The_Noble_Cause wrote:Hmm. I dunno.
Maybe U.N. Inspectors like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were actually telling the truth when they reported there were no WMDs in the lead up to war.
Ah yes, the same Scott Ritter who was arrested in 2001 for soliciting sex from a minor online? *very* credible source there, Good job!
BTW, this is the same Scott Ritter who accepted $400,000 from "Shakir Al-Khafaji", a Iraqi/American dude with clear ties to Saddam. Ritter was contracted to produce a documentary called "In Shifting Sands". It is worthy to note that Scott Ritter has admitted Al-Khafaji is/was very sympathetic to Saddam's regime and this documentary was to illustrate that. Ritter even went as far to say "The American Government is NOT going to like this film".
The_Noble_Cause wrote:According to the non-partisan 9-11 Commission Report:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL I Just can't LOL enough on this one.
Oh boy. Let me get out the ABC spelling blocks so I can spell it out for you.
A commission comprised of Democrats and Republicans to supposedly find the truth? Or do you think it might have something to do with two Presidents, one from each party, were likely equally culpable (read IGNORANT) in dismissing the signs leading up to 9/11. Anyone with a tad bit of logic can see why the far left AND far right accuse each other of smoothing over the rough spots of the report: to protect their man. Get it? Ah probably not.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:The shape Clinton left the millitary in is best demonstrated by the quick, ginsu-like precison with which Baghdad was toppled.
21 days and minimal losses -Sounds damn good to me.
Ahhhh yes, more absurd falsehoods (predictable) and credit given where it clearly is not deserved.
Let's pluck a date from the timeline shall we? The Iraq war was officially kicked off on 3-20-2003, a full 18 months after 9/11. During those 18 months, the military went through a massive build up, especially (but not limited to) in areas of cruise missles. After we thoroughly pounded Baghdad from the air, an army of Palestinians with sling shots could have walzted into Baghdad and toppled the Republican guard.
Now, let's revert back to another one of your wild accusations. I had stated in a earlier thread all the Presidential candidates except Obama voted for the use of force. Predictably, you puked up some response stating I was wrong.
Let's refer to the biggest propaganda medium of the left, the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/politics/ ... TIONS.html
Just referring to Democrats who actually have a shot:
Biden: voted yes
Hillary Ramrod: voted yes
John "Ambulance Chaser" Edwards: Voted yes
Obama: Voted no
Before you begin your response by telling me Gravel and Kucinich voted no, please, spare me the drivel. These two stand about as much of a chance of getting the party nomination as Hillary does of becoming a porn star. That's like me tellng you Captain Crunch voted NO for the war and he's running!
Once again, your selective talking points, almost always taken out of context prove how shallow and weak your arguments are.