Source of Iraq’s WMDs: ‘I made the whole thing up

[dnf777]

I know I can, and do, I see no evidence that you have that capacity.


RK

Stan,
I'm really disappointed in your behavior here. What are you looking for? A locker-room showdown or something? Isn't this childish enough already?

Once again, as in another thread, I'll concede that you are the bigger macho man, and give you another one for the "win" column. I'm bored with the petty jabs.

You used to be a voice of reason here....even calling for civility at one time. Did you just give up altogether on that? I'm sorry to see that. I once thought you would be a good moderator here, but lately, you've been just as deep in the ditch as anyone.

Have a good one.

[road kill]

RK

[ducknwork]

This is tiresome.

[mjh345]

Thanks, as a matter of fact I do feel better. Just trying to keep you honest. I get tired of reading your exaggerations. War is expensive enough.

Long term health care is expected to be 300-700 billion (quite a range)

Even including long term care your figure is still exaggerated.

Since you are a stickler on inaccuracies and exageration; why don't you comment the accuracy on what Cheney and the Bush administration told us would be the cost of the war

Welcomed liberator regards

[Uncle Bill]

Hmmmm. More personal attacks. On my wearing of the uniform as well.
Really, I'd prefer a simple "thank you", rather than the insults.

And if you think I would do anything akin to burning the US flag, just try doing it in front of me and see what happens!

BTW, I will point out things when I think they are bad for this country. You have NOT heard me ever refer to Bush as "Dumbya" or other derogatory names. YOUR side constantly refers to Obama as "obumma" "bumface" "obongo" etc....

THAT type of disgracing of the President is more aking to descecrating a symbol of this nation (ie flag burning) that stating one's opposition to policy. You just can't handle it when your man's flaws are pointed out, and thus resort to personal attacks upon people, their profession, and even stoop so low as to attack a fellow veteran's service! That's pretty sad, Bill.

I am once again going against my prime directive of not arguing with idiots...you are so far more experienced at this level.

I'm not the one attacking your military service...you are. You continue to lambaste the Bush administration for their elimination of one of the most barbarian dictators in the world, because he didn't find WMDs. And being the hypocrite you and your fellow liberals are, you find that to be the most important part of the Iraq war. How myopic.

And of course you should be bowed to for your 'service'. Gosh I don't recall anyone saying thank you to me either, but that's the difference between an American taking his turn at doing his duty to his country, and a liberal that is always looking for praise for his meager investment in the country. Will your arrogance never cease?

UB

[Cody Covey]

Stan,
I'm really disappointed in your behavior here. What are you looking for? A locker-room showdown or something? Isn't this childish enough already?

Once again, as in another thread, I'll concede that you are the bigger macho man, and give you another one for the "win" column. I'm bored with the petty jabs.

You used to be a voice of reason here....even calling for civility at one time. Did you just give up altogether on that? I'm sorry to see that. I once thought you would be a good moderator here, but lately, you've been just as deep in the ditch as anyone.

Have a good one.

Come on Dave, Can't you see that RK is just trying to get under your skin? I literally LOL'd at his last comment because I knew he was messing with you (At least I am pretty sure he is!)

[road kill]

Come on Dave, Can't you see that RK is just trying to get under your skin? I literally LOL'd at his last comment because I knew he was messing with you (At least I am pretty sure he is!)

Who, me????


RK

[Roger Perry]

Your constant bashing of Bush, even in a backassward way as this view of the destruction of the Hussein regime, is as typical un-American as burning the flag.

Has it ever occurred to your airheaded thinking of what we might be facing at this time, were there a Saddam Hussein to be dealt with along with all the rest of the middle east antagonists?

The lack of WMD's is a non sequitur in the big picture of the Iraq war...it only is fodder for the small minds that just can't imagine how all their leadership was duped into that belief, and I don't mean the Bush folks.

How often do you need to be reminded of the entire liberal establishment that was absolutely positive those WMDs existed, along with the majority of the UN, not to mention the majority of the Kurd nation that lost millions already to that madman's WMDs.

Just for S & G's, try donning your military outfit as a 'uniform', rather than a 'costume', and attempt to take a little pride in your nation, rather than putting it down every chance you can. I realize you are just following your President's lead, but realize there is an entire movement of TEA Partiers that feel we don't need to apologize for what this nation stands for, and we are getting pissed at all you liberal/socialists that continue to put up with this POTUS that keeps bowing to our enemies, and ignoring our friends. His sham oligarchy is going down. Time to choose sides.

UB

First off UB, the congress men and women were duped by the Bush Administration into believing WMDs existed. Second, The majority of the UN did not believe there WMDs because they did not back the U.S. when it went to war with Iraq. Third, there were not millions of Kurds that were killed but 5 to 7 thousand and those numbers pale in comparison to the number of innocent men women and childern that were killed or wounded since 2003.

If the U.S. wanted Saddam out of the way, they could have sent in a hit squad to take him out which would have saved thousands upon thousands of lives and billions and billions of dollars.

[sandyg]

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:
5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:
In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

[code3retrievers]

Since you are a stickler on inaccuracies and exageration; why don't you comment the accuracy on what Cheney and the Bush administration told us would be the cost of the war

Welcomed liberator regards

50-60 billion was the original estimate. Obviously under estimated by a factor of X10 or greater. It was originally thought that the war would be quick, under a year. Guess what? You can't predict wars very easily. If their original time-line held then the war would have been with in the estimate. Instead the war has drug on, upping the cost year after year. I suppose you should be complaining about the cost of WWW II also since that one cost a lot more then anyone predicted.

Any other questions that you are too lazy to look up for yourself?

No exaggeration regards.