1
   

Democrats BEFORE The Invasion of Iraq

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 May, 2007 11:07 pm
kuvasz wrote:
Well lookie here, the conservative Brainiacs are once again acting like King Canute trying to hold back the tides, but this time of history.

Not content with setting vermin traps in their parents musty basement they chortle like babies when someone fashions a weapon for their war on liberals and attempt to wield it, unfortunately for them the axe they use shatters upon the surface of reality.

While these conservatives attempt to quote from a fraction of Democrats and caste them too culpable for the disaster in Iraq either they are too stupid to remember the past or are too clueless to look up the facts and draw rational context to their exclamations.

As the US suffers from the ill-conceived, poorly planned, directionless War in Iraq that has killed over 2,700 US soldiers and wounded 25,000 more, is bankrupting our country, and has ruined our country's reputation around the world, the right wing who fully supported the war strategy, those paragons of personal responsibility are craning their necks looking to find a fall guy to blame for the results.

The typical right wing idiot, whose brittle psychological make up is too defensive to recognize personal failure (like their Great Leader) now blames Democrats for the Iraq War. However and as usual as the sunrise, they are hopeless wrong in drawing their assumption which looks so stupid as to call into question how an average adult could presume to convince other adults of it validity.

I don't mind you right wingers acting and looking so stupid because it makes it easier to show you as besodden fools but also it is downright funny watching you trying to stuff ten pounds of $hit into a five pound bag. Yet it is your blatant attempt to deceive others that is so repugnant, akin to stealing money from the cup of a blind man selling pencils. Sure, it can be done well if no one watches, but what type of degenerate would do such a thing?

Obviously a right wing Republican might, if he thought he could get away with it.

The vote giving Bush the power to go to war was Joint Resolution 114, taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress had enough information and personal wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the world community. In the US Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent voted their consciences against it. 126 House Democrats who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq were joined by 6 Republican Congressmen and one Independent member of the House:

So let us be honest for a second here; your attempting to cast the war in Iraq as one which Democrats supported, but that is a false statement, it is a lie, and simply another attempt at the intellectual raping of reality for purely political purpose by conservatives, again.

Its about the most repugnant attempt you have made to defend yourselves against the realities of this debacle.

Have you no shame, at all?

Or are you folks just too fu*king stupid to count?
Laughing If anyone bothers to wade through Kuvasz's predictably idiotic tirade of ad hominem, they'll see it is obvious that Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi etc's 1998 statements were really the product of Bush's war desires several years later. You are expected to forget the fact that Clinton allowed Saddam to do as he pleased, un-inspected in the years that followed, contrary to his obligations and trust in Kuvasz's amazing hindsight that allows him to speak from such authority, directly out of his hind end. Talk about fu*king stupid. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 03:41 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
kuvasz wrote:
Well lookie here, the conservative Brainiacs are once again acting like King Canute trying to hold back the tides, but this time of history.

Not content with setting vermin traps in their parents musty basement they chortle like babies when someone fashions a weapon for their war on liberals and attempt to wield it, unfortunately for them the axe they use shatters upon the surface of reality.

While these conservatives attempt to quote from a fraction of Democrats and caste them too culpable for the disaster in Iraq either they are too stupid to remember the past or are too clueless to look up the facts and draw rational context to their exclamations.

As the US suffers from the ill-conceived, poorly planned, directionless War in Iraq that has killed over 2,700 US soldiers and wounded 25,000 more, is bankrupting our country, and has ruined our country's reputation around the world, the right wing who fully supported the war strategy, those paragons of personal responsibility are craning their necks looking to find a fall guy to blame for the results.

The typical right wing idiot, whose brittle psychological make up is too defensive to recognize personal failure (like their Great Leader) now blames Democrats for the Iraq War. However and as usual as the sunrise, they are hopeless wrong in drawing their assumption which looks so stupid as to call into question how an average adult could presume to convince other adults of it validity.

I don't mind you right wingers acting and looking so stupid because it makes it easier to show you as besodden fools but also it is downright funny watching you trying to stuff ten pounds of $hit into a five pound bag. Yet it is your blatant attempt to deceive others that is so repugnant, akin to stealing money from the cup of a blind man selling pencils. Sure, it can be done well if no one watches, but what type of degenerate would do such a thing?

Obviously a right wing Republican might, if he thought he could get away with it.

The vote giving Bush the power to go to war was Joint Resolution 114, taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress had enough information and personal wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the world community. In the US Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent voted their consciences against it. 126 House Democrats who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq were joined by 6 Republican Congressmen and one Independent member of the House:

So let us be honest for a second here; your attempting to cast the war in Iraq as one which Democrats supported, but that is a false statement, it is a lie, and simply another attempt at the intellectual raping of reality for purely political purpose by conservatives, again.

Its about the most repugnant attempt you have made to defend yourselves against the realities of this debacle.

Have you no shame, at all?

Or are you folks just too fu*king stupid to count?
Laughing If anyone bothers to wade through Kuvasz's predictably idiotic tirade of ad hominem, they'll see it is obvious that Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi etc's 1998 statements were really the product of Bush's war desires several years later. You are expected to forget the fact that Clinton allowed Saddam to do as he pleased, un-inspected in the years that followed, contrary to his obligations and trust in Kuvasz's amazing hindsight that allows him to speak from such authority, directly out of his hind end. Talk about fu*king stupid. Rolling Eyes


Ah, "target practice Bill" returns, and none too afraid to show his inability to read or do simple arithematic again. You are quite an exhibitionist, Bill.

Lets see, Bill Clinton, one; Nancy Pelosi, that's two. Now how many Democrats voted against the ATUF in 2002 quoted in my post? Count with me, if you can..... that's how many, Bill? One hundred and forty seven, Bill.

Do you understand that only in your bizarro universe does 2 = 147?

When somebody (that would be you, Bill) argues that it takes hindsight to speak from authority that 147 > 2, then the only anus flapping in the breeze is yours, Bill.

So, is it just an idiotic tirade of ad hominem to ask you Bill, are you're just too fu*king stupid to count?

btw: Bill remarks like the following give it away that you need to sit a spell and attempt to cogitate before responding to me out of your hysterically tumescent reflex to smite me down......

OCCOM BILL wrote:
they'll see it is obvious that Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi etc's 1998 statements were really the product of Bush's war desires several years later..


Obvious, Bill? You can time travel in your bizarro universe, Bill? Or has it perhaps dawned on you that in the universe most of us live in that which procedes has no impact upon that which precedes.

Its a standard trait in our universe; its called non-irreversible thermodynamics, Bill.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:27 am
Laughing Did you even watch the clip? It dates the comments of the people I mentioned. Hence, it is your idiotic lack of comprehension, and your idiocy that would require a time machine to be accurate, not mine... and you weren't even required to read anything but numbers. I have no trouble counting, and I didn't dispute your stats... I disputed your idiotic conclusion as well as your overdramatic rambling. It amazes me that you actually sound proud of your childish, boring diatribes.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:36 am
However the sense of it shines through OC. The GOP is quietly looking around for a way to make it appear that policy decisions are well thought out and are principled (HA). ALl the GOP is doing is treading water so they can transfer this whole mess to someone who can effectively del with it.

The latest oxymoron---"Pres Bush's Legacy"
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 04:45 am
farmerman wrote:
However the sense of it shines through OC. The GOP is quietly looking around for a way to make it appear that policy decisions are well thought out and are principled (HA). ALl the GOP is doing is treading water so they can transfer this whole mess to someone who can effectively del with it.

The latest oxymoron---"Pres Bush's Legacy"
There can be no doubt it's Bush's baby, but that doesn't mean he alone believed in WMD, nor that the others who believed aren't shamelessly pretending they didn't.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 06:09 am
Would it be safe to say that this video is no more insulting or hypocritical than all of those comments from Republicans about exit strategies and un-ending wars that were made when Clinton was in office?

I haven't watched this video, but the comments appear to be the same only from opposite sides of course.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 06:15 am
For eight years, almost daily, we heard on the news that UN and US aircraft patrolling the Iraq "no fly zone" were fired on. We never did anything. Talk about fu**ing stupid.
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 06:51 am
kuvasz wrote:
Well lookie here, the conservative Brainiacs are once again acting like King Canute trying to hold back the tides, but this time of history.

Not content with setting vermin traps in their parents musty basement they chortle like babies when someone fashions a weapon for their war on liberals and attempt to wield it, unfortunately for them the axe they use shatters upon the surface of reality.

While these conservatives attempt to quote from a fraction of Democrats and caste them too culpable for the disaster in Iraq either they are too stupid to remember the past or are too clueless to look up the facts and draw rational context to their exclamations.

As the US suffers from the ill-conceived, poorly planned, directionless War in Iraq that has killed over 2,700 US soldiers and wounded 25,000 more, is bankrupting our country, and has ruined our country's reputation around the world, the right wing who fully supported the war strategy, those paragons of personal responsibility are craning their necks looking to find a fall guy to blame for the results.

The typical right wing idiot, whose brittle psychological make up is too defensive to recognize personal failure (like their Great Leader) now blames Democrats for the Iraq War. However and as usual as the sunrise, they are hopeless wrong in drawing their assumption which looks so stupid as to call into question how an average adult could presume to convince other adults of it validity.

I don't mind you right wingers acting and looking so stupid because it makes it easier to show you as besodden fools but also it is downright funny watching you trying to stuff ten pounds of $hit into a five pound bag. Yet it is your blatant attempt to deceive others that is so repugnant, akin to stealing money from the cup of a blind man selling pencils. Sure, it can be done well if no one watches, but what type of degenerate would do such a thing?

Obviously a right wing Republican might, if he thought he could get away with it.

The vote giving Bush the power to go to war was Joint Resolution 114, taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23 and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress had enough information and personal wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the world community. In the US Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent voted their consciences against it. 126 House Democrats who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq were joined by 6 Republican Congressmen and one Independent member of the House:

So let us be honest for a second here; your attempting to cast the war in Iraq as one which Democrats supported, but that is a false statement, it is a lie, and simply another attempt at the intellectual raping of reality for purely political purpose by conservatives, again.

Its about the most repugnant attempt you have made to defend yourselves against the realities of this debacle.

Have you no shame, at all?

Or are you folks just too fu*king stupid to count?





Laughing this little tantrum is too funny.



You stated:


"So let us be honest for a second here; your attempting to cast the war in Iraq as one which Democrats supported, but that is a false statement, it is a lie, and simply another attempt at the intellectual raping of reality for purely political purpose by conservatives, again. "



I don't see the majority of "democrats" REALLY taking any stance on the Iraq war retreat they so desire (Only if it is done while Bush is in power), have you? They seem to be wishy washy depending on the platform. What side is hillary on this week? Laughing



DO you believe that if we are still in Iraq and a D wins the whitehouse that he will get the troops out or do you think they will do like the do now? Laughing
0 Replies
 
reverend hellh0und
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 06:53 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
There can be no doubt it's Bush's baby, but that doesn't mean he alone believed in WMD, nor that the others who believed aren't shamelessly pretending they didn't.



"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"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

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"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

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- 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 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." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 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

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. 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. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"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 mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 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
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 10:17 am
Who gives a fvck what they said. It's what Bush and Cheney have DONE in the present that we all are now forced to deal with.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 10:21 am
Absolutely right.

Look, talk is cheap. Anyone can talk tough, but to actually take action is a whole other set of responsibilities and judgments.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 10:44 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Laughing Did you even watch the clip? It dates the comments of the people I mentioned. Hence, it is your idiotic lack of comprehension, and your idiocy that would require a time machine to be accurate, not mine... and you weren't even required to read anything but numbers. I have no trouble counting, and I didn't dispute your stats... I disputed your idiotic conclusion as well as your overdramatic rambling. It amazes me that you actually sound proud of your childish, boring diatribes.


Oh poor little Billikums, I warned you about thinking before posting, but you come right back like a Punch and Judy puppet for more pummeling.

<yawn> Oh, well.

FYI, the thread is entitled "Democrats BEFORE The Invasion of Iraq."

under which penumbra would include the voting of the October 2002 ATUF, would it not?

Yes, it would seem so, and so would such a vote be considered the actual public position for the Democratic Party about the invasion, and not remarks you mentioned four years before the vote.

So, let me take your hand and walk you through this maze called "reality." The only vote every taken about authorization to invade Iraq was done in 2002 and most Democrats voted against it.

In our country a vote means more than a speech or remark.

This would indictate in the real world that the name of thread is a misnomer if the quotes linked are its sole basis, its a prevarication, a lie, attempted as I said in effort to call a plague on both houses, since that of the Republican's is so fouly ridden with blame for the debacle in Iraq.

Yeap, hypocritical SOP for the party that demands "personal responsibility" for everybody...... except themselves.

Oh and about your time machine, can you tell the rest of the class how else you could proclaim
Quote:
that Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi etc's 1998 statements were really the product of Bush's war desires several years later..


Because being a "product" of something that happens later is impossible.

btw:
cjhsa wrote:

For eight years, almost daily, we heard on the news that UN and US aircraft patrolling the Iraq "no fly zone" were fired on. We never did anything. Talk about fu**ing stupid.


um, pleeeze, talk about fu*king stupid is ignoring the fact that the US military had a self-admitted program designed to provoke Iraqi air defense to fire their weapons to test their capabilities.

Kind of akin to Bush recently directing the US to "secretly" work towards toppling the Iranian government and thus provoking the Iranians to violence.

Because if that crazy towel head who runs Iran called for Iran to do the same thing to America Americans justifiably would look upon it as a declaration of war.

Its not the blatant stupidity that gags me about you right wingers, one sees it all around oneself every day. Nope, its the need you have to ignore facts that undermine your precarious theses.

You're like a bunch of midgets who insistent on proclaming your intentions to play power forward in the NBA. You'd be laughable if you were't already so clueless.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 10:49 am
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:04 am
kuvasz wrote:
Oh poor little Billikums, I warned you about thinking before posting, but you come right back like a Punch and Judy puppet for more pummeling.
Do you have any idea how idiotic you look when you write this sh!t? You are a legend only in your own mind (what's left of it). It's only that this site is dominated by like-minded lefties that your senile ass wasn't laughed off long ago. I can hardly wait for your next flash of brilliance about pants pooping, anal rape or whatever else you recall from the days of being picked on at the schoolyard.


kuvasz wrote:
Oh and about your time machine, can you tell the rest of the class how else you could proclaim
Quote:
that Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi etc's 1998 statements were really the product of Bush's war desires several years later..


Because being a "product" of something that happens later is impossible.
You're even thicker than I thought. Any damn fool could tell you that is in parody of your idiotic blaming of Bush for what was played on the video clip from 1998. Are you really that stupid? Or do you think you're fooling some one by pretending that began as my error? Laughing

Your desire to pretend anyone argued against your vote data is denied. No one did. However, just because your delusional mind got stuck on that, and that alone, doesn't make any intelligent person believe that video taped pronouncements cease to exist or be relevantÂ… especially when they are the catalyst for the thread you're responding to. Laughing (I sure hope you are retired Shocked)

The funniest part is; you seem to think you're doing a superior job, while you make a total fool of yourself... as usual.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:09 am
Dookiestix wrote:
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
What Dookie should figure out, is OCCOM BILL doesn't give a rat's ass about the state of the GOP. If you ever paid any attention while shouting at the rain; you'd realize we're probably on the same side of as many issues as we disagree on. Further, I've voted "GOP" one time since 1988... usually preferring to voice my utter disapproval by voting for a 3rd party. I am not the black to your white.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:15 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
What Dookie should figure out, is OCCOM BILL doesn't give a rat's ass about the state of the GOP. If you ever paid any attention while shouting at the rain; you'd realize we're probably on the same side of as many issues as we disagree on. Further, I've voted "GOP" one time since 1988... usually preferring to voice my utter disapproval by voting for a 3rd party. I am not the black to your white.

Blaming the Dems as enablers for Bush's war policies is a GOP talking point, not a third party talking point, for it attempts to shift the blame. Just read the other threads from your partners in crime. The endless cut-and-paste quotes of what Dems said years ago is solely designed to shift blame.

Based on the sum of your posts that I've read thus far, we're FAR from being on the same side on many issues.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:22 am
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
What Dookie should figure out, is OCCOM BILL doesn't give a rat's ass about the state of the GOP. If you ever paid any attention while shouting at the rain; you'd realize we're probably on the same side of as many issues as we disagree on. Further, I've voted "GOP" one time since 1988... usually preferring to voice my utter disapproval by voting for a 3rd party. I am not the black to your white.

Blaming the Dems as enablers for Bush's war policies is a GOP talking point, not a third party talking point, for it attempts to shift the blame. Just read the other threads from your partners in crime. The endless cut-and-paste quotes of what Dems said years ago is solely designed to shift blame.

Based on the sum of your posts that I've read thus far, we're FAR from being on the same side on many issues.
Laughing You really have no clue. IF anyone is trying to blame shift; they are an idiot. However; that doesn't mean Bush was alone in thinking Iraq was a threat, as illustrated by Cjhsa's video and that new fella's extensive list of quotes. Republicans and Democrats alike are furiously backpedaling away from their own words and both should be reminded of them.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:32 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
What Dookie should figure out, is OCCOM BILL doesn't give a rat's ass about the state of the GOP. If you ever paid any attention while shouting at the rain; you'd realize we're probably on the same side of as many issues as we disagree on. Further, I've voted "GOP" one time since 1988... usually preferring to voice my utter disapproval by voting for a 3rd party. I am not the black to your white.

Blaming the Dems as enablers for Bush's war policies is a GOP talking point, not a third party talking point, for it attempts to shift the blame. Just read the other threads from your partners in crime. The endless cut-and-paste quotes of what Dems said years ago is solely designed to shift blame.

Based on the sum of your posts that I've read thus far, we're FAR from being on the same side on many issues.
Laughing You really have no clue. IF anyone is trying to blame shift; they are an idiot. However; that doesn't mean Bush was alone in thinking Iraq was a threat, as illustrated by Cjhsa's video and that new fella's extensive list of quotes. Republicans and Democrats alike are furiously backpedaling away from their own words and both should be reminded of them.


Thinking that someone may be a threat, and deciding to engage in preemptive warfare to combat that threat, are two entirely different things. One bears far more responsibility for the events that follow than the other does.

And Dookie is right that the Republicans are, and have many times, tried to shift the blame equally on to the Dems for this war. The worst you can say about the Dems is that post-911 they didn't have the spine to stand up to Bush and his high poll numbers. But they didn't start anything, they didn't manipulate the intel, they didn't lie to the American public about knowing for sure about the WMD and connections between Saddam and AQ.

You can understand that after hearing these intellectually unsound arguments over and over from Republicans, people tend to jump the gun a bit when they hear it from someone who claims not to be. It's the reverse of what you are experiencing in the immigration thread from the other side.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 11:35 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
What OCCOM BILL should truly be concerned about is the state of the GOP AFTER the invasion of Iraq. What the Dems said before Bush's blunder doesn't matter in this present time.
What Dookie should figure out, is OCCOM BILL doesn't give a rat's ass about the state of the GOP. If you ever paid any attention while shouting at the rain; you'd realize we're probably on the same side of as many issues as we disagree on. Further, I've voted "GOP" one time since 1988... usually preferring to voice my utter disapproval by voting for a 3rd party. I am not the black to your white.

Blaming the Dems as enablers for Bush's war policies is a GOP talking point, not a third party talking point, for it attempts to shift the blame. Just read the other threads from your partners in crime. The endless cut-and-paste quotes of what Dems said years ago is solely designed to shift blame.

Based on the sum of your posts that I've read thus far, we're FAR from being on the same side on many issues.
Laughing You really have no clue. IF anyone is trying to blame shift; they are an idiot. However; that doesn't mean Bush was alone in thinking Iraq was a threat, as illustrated by Cjhsa's video and that new fella's extensive list of quotes. Republicans and Democrats alike are furiously backpedaling away from their own words and both should be reminded of them.

I agree. Then stop posting ad nauseum everything that a Dem said way back when, because to MOST on the right, it IS an attempt to shift blame and say "hey, well Dems were saying this about Saddam" even though our intel was FAR from accurate just before Bush started his stupid war.

It merely validates their POV. Unfortunately, they insist on focusing on the PAST, in the hopes of shifting BLAME, thereby completely negating the perspective of a timeline during the lead-up to Bush's clusterfvck.

I see you now need to throw insults to make a point. Not very flattering if one insists they are "independent." Laughing

But I will agree that trying to shift blame to the Dems from the neocon war mongerers who started this insane exercise in world domination is idiotic. WAY beyond idiotic.

Let's see if Reverend HellH0und posts that list again. :wink:
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 May, 2007 12:52 pm
What are you two smoking? Cyclops; you quoted me saying attempts at blameshifting are idiotic; why blast that rancor my way? Of course decision makers and people who voted for the bill bear more responsibility for it; who said otherwise? I really am getting this **** from both sides. Laughing

And Dookie; what the hell are you talking about? I can't stop posting ad nauseum everything that a Dem said way back when... because I've yet to do so even once. Shocked

That being said; Reverend HellH0und did fortify the video's point that Bush was not alone in believing Iraq a threat. Nothing wrong with that. Anyone truly interested in picking good leaders in the future, should certainly want to know who said what when. Again; way too many of these people from both parties are trying to distance themselves, from their own words, and they all need to be re-categorized as liars when they lie.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/06/2024 at 06:20:34