Please hide for a while said Tony

[dr. freeze]

"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



not sure how this was said any differently "in context"

 

[dr. freeze]

"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

or how about these? just what is this context exactly?

 

[StevieD]

Freeze, it is you who is distorting things. Instead of listening to a sound byte read the entire text as BBC says. Just because someone disagrees with Bush does not mean he has an unhealthy obsession with him. In your case the same could be said about the Clintons, or Kennedy, or poor people.
Again try to understand why they voted to give him the authority to attack. Your a poker player, you should be able to understand it.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Read 'em if you want - or don't. In most cases, ignorance is a choice.

 

[dr. freeze]

Read 'em if you want - or don't. In most cases, ignorance is a choice.

lmao the burden of proof is on you, these statements seem to be fairly demonstrative

but you say otherwise by saying they are "out of context"

if anyone is ignorant, it is you living in your presumption

:mj07:

 

[dr. freeze]

Freeze, it is you who is distorting things. Instead of listening to a sound byte read the entire text as BBC says. Just because someone disagrees with Bush does not mean he has an unhealthy obsession with him. In your case the same could be said about the Clintons, or Kennedy, or poor people.
Again try to understand why they voted to give him the authority to attack. Your a poker player, you should be able to understand it.

here this will help you escape your ignorance

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

plenty of reasons we went in there

 

[StevieD]

You point being? Assuming that they thought Iraq had WMD and we were going to try to pressure him into giving them up, without using military force, they had to call his bluff. A bluff would be pretty pointless if they voted against that article.
At what dollar cost and at how much bloodshed do you draw the line on considering this a success or a failure?
Most likely until they start drafting rich kids.

 

[Marco]

Iraq is going to be a waste as long as we're over there because all we're doing is fighting nationalists who oppose the occupation of thier country.

The car bombs and suicide attacks will continue until we leave, and then the inevitable civil war will happen, and then we can deal with the next political John Gotti...

There will be no democracy in Iraq. Upheaval, political assassinations, crime, and poverty in a depleted uranium wasteland is all that's on the horizon for Iraq. Unless we plan on staying there permanently and sending home thousands of more troops in body bags and shovelling billions of dollars into the bonfire, which is exactly what is happening now.

OBL runs free, Social security and health care issues dominate the news headlines......and all some people want to do is keep dumping wasted resources into Iraq to see that foreigners can vote.

Just keep putting it on the ole' national credit card, and keep burying the grandkids. I'm sure they'l be glad you did. :mj07:

 

[kosar]

Good post, Marco. Exactly right.

They had a former top-level CIA guy on Meet The Press this morning. Russert asked him which location was more important in the fight against terrorism, Afghanistan or Iraq. He said that it was obviously Afghanistan before our invasion, but that now it's Iraq by a large margin. Simiilar to what a lot of us have been saying all along.

 

[djv]

There were three folks who wanted war with Iraq. They got there way. Info was used and twisted to fit it's need. Many were fooled by just three.