• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is dis on the run?

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
Like I said when you get a lib down the first thing they resort too is personal attacks

Uh... BBJ? Not sure if you've caught this yet or not, but you do the exact same thing.
So either you're "a lib" or this is something that seems to apply to people regardless of what they have on their voter registration card.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
Like I said when you get a lib down the first thing they resort too is personal attacks

Uh... BBJ? Not sure if you've caught this yet or not, but you do the exact same thing.
So either you're "a lib" or this is something that seems to apply to people regardless of what they have on their voter registration card.

Thanks mom. :lol:

Oh I see being called a lib is a personal attack. :lol2: Generally you can call a conservative, just that, and their ok with it, but thanks for pointing out that it ain't.

Besides calling someone a lib or maybe even a democrat can you show me where I made a personal attack on someone?
OOPS :wink: you probably can but I'd still like to see you prove it.
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
I think you probably have the intellectual honestly to be able to look through this thread and see where you were being deliberately snide and derrisive.
And if you don't, there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to show you otherwise.
confused-smiley-013.gif
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
I think you probably have the intellectual honestly to be able to look through this thread and see where you were being deliberately snide and derrisive.
And if you don't, there's nothing I'm going to be able to do to show you otherwise.
confused-smiley-013.gif

How bout you give us your opinion on the quotes and subject of this thrread instead of schooling me on my manners? :wink:
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
I agree with reader. And that's about all I'm going to say.
Truth be told, you really don't seem like you actually want to discuss anything...

I'm curious how you're going to answer Jinglebob's question in your Question for Republicans thread...
 

BBJ

Well-known member
theHiredMansWife said:
I agree with reader. And that's about all I'm going to say.
Truth be told, you really don't seem like you actually want to discuss anything...

I'm curious how you're going to answer Jinglebob's question in your Question for Republicans thread...

So you're going to avoid too. :roll:
 

theHiredMansWife

Well-known member
:???:
Your question has been answered.

reader said:
BBJ - I agree that the blame should be spread. I do not think that the WMD intelligence was fabricated. I believe that the neocons however were anxious to believe that removing Saddam Hussain would solve many of the problems of the Middle East, which we will find out is NOT true. Because they had an agenda, they were prone to believe certain analyses probably more readily than they should have. I believe Saddam Hussain would have had WMD if he could have. He is quite guileful, unbalanced, and destructive.

And to your question about Hussein:

yes and no

may have made life safer for Israel in the short run

left a vaccuum
increased anti-Americanism
recruited and trained more terrorists
resulted in major loss of lives and huge deficit

so on the whole - no




I agreed with her on both of those thoughts.
There's no dodge, other than not wanting to argue with someone who seems to want nothing more than to denigrate and belittle. I'm not interested in playing that game today. My apologies.
confused-smiley-013.gif
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
Like I said when you get a lib down the first thing they resort too is personal attacks, they say stuff like "Only History in your little mind". :clap: That proves alot huh? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
As for not providing a link and you really not knowing if these people made these comments, this is another tactic of the liberals I love, if it is against them and they have no way out they imply it's probably a lie. :lol2: Sorry to DISappoint you but I didn't make these up nor did I take the time to type each one, if you will notice the little word at the end of each quote you will see the word source, that means there is a link to the speech in which these people made these exact comments, here's a link that will help to get you started. http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
If you place that pointer thingy of your mouse over that word SOURCE and click the left mouse button you should be taken to the right place. Or you could do maybe a google search on the quotes and prove me to be wrong :lol:

Now to address that is was a long time ago (1998) huh(? :? ?), so he had them in 1998 but magically they were all gone in 2001, ( :???: 3 years? :???: ) Yeah, ok, whatever?

You were doing a better job running from this one than you are spinning it. :nod: :nod: :nod:

Thanks for helping me prove my point. :D

I'm not going to do any searching to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove what you say is accurate. You haven't done that on all these quotes. They used the best intelligence available in 1998. Bush didn't use the best intelligence available when he invaded Iraq. That's the difference. And you're again dodging:

"The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

You're essentially a dishonest person if you don't respond to this quote. But that's not a surprise. There's no way to honestly defend this war. Virtually everything Bush used to get us into it has been discredited and it's been shown he knew they were wrong when he used them as an excuse!

I find it especially disgusting that he's on the road "selling" the Iraqi war to the American people. Instead of figuring out how to succeed in Iraq or get out, he's out making speeches covering his behind! Instead of admitting thousands are dead because of his lack of planning, he's blaming the media for reporting the facts!
 

BBJ

Well-known member
dis wrote:
It's up to you to prove what you say is accurate. You haven't done that on all these quotes.

Hey dis I hate to prove you wrong again but I did prove it. Take another look at my previous post to you. :lol:

I gave you a link. :wink: But I do you one better here you go, I opened my link I gave you and clicked on the first one I saw:Albright: 'All options open' on Iraq

Albright

Albright commented on how weapons of mass destruction kill without discrimination
306K/25 sec. AIFF or WAV sound
Albright said the United States is committed to the security of Israel
374K/31 sec. AIFF or WAV sound
CNN's Steve Hurst reports on Albright's progress.
1 min. 56 sec VXtreme video

February 1, 1998
Web posted at: 9:44 a.m. EDT (0944 GMT)
(CNN) -- The United States is prepared to use "substantial" force against Iraq if diplomatic efforts fail to resolve the crisis over U.N. weapons inspections, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Sunday.

Albright underlined what she said was a continued danger posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons, she said, would kill people indiscriminately and therefore pose a threat to the whole Middle East region. Iraq has denied that it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

She also stressed Washington's commitment to keeping Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in check and repeated the Clinton administration's "ironclad commitment" to the security of Israel.

Albright was in the Mideast over the weekend on a mission to drum up support for possible military action against Iraq, should Baghdad continue to restrict access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

Albright assured Saudi Arabia and Kuwait of Washington's commitment to standing by them, as it had during the Gulf War.

She said that although Hussein was trying keep the region mired in conflict, "the United States is determined to keep the Middle East focused on the future and moving towards peace."

"If diplomacy runs out, we have reserved the right to use force and if we do so it will be substantial," she said.


Albright with Arafat on Sunday
Earlier Sunday, in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Albright said she had discussed the crisis with Palestinian Authority President and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat.

"I discussed with the chairman the critical point at which we are with Iraq and told him that we were trying to pursue diplomatic means, but that all options were open" should Hussein continue to defy the United Nations.

Arafat responded that the Iraqi problems "must be dealt with and solved by diplomatic means," his chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told reporters after the talks.

Egypt's Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, called for diplomacy rather than military action:

"We hope there will be de-escalation rather than escalation and that diplomatic and political efforts will be used ... rather than the military option."

A spokeswoman for French President Jacques Chirac said Paris preferred the diplomatic route to end the standoff between the United Nations and Iraq but would nevertheless send a firm message to Saddam Hussein:

"French authorities will transmit a message of great firmness to Iraq to allow them to measure the consequences of their refusal to cooperate with the United Nations."

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
As I said, they were using the best information available to them at the time. None of these people sent our military into an unnecessary war. Even though Bush had the most current information, had WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq, he still sent our troops off to an unncecessary war. He hid, ignored, or classifed information that would show Saddam didn't have WMDs while he emphasized and outright lied about information showing the threat to this country.

By ignoring, again:


""The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

you show that you're not looking for an honest discussion. Anything you post from now own will be viewed with that knoweledge.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
dis I posted the link that contains all the proof. I'm not going to waste my time and the space on these boards doing something you can do yourself. But I know you won't and you'll call it a bunch a fabricated lies because you don't want to believe it. AND THATS FINE. Your hypocriscy has been noted and documented.

Good Job & Thanks for your cooperation in proving my point. :lol:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
dis I posted the link that contains all the proof. I'm not going to waste my time and the space on these boards doing something you can do yourself. But I know you won't and you'll call it a bunch a fabricated lies because you don't want to believe it. AND THATS FINE. Your hypocriscy has been noted and documented.

Good Job & Thanks for your cooperation in proving my point. :lol:

You haven't proved anything except that the people you quoted were relying on flawed intelligence. I've posted article after article that shows Bush knowingly used inaccurate information as an excuse to invade Iraq.

And you still haven't responded to the CIA officer's comment:

"The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein."


Are we going to have to rename this thread "Is BBJ on the run?"
 

BBJ

Well-known member
hypocriscy at its best. :)

So when clinton bombed Iraq for the EXACT SAME REASON, it was flawed intellegence, so what he did was ok, but when President Bush goes in and does it the way clinton should have he lied to the American people. HUH?

As for your precious little CIA officers comment you still haven't proved anything with that. I don't see a link or reference to where it came from. :wink: Was this former officer mad at the administration? Maybe a DISgrunteled (sp?) employee? I know there are high ranking people out there that DISagree with the war but for everyone of those there is one that doesn't DISagree with it.

You are toooo funny! :p
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
hypocriscy at its best. :)

So when clinton bombed Iraq for the EXACT SAME REASON, it was flawed intellegence, so what he did was ok, but when President Bush goes in and does it the way clinton should have he lied to the American people. HUH?

No, he was using the best intelligence available at the time. He didn't send 130,000 thousand Americans off to the desert to die and kill others. He didn't put this country on the hook for the estimated $Trillion this war may cost. He didn't send young Americans off undermanned, without their heavy armored equipment and no body armor. Bush did. And he knew the information he was basing this war on was not accurate. He knew there were WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq. He lied about it Tuesday...again. But he knew.

As for your precious little CIA officers comment you still haven't proved anything with that. I don't see a link or reference to where it came from. :wink: Was this former officer mad at the administration? Maybe a DISgrunteled (sp?) employee? I know there are high ranking people out there that DISagree with the war but for everyone of those there is one that doesn't DISagree with it.

I put the link on the first time I posted the quote. It's obvious that you want to ignore it, so I'm not going to bother again. What it proves is that a career CIA agent says exactly what I've been saying: that Bush mislead the American people into this war.

You are toooo funny! :p

And you're pretty pitiful.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
And I'm sure there is at least one CIA Agent out there that agrees with my position so there WE ARE EVEN. :D
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
BBJ said:
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

You know what I meant.

I know what you said:

And I'm sure there is at least one CIA Agent out there that agrees with my position so there WE ARE EVEN.

I'm asking you to prove it. If you meant, it's your opinion there's at least one CIA agent who agrees with you, you should have said so. If you want us to take you seriously, then you should supply a link and a quote.
 

BBJ

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
BBJ said:
:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

You know what I meant.

I know what you said:

And I'm sure there is at least one CIA Agent out there that agrees with my position so there WE ARE EVEN.

I'm asking you to prove it. If you meant, it's your opinion there's at least one CIA agent who agrees with you, you should have said so. If you want us to take you seriously, then you should supply a link and a quote.

I'm so sorry to confuse you dis, I was being a little sarcastic with that statement, I'll try to clarify it for you. I was only poking fun at you because you were so proud of the fact that ONE CIA Agent agreed with your position. Too bad tone can't be expressed very well in these posts.
[/b]
 

Latest posts

Top