Terrorists Said Planning Summer Attack - Page 19

dissention · #**271** 06-01-2004, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Here is the UN's website, which supports me 100% - http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusR...&Body1=inspect

Kind of funny how Hans Blix contradicts that 100% and says that Saddam's cooperation in late '02-learly '03 was "unprecedented."

And why aren't you asking why 8,000 pages of the Iraq weapons report were excised? Knowing you, you'd probably reason that the White House ran out of TP.

estranged4life · #**272** 06-01-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

It won't be reported, unless ChimpCo denounced conservatism and embraced liberalism.

the chances of that happenin' are the same chances that Fleetwood Mac totally changes their setlist for the current tour

dissention · #**273** 06-01-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estranged4life

the chances of that happenin' are the same chances that Fleetwood Mac totally changes their setlist for the current tour

LMAO!

strandinthewind · #**274** 06-01-2004, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Have I ever said that they didn't support him? Whenever the subject of John Kerry comes up, I completely agree that he f*cked up when he voted to give Shrub the means to go to war. I'm not denying it. But he and the other Democrats are not the ones who presented false information to the Senate, the UN, and the US. It's been reported how they gave the Senate some REALLY horrific intel that swayed their votes. So, sorry, they aren't the same. They were lied to just like we were, you can't deny that.

Well, according to you, all evidence whatsoever of WMD in Iraq were false and we are there now solely for oil. Ergo - when Clinton or at least his administration used them to show evidence of WMD and when Kerry called for military action during the Clinton Administration based on this false info., which lead to the killing of Iraqi's in the no fly zones and other places, that is the same thing to me as W using it to go to war. Is it the scale of W's misuse that bothers you so much? Again, there is no question W lied. I am just saying that apparently Kerry and Clinton lied too. That makes them equally as huilty in my book. But, apparently not in you book. And that is okay - it is your book (what is up with all my book metaphors today LOL)

strandinthewind · #**275** 06-01-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Kind of funny how Hans Blix contradicts that 100% and says that Saddam's cooperation in late '02-learly '03 was "unprecedented."

And why aren't you asking why 8,000 pages of the Iraq weapons report were excised? Knowing you, you'd probably reason that the White House ran out of TP.

SH was called on to cooperate 100% with the inspectors. He did not. That was another material breach on top of many. Granted his cooperation was improving, but why should anyone have believed that would continue. AND - he was still playing and mouse with us with his - you can search this palace, but not this one and please call ahead of time before you come!!!!!!!!!!!

Here are some more:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Next . . .

dissention · #**276** 06-01-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

AND - he was still playing and mouse with us with his - you can search this palace, but not this one and please call ahead of time before you come!!!!!!!!!!!

Foul.

Hans Blix, and I quote:

"All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming."

Next.

dissention · #**277** 06-01-2004, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, according to you, all evidence whatsoever of WMD in Iraq were false and we are there now solely for oil. Ergo - when Clinton or at least his administration used them to show evidence of WMD and when Kerry called for military action during the Clinton Administration based on this false info., which lead to the killing of Iraqi's in the no fly zones and other places, that is the same thing to me as W using it to go to war. Is it the scale of W's misuse that bothers you so much? Again, there is no question W lied. I am just saying that apparently Kerry and Clinton lied too. That makes them equally as huilty in my book. But, apparently not in you book. And that is okay - it is your book (what is up with all my book metaphors today LOL)

Um, all of it was false. Have we found anything? Did we ever find anything, even before the war? No and, uh, no. So obviously the intel and supposed "evidence" (of which there was none) was false. ChimpCo knew it, yet they went forward with the war. I suspect they went forth anyways so that even if they found nothing, they could blame it on bad intelligence. But, and this is common sense, how could all of the WMD evidence be false? Gimme a f*cking break. I was born at night, but it most definitely wasn't last night. Now, if they lied about their case and really had none for war, why did we go? Is it that big of a stretch to conclude that it was for not only egotistical reasons in the wake of 9/11, but also for economic and fuel reasons? Do you believe that they lied and exaggerated their case simply to free the "brown people?"

I hope no one takes out your book from the library, it's quite the piece of bad fiction.

strandinthewind · #**278** 06-01-2004, 01:12 PM

Seems as if Mr. Blix was talking out of both sides . . .

dissention · #**279** 06-01-2004, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Seems as if Mr. Blix was talking out of both sides . . .

You're in good company then, babe.

strandinthewind · #**280** 06-01-2004, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Um, all of it was false. Have we found anything? Did we ever find anything, even before the war? No and, uh, no. So obviously the intel and supposed "evidence" (of which there was none) was false. ChimpCo knew it, yet they went forward with the war. I suspect they went forth anyways so that even if they found nothing, they could blame it on bad intelligence. But, and this is common sense, how could all of the WMD evidence be false? Gimme a f*cking break. I was born at night, but it most definitely wasn't last night. Now, if they lied about their case and really had none for war, why did we go? Is it that big of a stretch to conclude that it was for not only egotistical reasons in the wake of 9/11, but also for economic and fuel reasons? Do you believe that they lied and exaggerated their case simply to free the "brown people?"

I hope no one takes out your book from the library, it's quite the piece of bad fiction.

written mostly by Clinton and Kerry

In fact, they should be thanked in the credits for giving W the means and opportunity

Again, I can admit that - why can't you?

Moreover, I have always said that since the Niger stuff came out, W should be impeached. So, you are confusing the issues. My SOLE issue is Kerry and Clinton were gung ho for this war and made it easy for W to go to war by laying the foundation for it during the 8 year Clinton Presidency. But, yoy continue to assert the entire war was W's doing and exonerate all D's from the process as if they are above it

strandinthewind · #**281** 06-01-2004, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

You're in good company then, babe.

Now Now - I am many things, but it cannot be said I do double talk. I tell it like I see it and freely admit it when I am wrong

dissention · #**282** 06-01-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

written mostly by Clinton and Kerry

In fact, they should be thanked in the credits for giving W the means and opportunity

Again, I can admit that - why can't you?

Because they were under very different circumstances. Clinton never invaded the country (Kerry had a hand in it, that's a given), Shrub did. Clinton never lied to the American people by saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Shrub did. Clinton never lied and said Saddam could dispatch chemical weapons in 45 minutes, Shrub did. Clinton allowed inspections to work, Shrub didn't.

dissention · #**283** 06-01-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Now Now - I am many things, but it cannot be said I do double talk. I tell it like I see it and freely admit it when I am wrong

You must be a ****ty lawyer then.

j/k

strandinthewind · #**284** 06-01-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

Because they were under very different circumstances. Clinton never invaded the country (Kerry had a hand in it, that's a given), Shrub did. Clinton never lied to the American people by saying that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, Shrub did. Clinton never lied and said Saddam could dispatch chemical weapons in 45 minutes, Shrub did. Clinton allowed inspections to work, Shrub didn't.

Please site one quote from W saying Iraq was resp. for 9/11.

Clinton bombed Iraq based on the evidence of WMD you just said was patently false. how is that different. I mean killing people based on knowingly false info. is just wrong period - right

So, Clinton is just as guilty as W.

strandinthewind · #**285** 06-01-2004, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

You must be a ****ty lawyer then.

j/k

Yea, but I'll charge you $500 per hour to admit I am wrong and it three more hours at $500 an hour to determine the prior five hours of work at $500 per hour was wrong