From an Angry Soldier

[Brixtonbulldog]

Well you douchebags are welcome to spend the rest of the day pissing about everything.  As for me I'm headed to the lake for a bit of fishing. 

See ya later, LOSERS!!!! ah HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

[Decker]

General Clark disagrees with you:

"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

Check your dates my friend.  The inspections were ongoing right up until march 17, 2003.   The attack was on 3-21-2003.

See, here's the court appointed president lying about it:

"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Hey genius (I refer to Bush) how about taking the word of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq?  You know, the ones you ordered out of the country so you could start your illegal invasion.

It is a shame that Bush's war crime is being justified this long after the fact.

[Decker]

"... exposing spineless liberals one post at a time."

Who can argue with authentic gibberish like that?

[240 is Back]

Beach Bum just used a quote from 2002.

Clark got the inspections he was calling for, 58 weeks later.

Beach Bum, it's a terrible argument.  I'm embarassed for you.

[Dos Equis]

Why bring up Bush at this point?
 
The SOL on Bush's appointment is still not up my friend.

lol.  Hold onto to those dreams my friend.  Perhaps Obama can be elected president, liberals will control Congress, and they can spend your money trying to prove war crimes?  

What do you mean by "SOL on Bush's appointment"?  

[Dos Equis]

Check your dates my friend.  The inspections were ongoing right up until march 17, 2003.   The attack was on 3-21-2003.

See, here's the court appointed president lying about it:

"We had a choice," Bush said. "Either take the word of a madman or take action to defend the American people. Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time."

Hey genius (I refer to Bush) how about taking the word of the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq?  You know, the ones you ordered out of the country so you could start your illegal invasion.

It is a shame that Bush's war crime is being justified this long after the fact.

Are you saying General Clark was lying?  Was Bob Graham lying too?

"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

[Decker]

lol.  Hold onto to those dreams my friend.  Perhaps Obama can be elected president, liberals will control Congress, and they can spend your money trying to prove war crimes?  

What do you mean by "SOL on Bush's appointment"?  

I did see this quote this morning from Obama re the crimes of the Bush administration:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."

SOL = Statute of Limitations

A man has to dream...I mean set goals.

[Decker]

Are you saying General Clark was lying?  Was Bob Graham lying too?

"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

Which do you regard as more probative:

A) 2002, I believe Iraq has WMDs

or

B) 2003, after inspecting Iraq, we can't find any WMDs


Would you say that B) is a bit more valid as evidence than A)?

[240 is Back]

"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

And for 3 months after that statement, they looked everywhere Graham and others said the WMD were.

There were none.

bush didn't like the answer, and bombed iraq.  I know you're furiously searching for post-november 03 quotes now, you sad sack

WMD weren't there.  They were a lie for people to buy, to jsutify a war for oil and bases.  Live with it.  I know it pains your religious side to endorse theft and murder, I know WMD lets you loophole that.  But you look in the mirror, you know

[Dos Equis]

I did see this quote this morning from Obama re the crimes of the Bush administration:

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."

SOL = Statute of Limitations

A man has to dream...I mean set goals.

Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House.  Last thing we need is another absurd, taxpayer funded partisan witch hunt.

What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections?  Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?   

[240 is Back]

Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House. 

You were just anally punked on your dates and WMD speech.

So you're attempting to derail the thread into an Obama/Wright argument.

You are a terrible moderator.

[Dos Equis]

Which do you regard as more probative:

A) 2002, I believe Iraq has WMDs

or

B) 2003, after inspecting Iraq, we can't find any WMDs


Would you say that B) is a bit more valid as evidence than A)?

C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.  

[OzmO]

Just one more reason not to put Obama and his advisor Rev. Wright in the White House.  Last thing we need is another absurd, taxpayer funded partisan witch hunt.

What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections?  Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?   

I think if he has already made up his mind a crime has been commited without reviewing evidence or in the absence of such then it might be witch hunt.  But based on that statement it doesn't look like he has.

[OzmO]

C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.   

What the world believed and what the inspectors found (or didn't) before and after the invasion have nothing to do with each other.

[Dos Equis]

I think if he has already made up his mind a crime has been commited without reviewing evidence or in the absence of such then it might be witch hunt.  But based on that statement it doesn't look like he has.

He has already made up his mind to engage in a partisan witch hunt.  That's what that says to me.  

[Decker]

...
What does the "status of limitations" have to do with the 2000 and 2004 elections?  Didn't the matter of the 2000 election already get decided by more than one court?   

That is what we in the legal field call "a joke".

[OzmO]

You were just anally punked on your dates and WMD speech.

So you're attempting to derail the thread into an Obama/Wright argument.

You are a terrible moderator.

BB is not a debate or discussion moderator.  He is a forum moderator.

[240 is Back]

C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.  

You are delusional.

"the world"?  Everyone except, um, the UN?

The "countries from all over the world", huh?  Iceland sent 2 guys, awesome!

[Dos Equis]

What the world believed and what the inspectors found (or didn't) before and after the invasion have nothing to do with each other.

Maybe, maybe not.  The people pulling the trigger believed he was a threat.

[240 is Back]

BB is not a debate or discussion moderator.  He is a forum moderator.

He derails many good threads here when they aren't going his way.

he sucks, IMO.

[Decker]

C) From 1998 through the start of the war, the world believed Saddam was a threat and needed to be disarmed, Congress endorsed the war after it started, and countries from all over the world participated in the invasion.  

Thank you for not answering the question.

What we thought (they have WMDs) v. what we know (they don't have WMDs).

The president is the ONLY guy that can order the invasion of Iraq.

He ordered the attack to compel inspections for WMDs even though no WMDs were found through inspections.

Do you see the problem there?

[OzmO]

He has already made up his mind to engage in a partisan witch hunt.  That's what that says to me. 

How so?

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that’s already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued … You know, I often get questions about impeachment at town hall meetings and I’ve said that is not something I think would be fruitful to pursue because I think that impeachment is something that should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Now, if I found out that there were high officials who knowingly, consciously broke existing laws, engaged in coverups of those crimes with knowledge forefront, then I think a basic principle of our Constitution is nobody above the law — and I think that’s roughly how I would look at it."

Considering they set aside 20 million for a Iraq victory party, reviewing information to see if there was wrong doing is not much to do at all.

[OzmO]

He derails many good threads here when they aren't going his way.

he sucks, IMO.

I think you are confusing debate tactics with moderating.

[OzmO]

Maybe, maybe not.  The people pulling the trigger believed he was a threat.

Based on what?  Reality or wishes?

[Dos Equis]

That is what we in the legal field call "a joke".

Really?  So what is the legal theory that you would use and who would be the defendant(s) regarding the 2000 and 2004 elections?