
>"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
>develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
>That is our bottom line."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel.
>
>"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
>clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
>weapons of mass destruction program."
>--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel and useless.
Jim Alder
> Bush attacked in 2003. This is old Intel and useless.
So 1998 was 'old intel' and hence useless, while 2002 was 'faulty intel'
because "we now know" Bush lied? I think YOU are the useless one here. You
don't really think all military intel filters down through the president and
he gets to pick and choose what Congress hears, do you? Are you really THAT
fucking useless?
Congress wasn't liesd to, YOU were.
Lookout
wrote:
Yes. Now you get it!
>I think YOU are the useless one here. You
>don't really think all military intel filters down through the president and
>he gets to pick and choose what Congress hears, do you?
That's exactly what bush did and it was proven in the 911 report.
>Are you really THAT
>fucking useless?
>
> Congress wasn't liesd to, YOU were.
Nope. And that was proven in the 911 Report. I guess you haven't
watched any news or read any newspapers since we were attacked on 911.
That's the only way you could be so fucking stupid.
There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a
little News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
Jim Alder
news:2mbjf55ia4iqdsjpm...@4ax.com:
No, I'm just not a mouthbreathing leftwinger who believes every word that
oozes from a Democrat's mouth.
> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a
> little News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
Curly Surmudgeon
Now you got it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#U.S._doubts
Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made
efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces
Europe, Marine General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger and met
with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given
the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it
could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to
Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent
similar conclusions to the State Department.[12] CNN reported on 14 March
2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found
the documents to be forged. [13]
> I think YOU are the useless one here.
Before you hurl such invective you need to substantiate your claim that
Saddam Hussein sent his 500,000 liters of chemical and biological
weapons, 2,000 arial drones, 5,000 SCUD's (or vice versa), nuclear
weapons and laboratories to Iran.
When you, Jim Alder, make statements such as this and refuse to
substantiate or retract, your own credibility is suspect.
> You don't really think all military intel filters down through the
> president and he gets to pick and choose what Congress hears, do you?
The President is the Commander In Chief so yes, he gets military
intelligence reports. In fact he gets them on a daily basis first thing
every morning.
> Are you really THAT fucking useless?
Is that your idea of a rebuttal?
> Congress wasn't liesd to, YOU were.
Now you're lying.
Curly Surmudgeon
> my problem is . . .
Multifold and obvious.
Lookout
wrote:
It was a bipartisan commission. I guess Faux Commentary (and a little
news) didn't tell you that. But at least you didn't try to deny that
those were the findings. All you are saying is you don't believe them.
If so I'd like to see your proof.
>
>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a
>> little News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>
> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
Yet you couldn't deny one thing I said. Why is that? The truth really
bugs you, doesn't it?
Jim Alder
news:4dhjf5hndh783gfeg...@4ax.com:
I haven't seen yours yet. You know, where you cite the report and quote
the parts where it says Bush lied to Congress. Where it says that all
intelligence filters through the White House before Congress gets to see the
leftovers? That proof.
Or didn't DemocratUnderground give you that much information?
>>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a
>>> little News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>>
>> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
>
> Yet you couldn't deny one thing I said. Why is that?
Because I don't call people liars just because they say shit I don't
believe. I'm waiting for you to quote a source so I can see where you went
wrong.
> The truth really bugs you, doesn't it?
I am, in fact, a big fan of the truth. Show me some.
Lookout
wrote:
Huh? Are you serious? So you think Intel goes from the field to Senate
and then the White House? Are you really this stupid? The report that
the Senate read CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
>
> Or didn't DemocratUnderground give you that much information?
What's the DemocratUnderground?
BTW..I'm not a democrat.
>
>>>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a
>>>> little News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>>>
>>> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
>>
>> Yet you couldn't deny one thing I said. Why is that?
>
> Because I don't call people liars just because they say shit I don't
>believe. I'm waiting for you to quote a source so I can see where you went
>wrong.
>
>> The truth really bugs you, doesn't it?
>
> I am, in fact, a big fan of the truth. Show me some.
Do you read a newspaper or watch the news? If not then I can
understand your ignorance.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:33:53 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>That can be a very serious problem indeed. However, I think he is
>worse then an actual idiot, he's actually intellectually dishonest.
Yet you can't show that I'm wrong. So you're lying.
Jim Alder
news:ofmjf51q1kai54k9g...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:33:53 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> That can be a very serious problem indeed. However, I think he is
> worse then an actual idiot, he's actually intellectually dishonest.
I see no obstacle to his being both. Except for that 'intellectual' part. I
don't see any way to shoehorn that adjective into any description of this guy.
Lookout
wrote:
The more you insult me the more sure I am that I am right. If I wasn't
you'd present some facts. But facts seem to bother you...why is that?
Jim Alder
@4ax.com:
In that case, let me say that I think you are a wonderful person and best
wishes for your continued success. NOW do you know you're wrong?
> If I wasn't you'd present some facts. But facts seem to bother
> you...why is that?
I have no problem with facts. You just haven't presented any. If and when
you do present what you think are facts, I will be more than happy to kick the
crap out of them, or admit you're right.
Jim Alder
@4ax.com:
>>>>>> Congress wasn't lied to, YOU were.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope. And that was proven in the 911 Report. I guess you haven't
>>>>> watched any news or read any newspapers since we were attacked on 911.
>>>>> That's the only way you could be so fucking stupid.
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm just not a mouthbreathing leftwinger who believes every word
>>>> that oozes from a Democrat's mouth.
>>>
>>> It was a bipartisan commission. I guess Faux Commentary (and a little
>>> news) didn't tell you that. But at least you didn't try to deny that
>>> those were the findings. All you are saying is you don't believe them.
>>> If so I'd like to see your proof.
>>
>> I haven't seen yours yet. You know, where you cite the report and quote
>>the parts where it says Bush lied to Congress. Where it says that all
>>intelligence filters through the White House before Congress gets to see the
>>leftovers? That proof.
>
> Huh? Are you serious? So you think Intel goes from the field to Senate
> and then the White House? Are you really this stupid? The report that
> the Senate read CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE.
Still waiting.
>> Or didn't DemocratUnderground give you that much information?
>
> What's the DemocratUnderground?
A website.
> BTW..I'm not a democrat.
I'm not a Republican.
>>>>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a little
>>>>> News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>>>>
>>>> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
>>>
>>> Yet you couldn't deny one thing I said. Why is that?
>>
>> Because I don't call people liars just because they say shit I don't
>>believe. I'm waiting for you to quote a source so I can see where you went
>>wrong.
>>
>>> The truth really bugs you, doesn't it?
>>
>> I am, in fact, a big fan of the truth. Show me some.
>
> Do you read a newspaper or watch the news? If not then I can
> understand your ignorance.
If you're lying, I can understand your reluctance.
You seem unable to provide the information. If you can't find it, how am I
supposed to? You'd be amazed at how often someone tells me they have absolute
proof of something, then show me something that is anything but. That's why I
don't look it up for them anymore.
Jim Alder
news:1hojf5971qp2083as...@4ax.com:
You can lead a Lib to reality, but you can't make him think.
HH&C
> In article <AOZJm.21245$Wf2.11...@newsfe23.iad>
>
> "Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamel...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message
> >news:hd9mv2$nli$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > > Naw, you've got lots of military left over. You could make two or three
> > > more unnecessary wars anywhere in the world if you wanted to, and still
> > > have enough left over to invade Cuba.
>
> > So you're saying the war in Iraq was unnessessary? Exactly how?
>
> found?
While the Democrats repeatedly claimed Saddam was a danger and that he
was developing WMDs, we couldn't really know because Hans Blix was
repeatedly denied access to inspect. Thus the invasion.
HH&C
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:25:54 -0500, "PLMerite"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Lookout" <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:sqchf5pmgb9oqsaeg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:36:15 +0100, "Stephen Peters"
> >> <peter...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <AOZJm.21245$Wf2.11...@newsfe23.iad>
> >>>"Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamel...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Al Smith" <inva...@address.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hd9mv2$nli$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> > Naw, you've got lots of military left over. You could make two or
> >>>> > three
> >>>> > more unnecessary wars anywhere in the world if you wanted to, and
> >>>> > still
> >>>> > have enough left over to invade Cuba.
>
> >>>> So you're saying the war in Iraq was unnessessary? Exactly how?
>
> >>>Where were the Democrats' weapons of mass destruction in Iraq
> >>>found?
>
> >> There were no WMDs in Iraq when bush went in.
>
> >"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
> >1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
> >warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
> >trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
> >2003
>
>
> >allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
> >Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
> >means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
> >used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
> >more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
> >and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
> >Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
>
>
> >mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
>
>
> >should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
> >weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
> >has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
> >continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
>
>
> >weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
>
>
> >to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
> >and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
>
>
> >Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
> >systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
> >significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
> >chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
> >refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
> >international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
> >time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
> >Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
> >simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
>
>
> >Regards, PLMerite
>
> What you're leaving out is that bush lied to the US and to the UN. Why
> are you not admitting that? Each one was reacting to the intel
> provided by bush..which we all know now were lies.
The intel was provided by a Clinton appointee.
> And the fact remains there were no WMDs and bush knew it.
> So what was your point again?
What was your point?
HH&C
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:36:33 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
> >So what was your point again?
>
Dammit! Bush must have channelled Clinton and made him lie.
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
> develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
> That is our bottom line."
> --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
> clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
> weapons of mass destruction program."
> --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
> great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
> use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
> is the greatest security threat we face."
> --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
> times since 1983."
> --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
> the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
> if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
> respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
> weapons of mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
> -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and
> others,
> Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
> destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
> and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
> destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
> --
>
> "Gustatus Similis Pullus"
HH&C
>
> How does the opinion of Democrats justify Bush lying?
Kindly comment on Obama banning firearms. Remember, you said that you
were here for honest discourse.
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:46:53 -0500, Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:36:33 -0600, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:25:54 -0500, "PLMerite"
>
> >>>"Lookout" <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:sqchf5pmgb9oqsaeg...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:36:15 +0100, "Stephen Peters"
>
> >>>>>In article <AOZJm.21245$Wf2.11...@newsfe23.iad>
> >>>>>"Bill Gamelson" <bill.gamel...@cox.net> wrote:
>
Old intel and Hans Blix repeatedly being denied access = Saddam had to
go.
But thank you for your interest.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Hear Hear!
Gunner
DISCLAIMER: The content does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either
my ISP, myself, my company or employer, my friends (if any,) my goldfish or
my neighbour's mad dog; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything;
all rights reserved; the post is distribution copyrighted to the extent that
you may distribute the post and all its associated parts freely but you may
not make a profit from it or include the post in commercial publications
without written permission from the Prime Minister of Hutt Province; other
copyright laws for specific posts apply wherever noted or not noted, either
deliberately, negligently, or otherwise; posts are subject to change without
notice; posts are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to
actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental;
hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or
spindle; do not pass go; do not collect $200; your mileage may vary; no
substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; the post is void where
prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; the post is provided "as is"
without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities;
not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity abuse
employer; no shoes, no shirt; quantities are limited while supplies last; if
defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself but return to an
authorised post service centre; caveat emptor; read at your own risk;
parental advisory - explicit words; text may contain material some readers
may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; not suitable for
children; not suitable for adults; not for human consumption; keep away from
sunlight, pets and small children; limit one-per-family; no money down; no
purchase necessary; to approved purchasers only; facsimiles are acceptable
in South Australia; you need not be present to read this post; some assembly
required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no
preservatives added; tools not included; safety goggles may be required
during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is
broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness,
irritation or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper
ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool, dry place; keep
away from open flames, naked flames and old flames; avoid inhaling fumes;
avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store
above 60 degrees Centigrade; do not place near flammable or magnetic source;
smoking the post may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second
only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used on the post is
made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were
used to test the hilarity of this post other than Synapse Syndrome; no salt,
MSG, artificial colour or flavour added; may contain traces of replies to
peanuts; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult
your humourologist; post is ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet;
must be 18 to read; possible penalties for early withdrawal; post offer
valid only in participating newsgroups; slightly higher in South Australia;
allow four to six weeks for delivery; damage from hurricane, lightning,
tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, orgasm, misuse,
self-abuse, neglect, unauthorised repair, damage from improper installation,
broken antenna, marred cabinet, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered
serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from
nuclear blasts or other Acts of God are not covered; incidents owing to
aeroplane crash, ship sinking, motor vehicle accidents, leaky roof, broken
glass, falling rocks, mud
Gunner Asch
Not to mention all the Democrats on the Intelligence community..who get
the infor before the President does.
And they all voted for war.
>
>> And the fact remains there were no WMDs and bush knew it.
>> So what was your point again?
>
>What was your point?
Something to keep his hat off his eyebrows?
Lookout
wrote:
I'm sorry..I can't fix stupid. And you are being stupid.
>
>>> Or didn't DemocratUnderground give you that much information?
>>
>> What's the DemocratUnderground?
>
> A website.
>
>> BTW..I'm not a democrat.
>
> I'm not a Republican.
>
>>>>>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a little
>>>>>> News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Yet you couldn't deny one thing I said. Why is that?
>>>
>>> Because I don't call people liars just because they say shit I don't
>>>believe. I'm waiting for you to quote a source so I can see where you went
>>>wrong.
>>>
>>>> The truth really bugs you, doesn't it?
>>>
>>> I am, in fact, a big fan of the truth. Show me some.
>>
>> Do you read a newspaper or watch the news? If not then I can
>> understand your ignorance.
>
> If you're lying, I can understand your reluctance.
>
> You seem unable to provide the information. If you can't find it, how am I
>supposed to? You'd be amazed at how often someone tells me they have absolute
>proof of something, then show me something that is anything but. That's why I
>don't look it up for them anymore.
I can't fix stupid.
Lookout
wrote:
Who are you talking about now?
Lookout
I guess you already cashed this month's SOCIALISM Security Check.
Lookout
wrote:
If you don't know that Intel goes through the White House before it
gets to the Senate you're just to fucking stupid for me to deal with.
Lookout
That's a lie.
>
>And they all voted for war.
The report they used to vote on CAME FROM THE WHITE HOUSE. Everyone
knows that except a few idiots.
Curly Surmudgeon
>> If so I'd like to see your proof.
>
> I haven't seen yours yet.
That's rich, Jim Alder demanding cites...
How about some evidence that Saddam Hussein sent his 500,000 liters of
chemical and biological weapons, 2,000 Arial Drones, 5,000 modified
delivery SCUD's and nuclear weapons to Iran that you claimed?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH&C
Just another useful idiot. I wonder if Soros is pays Lookout more
than he pays TMT?
Welp, when Soros gets hit with the 8% fine for not providing
healthcare for these bozos...
Curly Surmudgeon
> I am, in fact, a big fan of the truth. Show me some.
You first. Remember wimping out on the Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
you claimed were in Iran?
Jim Alder
news:gabkf5dlbgcs981vc...@4ax.com:
> I can't fix stupid.
Obviously not. Come back when you get it fixed.
Jim Alder
@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:50:21 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:1hojf5971qp2083as...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>> There is one more possibility...you watch Faux Commentary (and a little
>>>>>> News) and listen to AM talk radio. Is that your problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, my problem is I'm talking to an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>That can be a very serious problem indeed. However, I think he is worse
>>>>then an actual idiot, he's actually intellectually dishonest.
>>>
>>> Yet you can't show that I'm wrong. So you're lying.
>>
>> You can lead a Lib to reality, but you can't make him think.
>
> Who are you talking about now?
See?
Jim Alder
@4ax.com:
I see. So the fact that I don't already have the information you're trying
to impart means you are unable to impart the information? So if I DID know
what you're trying to tell me, you could THEN tell me?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
You fucking idiot!!!