Do you know something more than Bill Clinton or the bi-partisan coalition in Congress that approved force in Iraq (including Kerry)? The "where is the WMD" argument is the worst on this BBS. The mere need to ask this question validates the war effort. Had Saddam complied -- and he had every chance to do so over 12 years -- he would have accounted for all weapons, both existing and destroyed. He did not do so. He avoided the issue and the only people that naively bought his story were (ironically) the anti-Bush, anti-war protestors who ironically don't believe a word *our* government utters. Why these people are so *eager* to believe Saddam is a mystery to us all. Perhaps you could enlighten us, Batman. What about Saddam gives him so much credibility in your eyes?
I hope we are on the same page on this. <b>People disappear from threads they are posting in when they are proven wrong. </b> It happens on both sides of the aisle in the D&D Forum. I tired of working up detailed posts and cut back signifcantly on posting because of it. Investing effort on a good post and have the thread go cold became a waste of time. If you are still interested, I dug up a few threads.
It was really just a hunch, Jorge, but apparently I did know more than Clinton and Kerry and the others in Congress that voted for war and you and Bush and David Kay, etc. Or, actually, it's not I knew more. It's that I wanted to be convinced of the threat before Americans got killed while they were killing Iraqis. And according to David Kay, one of the greatest supporters of the war and one of the top believers in the WMD's, I and others here and in Congress and around the world were right to set the bar that high before agreeing to support war. You're wrong a whole hell of a lot -- really just about always and we all know that here, it's no big deal, we're used to it and anyway we all know you're really only kidding -- but it's amazing that you would trot this out on the same day that Kay and McCain called for an independent investigation to find out why US intelligence and the people who believed it were so incredibly wrong.
We weren't quite, but we are now. I'd understood it to mean disappearing from the board entirely for a period of time like several of the pro-war crowd have, but I agree it's frustrating when that happens within a thread (Jorge, only a few days ago, picked two or three fights with me and then ran away with his tail between his legs after I embarassed him.). Do you have one where I did that? If so, post a link. I'll either reply as to why I believe I was right or admit I was wrong.
Same here. Sometimes you get distracted by something in "real life", or another thread, or someone else says what you were thinking about, but I wouldn't knowingly avoid owning up to being wrong. Maybe to my wife.
Nice try at dodging, Batman. Again I ask you: What about Saddam gives him so much credibility in your eyes? The fact that he passed his head lice examination? The depth of his spider hole? I mean come on, you are a tough audience! You don't believe a whole heck of a lot without proof. So tell me, what did Saddam do in those 12 years that proved to you that he had disposed of all his WMD? Sigh... This is just a *classic* example of your old tired act. Bush has a policy. You rip it. You then desperately twist and distort information to support yourself. Same ol', same ol', rookie. Now you try to paint yourself as a soothsayer, but the reality of it is that you try to refute every single action of the Bush Administration. Not that you are now, but at some point you may be correct. Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while. In your typical elitist fashion, you praise your foresight and keen insight. It is all so baseless. You must be frustrated! You make us all laugh. Heartily.
Originally posted by SamFisher So giddyup, what you are saying is that you assume sombody from the department of homeland security is investigating something..but you actually don't know if it did, or is, or even if it has an investigative wing, but you presume that they probably do so you are fine with it. Well, you are certainly well grounded in facts tonight. <b>I think your assumption that nobody is doing anything is just about the most absurd thing I've ever read. Isn't Homeland Security more of a coordinating office which is meant to centralize and coordinate the efforts of the various and distinct intelligence and police forces? Why are you insisting on making something out of nothing with these vacuous accusations?</b> Your various contentions are that there is nothing left to investigate (I'm not going to bother with the minutiae, there's no point really--although just to clarify, when you said "he is in custody" with respect to the 20th hijacker, are you referring to the first 20th hijacker or the 2nd 20th hijacker? What will you say if a third 20th hijacker is found? ) These contentions are contradicted by the Committee, who claims that it has so much left to investigate that it needs more time. Who is better situated to make that judgment, you or them? <b>When a third 20th hijacker is found I'll say: "ARREST HIM!" Do you think a third or fourth hijacker (were they to exist) would not be found without this committee? Your insinuation that nothing is going to go on without the efforts of this investigative body is laughable. Investigations have been underway since 9/11/2001.</b> I've given you your evidence that it's not a witchhunt. The committee was established by Congress, controlled by Republicans. It's head is Thomas Kean, a Republican. The committee was created to be independent for a reason, expressly so that partisan/political matters would not be considered. That's its very reason for being.. Now, what evidence do you have that it IS a witchhunt? You have alluded to it more than once...yet not provided one shred of evidence that it is..ever. <b>The witchhunt aspect of all this will begin when the blame game begins in front of the news cameras. Wasn't there a special prosecutor named Ken Starr once? Isn't that supposed to be an apolitical proceeding? Look how vicious that turned out? We are a nation at war; I don't think we need that kind of internal acrimony. You do.</b> Serious doubt? YOur casting of serious doubt consists of sayingn "whatever, somebody else is handling it, probably, but I'm not sure" That's laughable, and you know it. However, if we have been down this road, please point me to the comprehensive report on the September 11 attack by the appropriate government agency; Does it have a URL? What about the comprehensive reform plan that was developed in response to the findings of fact regarding the attacks, you know for the FBI, CIA, FAA, alll that stuff? WHere is it? Again, if all of this was done, like you presume (but don't know) then the Committtee would have access to it. Yet they don't feel that enough has been done; again, who's best suited to make that judgment, You, who has no access to any information and presumes that it is probably good enough? Or them, who have access to this information that may or may not exist? <b>How do you have access to information that does not exist? I must say, I'm just devastated with the news that nothing has been done with regards to trying to figure out what happened in Manhattan and at the Pentagon and in that sylvan field in Pennsylvania. What are our law enforcement agencies up to these days?</B> You can't be making a serious argument here, honestly, only a complete simpleton would be satisfied with such flimsy logic, if you can even call it that. <b>Do you remember the political fallout for Bush when it was revealed that under his watch funds were not available to purchase new communication devices for police and fire department purposes? Remember how much speculation there was about how many lives on 9/11 that decision cost? Bush got pilloried for that in a simplistic fashion. That's just the kind of thing that I'm talking about avoiding here.</b> A good cover story in Time or Newsweek, huh? Yeah, maybe we can just turn the whole f-king thing into a special episode of Newlyweds Nick and Jessica. <b>I don't think that would work...</b>
Originally posted by Deckard giddyup, I was curious about something for a while and it occurred to me that you might know... where did "Homeland" come from? When did we become a "Homeland"? How come this idea of the United States being a "Homeland" was bee-bopping around, germinating, as it were, and I missed it. Have we been a "Homeland" all this time and I never knew it? I've had sleepless nights before, tossing and turning, and realized I was muttering, "Homeland... what the hell is that??" and so on. Do you have a clue as to when we became this place and who thought it up and why it was chosen and so on and so forth? If so, thank you in advance. Your friendly Replicant... too skinny to be loutish. <b>I'm not sure if I have this right... it was either Bush or Cheney or Ashcroft... they were doing their bedtime reading of Mein Kampf and, after 9/11, it came to them in a flash: Homeland Security.</b>
People disappear from threads they are posting in when they are proven wrong. Mango, is that why you largely disappeared from all the wmd found and pro-Iraq war threads for months?
Jorge, it was Mango I believe who first talked of people disappearing from threads. Why he disappeared I guess cannot be proven. My quarrel with Mango was that he only devoted his fact checking ability to refuting liberal posts. Often he refuted relatively unimportant facts or minor points. The most egregious and obvious fact errors of conservatives were generally never commented on. Unless I'm wrong Mango, tended to get excited about quite a few of the reported rumors of found wmd and was generally quite susceptible to being fooled by the Bush, let us say deceptions and exaggerations, about the threat posed by Sadam and the alleged Al-Qaeda connections.
I'm curious about TJ and his so called psychological warfare, and his claims victory is such warfare. Is the definition of being a champion psychological warrior having nobody take any arguement you put forth seriously?
