Say Anything Blog

And, despite this yellow mountain of evidence, the lying lefties will continue to perpetrate the “Saddam had no WMD” falsehood.  It’s all they have.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

And, despite this yellow mountain of evidence, the lying lefties will continue to perpetrate the “Saddam had no WMD” falsehood.  It’s all they have.

According to the article, if I’m reading it correctly, this yellowcake is from before Gulf War I:

Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

So according to this, Saddam attempted to obtain nuclear weapon capabilities before Gulf War I and UN sanctions, something that we already knew. However, this doesn’t prove that he sought nuclear weapon capabilities after 1991. It doesn’t prove that he didn’t seek WMDs, but it doesn’t prove that he did either.

Also r108, yellowcake itself isn’t a WMD.

But whether there were WMD or not, I still feel that the US was justified in its invasion of Iraq. Now whether it was the best move strategically and financially is up for debate, IMHO.

According to the article, if I’m reading it correctly, this yellowcake is from before Gulf War I

Unless it goes bad, this is irrelevant.

Also r108, yellowcake itself isn’t a WMD.

Then you won’t mind if I dump it in your front yard?
by the way, “WMD” stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction, so there can’t be “a WMD”.  A minor point, I’ll agree, but it speaks to mental acuity.
As Proof so clearly stated, it’s only good for two things: as fuel for a nuclear plant, or as a source of fissionable material for atomic weapons.
I think what you have done is make a distinction without a difference.

But whether there were WMD or not, I still feel that the US was justified in its invasion of Iraq.

Then why the hassle?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Hey Proof, or anyone else who wants to help.
How the heck do you guys highlight words so you can get a link? I have monkeyed around and can’t figure it out. Yeah, I am a tad computer illiterate.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

                                Bob Dylan

Hey Bob, is a nuclear bomb a weapon of mass destruction or a weapons of mass destruction?

Just a minor point.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Unless it goes bad, this is irrelevant.

No its not irrelevant unless you can prove he did anything with it except let it decay in drums after Gulf War I and the UN sanctions were put in place.

Then you won’t mind if I dump it in your front yard?

Garbage and oil aren’t weapons of mass destruction but I still wouldn’t want you dump them in my yard either. The point was that yellowcake by itself is not a weapon of mass destruction.

by the way, “WMD” stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction, so there can’t be “a WMD”

Except when its used in the singular. What I was saying was, “Also r108, yellowcake itself isn’t a weapon of mass destruction.” Its simple grammar really. A minor point, I’ll agree, but it speaks to mental acuity.

As Proof so clearly stated, it’s only good for two things: as fuel for a nuclear plant, or as a source of fissionable material for atomic weapons.

I’m not disagreeing with you. But I can’t say that I have flour and eggs and call it a cake. The ingredients of a product by themselves do not equal the product. Yellowcake is an ingredient in the process of creating a weapon of mass destruction. A minor point, I’ll agree, but it speaks to mental acuity.

A minor point, I’ll agree, but it speaks to mental acuity.

No, it speaks to your nitpicking obfuscation of obvious fact.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Davinski…copy the link that you want to insert, highlight the word that you want to serve as the link, click the “” above then paste the link into the box that opens. Hope this helps.

ha ha ha…click the icon that features an “a” surrounded by two brackets. It is the second from the right above, beside the close tags spot.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

more ha ha ha…the icon is below this and above the space where you type your comment. Second from the right…you can’t miss it…it’s really easy.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Call me stupid but I finally understand why some folks insist that Saddam had WMD. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry…laugh mostly I guess.

Not that this particular material wasn’t potentially dangerous…the measures taken to get the stuff out of Iraq clearly demonstrates that irrefutable fact. I just never clued in to the fact that some folks identified leftovers from the pre-Gulf War period as proof that Saddam was still working on a nuclear program in the run up to the invasion in this century.

I am embarrassed…for myself and for some folks too.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

I am embarrassed…for myself and for some folks too.

You should be(for yourself, that is).  It has been known for years now that Saddam was just waiting for sanctions to be lifted so that he could reconstitute his WMD programs, as evidenced by the Duelfer Report(and other sources).  He had the money from the oil for food UN graft program to fund it, and he had his yellow mountain of material to use for it.
Seen in that light, our deposing him and freeing the Iraqi people was a masterstroke, with the additional benefit of putting a modern nation in the heart of medieval level Islam.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Since some want to draw a fine line between pre and post Gulf War I, if Uncle Sadist had renounced his aims at building nuclear weapons, why not sell off his yellowcake for cash, during his cash-strapped oil-for-food days?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Since some want to draw a fine line between pre and post Gulf War I, if Uncle Sadist had renounced his aims at building nuclear weapons, why not sell off his yellowcake for cash, during his cash-strapped oil-for-food days?

The reason we draw the line between pre and post Gulf War I because that’s when sanctions were put into place. One justification for going into Iraq was that he was allegedly not following those sanctions. You can’t really justify a war for breaking sanctions before those sanctions were put into place.

As to your point about selling the yellowcake, would that have violated the imposed UN sanctions? I don’t think the UN would have reacted well if Saddam had sold yellowcake to other countries. You could argue that he could/should have just disposed of the yellowcake then, but I doubt a third would country would have bothered investing money into proper disposal of the substance.

Saddam may have been actively seeking to create weapons of mass destruction with the yellowcake after the sanctions had been put into place, but this article does not prove that. The fact that all the yellowcake was there prior to 1991 does not indicate that he had a nuclear weapons program in place in the years leading up to the invasion.

I think that there’s a good chance that he had a program, but this is not evidence of it.

Another reason we draw the line at Gulf War I, Proof, is because no one is denying that he wasn’t actively seeking nuclear capabilities before then. What’s being debated is if he continued those programs after the sanctions were put in place.

Since some want to draw a fine line between pre and post Gulf War I, if Uncle Sadist had renounced his aims at building nuclear weapons, why not sell off his yellowcake for cash, during his cash-strapped oil-for-food days?
Proof on July 6, 2008 at 11:43 am

Because he was permitted to only sell oil.

Good point, Proof.  Saddam could have avoided both the sanctions and the “invasion” by cleaning up his act.  One thing he could have done was to get rid of his yellow mountain.  He chose to continue his WMD ambitions, and the rest is history.

Ken: His holding on to the yellowcake after he was sanctioned for not ridding himself of his weapons is prima facie evidence that he had the program.
You haven’t even made a guess as to why else he had it.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

His holding on to the yellowcake after he was sanctioned for not ridding himself of his weapons is prima facie evidence that he had the program.

Wrong. It would be so only if the other possibilities were explored and proven wrong. Since there is still much debate, that is not the accepted explanation.

You haven’t even made a guess as to why else he had it.

Yes I have. I said that one possibility is that after Gulf War I, Saddam didn’t bother to dispose of the yellowcake because he didn’t want to invest the money in its disposal. So rather then spend money, he left it to decay in “aging drums”.

I never said that it was a fact or anything, but it is a valid possibility.

Yellowcake is not a WMD. Castor beans are not ricin.
After the invasion, there were reports of discovery of at least one warehouse in Iraq full of castor beans in bags marked “fertilizer”.

Uncle Sadist was not a nice man!

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Because he was permitted to only sell oil.

Wrong.  The sanctions were because he refused to disarm.
Getting rid of his yellow mountain, along with other things, would have made sanction unnecessary.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Call me stupid but I finally understand why some folks insist that Saddam had WMD. I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry…laugh mostly I guess.

Because rational people look at the evidence and conclude that he did?

Not that this particular material wasn’t potentially dangerous…the measures taken to get the stuff out of Iraq clearly demonstrates that irrefutable fact. I just never clued in to the fact that some folks identified leftovers from the pre-Gulf War period as proof that Saddam was still working on a nuclear program in the run up to the invasion in this century.

That’s a rather disingenuous summary of the “he had weapons” argument.
Saddam still. had. weapons. That they were old is completely frigging irrelevant. Put it in a civilian context. “You’re not allowed to have guns.” Well, it’s ok…it’s just a black powder rifle. It’s old. IT’S STILL A GUN. What is so hard to get about this?
The case was put simply to the American people. He never disarmed and destroyed his weapons after the Gulf War like he was required to do. Once again…this has been proven. And once again, anti-war leftists are pretending that the very evidence that proves them wrong somehow makes their case.

Saddam had WMDs. Once again, this has been proven. The debate really should be over…yet it continues on. Utterly ridiculous.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

Saddam still. had. weapons. That they were old is completely frigging irrelevant. Put it in a civilian context. “You’re not allowed to have guns.” Well, it’s ok…it’s just a black powder rifle. It’s old. IT’S STILL A GUN.

But, in reference to just the yellowcake, this example isn’t accurate. Since yellowcake is a substance used to make a weapon, a more fitting example would be if guns were made illegal and someone was found to have gun powder left over from before the ban. I’m not too familiar with the science of nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure there are a few steps in between taking yellowcake and turning it into a nuclear weapon.

Now he could have sold the stuff, but I don’t think that would have gone over too well. He could have disposed of it, but that would have cost money. The most honest thing would have been for him to turn it over to the UN, who could’ve disposed of it or sold it. However, we all know that Saddam wasn’t an honest man. IMO, he likely did have aspirations to start a nuclear weapons program eventually. What I’m skeptical of is whether or not he had a program in place between Gulf War I and the invasion. Either way, the world is a better place without him.

...a more fitting example would be if guns were made illegal and someone was found to have gun powder left over from before the ban.

Nope.  The real example here is bombs.  As far as I know, bombs are illegal everywhere.  Saddam had bomb material; nuclear bomb material.  Understand?

IMO, he likely did have aspirations to start a nuclear weapons program eventually.

Here’s the deal: According to both Duelfer and the seized documents, he was planning to resume his WMD programs as soon as the sanctions were lifted, so there’s no “eventually” about it, nor is it simply a matter of opinion.
BTW, no one has ever said that he had an active WMD program before we deposed him…that’s just another leftie lie.  The claim from the administration was that he posed the threat of WMD, which was true, this yellow mountain is part of the proof of that.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

It would be so only if the other possibilities were explored and proven wrong. Since there is still much debate, that is not the accepted explanation.
/quote]

Wrong again.  The sanction clearly placed the burden of proof on Saddam.
BTW, what is the half-life of the radioactive part of yellowcake?  Without that information, your claim of “aging” is irrelevant.

---

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

The real example here is bombs.

Of course, but then I wouldn’t be going along with Kenny’s example. Duh!

As far as I know, bombs are illegal everywhere.

You’re really not that dumb, right? Bombs may be illegal for every individual citizen but surely not the government. Saddam was the government, so he made the rules. This is why it sucks to debate you; you always bring up a stupid, irrelevant point that doesn’t matter.

The claim from the administration was that he posed the threat of WMD, which was true, this yellow mountain is part of the proof of that.

Then why are you arguing with me? I agree that possessing yellowcake is a threat to produce WMD. I just said that this doesn’t prove he had an existing program in place, which you just agreed with in your above comment. What I was debating is whether or not the threat was great enough to justify (strategically and financially, rather than morally) a war with Iraq. I certainly believe there was enough evidence legally and morally, but that doesn’t mean it was a wise move. That is what I question and debate. But at this point it doesn’t matter since we’re there now and must finish the job.

BTW, what is the half-life of the radioactive part of yellowcake?  Without that information, your claim of “aging” is irrelevant.

It doesn’t matter what the half-life of uranium is because the aging description was in regards to the drums they were stored in. Furthermore, it’s not my claim, it’s in the article itself:

Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War.

And for the record, even if I had said the uranium is aging, that wouldn’t be an inaccurate description since even you can’t deny that the passage of time exists.

Then why are you arguing with me?

Not the right question.  Why are you arguing with me, when you claim to agree with me so much?  If you are telling the truth about that, your personal attacks might be evidence of insanity.

As far as your bullshit about the passage of time, I simply said that it was irrelevant to yellowcake.  Are you questioning that fact?

Your example was incorrect.  Get over yourself; be a man, instead of lying and bullshitting to defend your many mistakes.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

But, in reference to just the yellowcake, this example isn’t accurate. Since yellowcake is a substance used to make a weapon, a more fitting example would be if guns were made illegal and someone was found to have gun powder left over from before the ban. I’m not too familiar with the science of nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure there are a few steps in between taking yellowcake and turning it into a nuclear weapon.

And the way you put it shows that you know there’s more to the argument than this. The yellow cake isn’t the smoking gun here. It’s just another piece of evidence on a massive pile of evidence that shows that he had weapons.

Of course, but then I wouldn’t be going along with Kenny’s example. Duh!

We both know I was speaking in generalities, considering the past WMDs we’ve found, since the leftist defense of their position is always “well, they don’t count cause they’re old!” But that doesn’t matter.

If you wish me to revise my analogy, ok. The yellow cake is like finding hundreds of thousands of boxes of bullets in someone’s house who’s not allowed to have guns. What intelligent person, after finding that, would HONESTLY believe that he had no guns?

Then why are you arguing with me? I agree that possessing yellowcake is a threat to produce WMD. I just said that this doesn’t prove he had an existing program in place, which you just agreed with in your above comment.

Irrelevant. No one claimed he had a nuclear program in place. The strongest claims (in this arena) made were that he was trying to buy the materials to restart that program.

What I was debating is whether or not the threat was great enough to justify (strategically and financially, rather than morally) a war with Iraq. I certainly believe there was enough evidence legally and morally, but that doesn’t mean it was a wise move. That is what I question and debate.

Saying that we started the war ignores that by having these materials, SADDAM WAS VIOLATING THE CEASEFIRE. In essence, he was nullifying the peace treaty with every violation of UN charter. 

Bombs may be illegal for every individual citizen but surely not the government. Saddam was the government, so he made the rules. This is why it sucks to debate you; you always bring up a stupid, irrelevant point that doesn’t matter.

It’s hardly irrelevant. Him not getting attacked was dependant on him following the terms of the ceasefire. In that aspect, it was indeed illegal for him to have bombs. In fact, that’s the central point to why we went in. I wouldn’t be mocking others if you don’t get this basic point.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

It doesn’t matter what the half-life of uranium is because the aging description was in regards to the drums they were stored in. Furthermore, it’s not my claim, it’s in the article itself…

The age of the drums is absolutely irrelevant to its weapons use, so they must have meant to imply that the yellowcake was somehow compromised, which is simply no true.  You involve yourself in this untruth by citing it as if it had any value.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

That should be: “...simply not true.”

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Kenny

Saddam had WMDs. Once again, this has been proven.

This is why I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. If the claim was proven then the invasion would be popular with the American public and the world at large.

The debate really should be over…yet it continues on. Utterly ridiculous.

I agree.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

If the claim was proven then the invasion would be popular with the American public and the world at large.

To believe this requires discounting all of the many excuses given by “the world at large” for Saddam.

Here’s the story:

Saddam was a “secular” (who once wrote the entire Koran using his own blood) leader of a “sovereign” (sovereignty rested entirely with Saddam) nation who was following all of the UN dictates (this from the same people who were neck deep in the Oil for Food scam).

It’s no wonder that you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You’re confused and have been in apology mode for a truly horrendous dictatorship for years now. Because you’re a “liberal” who “cares”.

lik…the American public isn’t making excuses for Saddam and neither am I. The inability to confirm the existence of a WMD program is one reason why the costs of invasion have exceeded the benefits in the eyes of Americans and the world at large. It’s time to accept that and move on.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Saddam was a “secular” (who once wrote the entire Koran using his own blood) leader of a “sovereign” (sovereignty rested entirely with Saddam) nation who was following all of the UN dictates.

Que? You don’t think that interacting with the UN reinforced the ‘sovereignty’?

That bit about penning the koran in his own blood. so much crap.

so what’s he going to do with this ‘ore’? give someone a tumor? randy grapes was trying to help us feel the tension in another thread.

he could lock someone up next to this ‘ore’ and really give em a tumor or two.

For truth is named after the daughter of time, not of authority.

-Francis Bacon

MikeAdamson - The inability to confirm the existence of a WMD program is one reason why the costs of invasion have exceeded the benefits in the eyes of Americans and the world at large. It’s time to accept that and move on.

I’d have to first care what you or the “world at large” thought before I could “move on”.

We’re there, Mike. It’s time to accept that and move on.

lik…you must care a least a little or you wouldn’t bother responding.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

108:

It has been known for years now that Saddam was just waiting for sanctions to be lifted so that he could reconstitute his WMD programs…

Thank you for acknowledging that the sanctions were working.

As noted earlier, a paragraph from the AP article:

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

Colin Powell
February 24 2001

“Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleezza Rice
April 2001

“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”

bush
10/2/02

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Gang, 3 words. Dual. Use. Technology.

You can posses all the raw materials/equipment/personnel needed for constructing weapons, all have multiple uses. As Saddam did for years, you simply say"I am making fertilizer”, or"I am making pesticides”, or"I am purifying water”, or"I am building nuclear powered electric generation plants” as Iran is currently doing.

Pretending that Saddam, or Pres Tom, or Kim Jong Il were not pursuing WMD acquisition all the while that they said they were not is insane.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

MikeAdamson - lik…you must care a least a little or you wouldn’t bother responding.

I care enough to know as such things pique my interest.

“The world community”, that full of poverty, corruption, and backwardness, doesn’t agree with my country’s decision to take out Saddam. *shrugs* That’s nice to know, but who cares?

“Moving on” from that position of indifference is impossible. There’s nothing to accept, because I don’t care.

“The world community”, or whatever other self-serving moniker is in vogue, is always voraciously telling us Americans that they don’t like us and how much they do not want to be like us. And then they adopt our culture. Because they don’t like us.

“The world at large” often says one thing, and then does another. The prevailing world opinion is flimsy and ever changing. First it was that Saddam had a WMD program and then when America invaded - it was just an evil Bush plot to steal oil or something.

In the end, the question remains - why do you care and why do you put so much stock in what others are thinking?

This is why I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. If the claim was proven then the invasion would be popular with the American public and the world
at large.

Actually, the reason the American public thinks the way it does about almost everything to do with foreign policy is that the MSM is constantly propagandizing against this President, and in the process of doing that, they smear our military and our tremendous victory in the ME.
If the MSM actually reported the news, public opinion would be radically different, Mike.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

lik

“The world community”, that full of poverty, corruption, and backwardness, doesn’t agree with my country’s decision to take out Saddam.

Your own country doesn’t agree with your country’s decision to invade. Hindsight is easy so I’m not knocking the original decision to invade but I am knocking the attempts to justify the invasion by playing fast and loose with the facts as we know them today. Yellowcake left over from Saddam’s pre-Gulf War nuclear program doesn’t prove that Saddam was working on a nuclear program post-Gulf War.

That’s all I’m saying and, despite your comments on the nature and importance of public opinion, you know that I’m right…this time at least.

r108

If the MSM actually reported the news, public opinion would be radically different, Mike.

Your point is noted.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Your own country doesn’t agree with your country’s decision to invade.

Only according to highly questionable polling the better reflects the effects of MSM propaganda on certain portions of the population, Mike.  In the only poll that counts, the American people voted for the guy in 2004 that promised to defeat terrorism(and in record numbers).

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

In the only poll that counts, the American people voted for the guy in 2004 that promised to defeat terrorism(and in record numbers).

50.7% to 48.3%

Kerry broke the record too.

How did it turn out for the gop in the only poll that mattered in 2006?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

How did it turn out for the gop in the only poll that mattered in 2006?

It hurt all Americans with $4+/gal gas.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Is there no turd of an idea that you won’t pick up, put in a box and call it your own?

Nutters crack me up.

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Is there no turd of an idea…

Your autobiography, rbb?  Or is it a “parody” of your autobiography?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

realitydenyingboob, your Party, the Democrat Party, has driven up food and fuel prices world wide, forcing millions MORE people into starvation. The fact that those people are all non-white and non-Christian is the goal of your Party, the Democrat Party. You, personally and politically, hate anyone who is not of your race.  The Democrat White People Superiority Party is anti-American and anti-human, and we will wipe you non-human pieces of shit from the face of this planet. Just as we real human beings wiped you neanderthal, non-human assholes from existence 20,000 years ago.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

r108

In the only poll that counts, the American people voted for the guy in 2004 that promised to defeat terrorism(and in record numbers).

I don’t accept your logic. If I did, then an Obama victory in November would mean that the American people approves of every policy idea that he advocates until he is defeated or doesn’t run again. I don’t accept opinion polls as the final word on anything and I recognise that some polls are better than others but they do provide guidance as to existing public opinion.

If you believe that the public still favours American policy in Iraq then I think you’re wrong because that flies in the face of polling results. If you believe that the polling results are wrong then you’ll have to offer more evidence for your position than a belief that the media is biased. If you believe that public opinion doesn’t matter and that unpopular policies need to be implemented from time to time then I’d agree but that doesn’t negate my point.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

If I did, then an Obama victory in November
would mean that the American people approves of every policy idea that he advocates until he is defeated or doesn’t run again.

I guess you didn’t agree with my premise, then.  In fact, the 2004 election was about Iraq, which was demonstrated by Kerry’s desperate attempts to portray himself as a war hero.  Sorry you missed that.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Remember the “exit polls” that showed Kerry won?  You haven’t a leg to stand on here, figuratively speaking, Mike.
If Obama wins, it won’t be about the truth about either the fight against Islamic terrorism or the truth about the economy.  It will be about slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda.
Not to mention that McCain doesn’t give the voters much, if any, contrast, policywise.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

MikeAdamson - Your own country doesn’t agree with your country’s decision to invade.

So? Not only is the prevailing world opinion flimsy and ever changing, but so is America’s.

That’s all I’m saying and, despite your comments on the nature and importance of public opinion, you know that I’m right…this time at least.

I “know” what again? I couldn’t discern your meaning.

108:

Not to mention that McCain doesn’t give the voters much, if any, contrast, policywise (sic).

So if Flipper John wins it will be about slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

So if Flipper John wins it will be about slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda?

Why would he want to copy the Democrat’s play book?

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

BTW, You might want to rethink (think?) that “Flipper” John appellation! Obama has changed his position so many times he looks like he’s auditioning for Cirque du Soleil! Heh.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

lik…that yellowcake left over from Saddam’s pre-Gulf War nuclear program doesn’t prove that Saddam was working on a nuclear program post-Gulf War.

r108…I can’t refute your “heads you win, tails I lose” approach and I won’t try.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

r108…I can’t refute your “heads you win, tails I lose” approach and I won’t try.

Ahh!  A dismissive mischaracterization from you; I’m not surprised.  You seem unable to admit the truth here.  Too bad.
You believe the polls that say what you want to believe, but when I give an example of polling that was entirely wrong, and which was done for utterly partisan political purposes, you bail out.

rbb: Your juvenile namecalling aside, McCain will win by default, if he wins.  Obama will have been revealed for what he really is: an entirely false candidate, a Manchurian Candidate, if you will, and most will feel obligated to vote for McCain, because the alternative is unthinkable.  Haven’t I made my position on this abundantly clear? I guess you either don’t read much, or you just like to ask dumb questions.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Mike,

I doubt that even the most strident, leftwing partisan hack would try to claim that Christopher Hitchens is a member of the “Vast, Rightwing Conspiracy” or that Slate is an unofficial mouthpiece for conservatives.

So, with that in mind, read this, and then explain please how any other conclusion is possible, other than that Saddam was looking to acquire more “yellowcake.”

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Robert108:

Ahh!  A dismissive mischaracterization from you….Your juvenile namecalling aside…

What do you have to offer except namecalling? You cannot give any facts, you cannot offer logic, and you certainly cannot offer evidence.

You have nothing but your own hatred. That’s why you are too chickenshit to accept my challenge—-you know you’d lose.

So if Flipper John wins it will be about slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda?

Actually, for once RBB has it exactly right!

Except that the “slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda” he speaks of are those of Obama and the Democrats.

After all, the reality is they have nothing else.  No policies… just platitudes.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

Bat:  As usual, rbb can only parrot the words of others, so he got nothing right.

If Obama wins, it won’t be about the truth about either the fight against Islamic terrorism or the truth about the economy.  It will be about slick packaging, prevarication, political maneuvering and propaganda.

[...]

robert108 on July 7, 2008 at 11:54 pm

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

As usual, rbb can only parrot the words of others,

Hence the nicknames: Mynabirdbob, CutandPastebob.

Shrugging off the mindless, baseless attacks of Liberal hyenas and jackals since 2007

”(Proof) You’re, as we say in Hawaii, No Ka Oi!”

-unsolicited testimonial

Bat…I don’t question Saddam’s desire to reconstitute his nuclear program. Given that, I wouldn’t be surprised if Saddam was on the lookout for nuclear resources…that includes the infamous Niger yellowcake as well. What I’m questioning is the conclusion that Saddam’s program was active because of the existence of guarded yellowcake in Iraq. I would similarly question a conclusion that seeking yellowcake in Niger demonstrates that Iraq had an active nuclear program pre-invasion.

Whether Saddam had a nuclear program versus whether he was tring to restart a nuclear program seems like splitting hairs to some but they really are two different propositions. The fact that the first proposition has not been proven doesn’t render the second untrue nor does it imply that a Saddam with nukes wouldn’t pose a grave threat to the world’s security.

I’m simply responding to statements on this thread that I believe are either not supported by the facts that we have or demonstrate logical overreach…IMO of course.

r108…the existence of bad polls doesn’t negate the science of statistical significance and normal distributions. I actually put more credence in your media conspiracy theories than I do your critique of mathematics. Given that I’ve never claimed infallibility for opinion polls and that I’ve already accepted the fact that some polls are better than others, your example, while accurate, isn’t adding much to the conversation IMO.

To be clear, what I’m bailing out of is your framework where facts and opinions contrary to your own can be explained away by media bias, mathematical inadequacy and the desire to enslave America and do away with your way of life. When you come up with something that does not rely on any of these devices then I’ll treat your comments with the respect that you believe they merit.

r108…the existence of bad polls doesn’t negate the science of statistical significance and normal distributions. I never said it did; you just made that up. I actually put more credence in your media conspiracy theories than I do your critique of
mathematics.  I have, over and over again(so you have no excuses) asserted that it’s commonality of purpose, not “conspiracy”.  Try being honest, Mike.

To be clear, what I’m bailing out of is your framework where facts and opinions contrary to your own can be explained away by media bias, mathematical inadequacy and the desire to enslave America and do away with your way of life.

You’re making things up, again.  I wish you would actually try facts and logic, rather than creating mischaracterizations of my positions out of your imagination and prejudice.
The MSM has functioned as the propaganda ministry for the Dems/lefties for quite some time, and so their efforts are focused on producing a certain outcome.  It’s not my way of life; it’s the Constitution and the Founding Principles of the US, Mike.  It’s individual independence, personal freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom and political freedom, Mike.  Sorry you feel the need to be so snotty and dismissive, but I guess that’s because you can make no valid counter arguments to what I write.  I know you would, if you could.
Your responses are consistently personal, not factual or logical.
BTW, the AP confirms the fact that Saddam had a nuclear program; the yellowcake is just one part of it.  It’s in the Reader Blogs.  Another inconvenient truth for you.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Mike,

Clear, concise, and cogent… as expected.  If I mistook your apprehension for another tedious leftwing version of “Bush lied… There was no WMD program and no reason to go into Iraq” I apologize.

That entire argument is moot.  We’re there… Saddam isn’t.  And in the final analysis, that is as it ought to be.  And to my mind, there are far too many on the Left who insist on demonstrating their metro-sexual testosterone levels by fighting the last war/battle/skirmish instead of focusing on those ahead of us.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

And to my mind, there are far too many on the Left who insist on demonstrating their metro-sexual testosterone levels by fighting the last war/battle/skirmish instead of focusing on those ahead of us.

I hear you although I think it’s perfectly reasonable to critique past policy and operational decisions. Not for the always tempting purposes of gloating of course but within the scope of assessing current policy choices and of those responsible for making those choices, I think it’s legitimate to explore how past decisions were made and how certain world views lend support and justification for various options.

In short, we can learn from the past without reliving it. I’ll agree that this kind of focus is often lacking when discussing the Iraq issue.

r108

I never said it did; you just made that up.

I have, over and over again(so you have no excuses) asserted that it’s commonality of purpose, not “conspiracy”.  Try being honest, Mike.

You’re making things up, again. I wish you would actually try facts and logic, rather than creating mischaracterizations of my positions out of your imagination and prejudice.

Your responses are consistently personal, not factual or logical.

I call them like I see them. You obviosuly disagree with my assessment of your comments. I’m sorry that you take my comments personally…they’re not intended in that spirit but your apparent hyper-sensitivity to criticism is likely impeding your ability to separate criticism of your ideas from criticism of your person. This isn’t old news of course but I do feel obligated to bring my opinion on this subject to your attention…feel free to reflect on it or reject it or ignore it or sputter in response.

Sorry you feel the need to be so snotty and dismissive, but I guess that’s because you can make no valid counter arguments to what I write.  I know you would, if you could.
Your responses are consistently personal, not factual or logical.

Please reread my previous comment.

BTW, the AP confirms the fact that Saddam had a nuclear program; the yellowcake is just one part of it.  It’s in the Reader Blogs.  Another inconvenient truth for you.

Nobody is saying that Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program. The intermediate stage in the logical chain you’re missing is that the program apparently ended as a result of Israeli bombing and the loss of the Gulf War. Talk about inconvenient truths… 

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Continue to pretend Saddam was not a threat and had no connection to WMD or terrorists. It is comical as hell.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

So is this the Yellow cake that Saddam bought from Niger?
How come this isn’t more of a news story, to me this is WMD?

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

I call them like I see them.

Then maybe you need to adjust your vision of me; I have certainly given you enough information about what my real positions are.

The intermediate stage in the logical chain you’re missing is that the program apparently ended as a result of Israeli bombing and the loss of the Gulf War.

Strictly conjecture; I know you would prefer to believe that, of course.  Here’s an update on the article that is the source of this thread:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/the_550_tons_of_yellowcake.html

I’m sorry that you take my comments personally…they’re not intended in that spirit but your apparent hyper-sensitivity to criticism is likely impeding your ability to separate criticism of your ideas from criticism of your person.

You deny it, then do it again in the same paragraph; too funny! I put your dismissive personal stuff in bold type for you.  I don’t see how you can still claim to be unconscious of what you do, in almost every discussion we have.
Even if your personal assessment of me is true(and it isn’t), that doesn’t bear on the truth or falsehood of either of us write.  I guess you just don’t get that inconvenient truth.

...or sputter in response.

Oh, yes!  So, disagreeing with your personal assessment of me is “sputtering”?  Nothing personal there. /sarcasm

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Robert108:

You have no right to lecture anyone about logic until you grow a set of balls and accept my challenge.

Mike: Here’s the deal: the MSM could simply report the news as it happens, whether it favors one side of the debate or the other, but they don’t.  I’m certainly not asking for perfection, just not consistent bias.  In fact, the MSM always slants to the left, even to the extent of simply not reporting, or seriously downplaying, any news favorable to this administration. Since our victory has become clear in Iraq and Afghanistan, they have gone almost silent, except for the rare casualty.  Now, you would think an American MSM would be really happy about American victory, but it doesn’t seem to be so.
Bad economic news is emphasized, and good economic news is downplayed, opposed, or even ignored.  This is not anything approaching even-handed journalism.
This steady trend has effects in many areas, like the economy and public opinion on controversial or politically-loaded issues.  I mention this whenever I see it occurring, and explain what effects might arise from it.  If you disagree with specific examples of this, you can always make a specific counter argument to that point, but you don’t do that; instead, you generalize about what you think I’m thinking, and that isn’t a counter argument, as I have pointed out many times.  It is an attempt to invalidate what I said by invalidating me in some way, which doesn’t actually affect the truth value of what I said.  Think about it.
I welcome real debate about my facts and logic, because I might learn something; but there is nothing to be learned by comments directed at my person or by falsely stating the origins of my ideas.
I know you can do better, Mike.  I have faith in you.

BTW, what do you think about Saddam’s yellow mountain coming to Canada?

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I welcome real debate about my facts and logic…

No, you don’t. You’re incapable of it as I’ve amply proven.

Continue to pretend Saddam was not a threat and had no connection to WMD or terrorists. It is comical as hell.

2H9, I don’t think that Mike is denying that Saddam was a threat or had connections to WMD. What he’s questioning is the degree of threat that Saddam posed.

First, jackoff, reality is real. Your"challenge” for someone to “prove” it is only “proves” you are an idiot.

Ken, Mike has repeatedly, in thread after thread for a couple of years, told us that Saddam had no weapon programs at all, had no connections to terrorists at all, and was no threat to anyone at all.

He can keep doing that, it is comical as hell.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

right, 2h, mike is hopelessly naive.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

Colin Powell
February 24 2001

“Saddam does not control the northern part of the country,” she said. “We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

Condoleezza Rice
April 2001

“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”

bush
10/2/02

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

goon

So is this the Yellow cake that Saddam bought from Niger?
How come this isn’t more of a news story, to me this is WMD?

I’m sure 2H9 can answer your questions.

2H9

Ken, Mike has repeatedly, in thread after thread for a couple of years, told us that Saddam had no weapon programs at all, had no connections to terrorists at all, and was no threat to anyone at all.

To demonstrate that my position is firmly grounded in reality, I can confirm that Saddam had weapon programs, he had connections with terrorists and he posed a threat to many people both inside and outside of Iraq. I think what 2H9 is referencing is my refusal to drink the koolaid and agree with his zanier variations of those basically true positions.

There is no evidence that Saddam had an active nuclear program in the days and years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there is no evidence that Saddam had significant connections to Al Qaeda and there is no evidence that Saddam posed a significant threat to the United States and the world at large.

r108

Then maybe you need to adjust your vision of me

Since I don’t know you personally, I can only know the positions you advocate online. If your positions do change then I will adjust my vision of what you say as required.

Strictly conjecture; I know you would prefer to believe that, of course.

Conjecture based on the facts available. It’s true that I’m not relying on fantasies of the massive media distortion required to lend any credence to your position whatsoever nor the bogus “commonality of purpose” angle by which you can neatly tie together individuals and groups in opposition to your point of view. If I did then I suppose I could argue from the perspective of a fringe element leftie but I just don’t buy into the nonsense.

Oh, yes!  So, disagreeing with your personal assessment of me is “sputtering”?  Nothing personal there. /sarcasm

Disagreeing does not equal sputtering. Sputtering is what Karl Marx did in the infamous Monty Python sketch entitled “World Forum”, particularly on the “Live at Drury Lane” version which I can’t find online but is my favourite.

BTW, what do you think about Saddam’s yellow mountain coming to Canada?

It’s a sweet deal as I’m a Cameco shareholder and a nuclear power consumer as a homeowner.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Since I don’t know you personally, I can only know the positions you advocate online.

I say again: your “vision”(or version) of my positions is highly inaccurate.  Wrong premise, wrong conclusions.
You have given only highly inaccurate descriptions of my actual positions, thus I must assume you are adding your own prejudices, unconsciously or otherwise.

You characterized me as “sputtering”, and you fail to even admit that you did it.  That’s a personal(and inaccurate description of me, get it?)  And that’s just one example.

Glad you recognize that the yellow mountain in your hands is vastly better than when it was in Saddam’s hands.

Once again, I never said “massive”, so you again inject your own conjecture, rather than honestly stating my position.  I have repeated this again and again: it’s a consistent bias, which flows from a high degree of uniformity in the political beliefs of the members of the MSM engaged in “reporting” the news.  It is a constant and persistent bias, and it almost always goes in the same direction.
When prices go up, they are “skyrocketing”, but when they go down, it’s “only temporary”.  I’m sad that you are unable to admit the obvious bias and acknowledge its role in polluting the information stream.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I say again: your “vision”(or version) of my positions is highly inaccurate.

I don’t think it is but you’re entitled to your opinion.

You have given only highly inaccurate descriptions of my actual positions, thus I must assume you are adding your own prejudices, unconsciously or otherwise.

If you’re saying that I don’t repeat your position back to you verbatim then you are right. If you are saying that I examine your words, assess their meaning, significance and application then you are right. If you want a parrot then go to a pet shop.

If I say the sky is blue then I am stating a fact, the truth of which we share. If I say that Saddam didn’t have a nuclear program leading up to the invasion then I am stating a fact, the truth of which we don’t share because we don’t agree on the facts that support that position. Objectively, I have to say that I am stating my opinion about Saddam, an opinion based on facts I believe true. Since you believe those facts to be untrue and because you believe competing facts to be true then you have a different opinion. I won’t assume but I suspect that you believe your opinion to be as true as I believe mine and that what you are stating is fact rather than opinion, just as I believe my opinion is really fact. 

Our competing positions can’t both be true so how do we determine whose facts are really true? I can bring my supporting facts forward and you can do the same and maybe one of us is persuaded to change our mind. Failing that, we can rely on an objective standard for determining truth which is what we do when we agree to the fact that the sky is blue. Can you think of an objective standard that we can apply to determine which of our positions on Saddam’s nuclear program is correct?

Once again, I never said “massive”, so you again inject your own conjecture, rather than honestly stating my position.

I didn’t say you said “massive”. I said “massive”. I know that you believe the MSM to be biased. I’ve acknowledged that bias exists in the MSM. You complain that the MSM keeps harping on the fact that the price of oil has skyrocketed. I say that the price of oil has skyrocketed.  You complain that the MSM doesn’t trumpet on the days that the price of oil drops. I maintain that the small daily drops pale in comparison to the multiyear trend.

WARNING:  OPINIONS AHEAD!

I think you’re basically unhappy with the fact that your political philosophy does not hold the sway that you believe it should. I think that you’re intellectually convinced of the truth in your beliefs and that something external to the thought process must be preventing the rest of us from seeing the truth that you see. I think this is why it is important for you to perceive widespread and systemic bias in the media and why it is important for you to perceive enemies in the world against whom you must constantly be on guard. I do not have the same level of faith in my political philosophy that you have in yours because I don’t assume that i have access to the same amount of truth that you claim and so I don’t think that I feel personally threatened or abused when faced when conflicting beliefs.

I was chatting with my mother today and she told me that the older she gets, the less she knows. As I get older, I am coming to believe the wisdom in those words.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

I was chatting with my mother today and she told me that the older she gets, the less she knows. As I get older, I am coming to believe the wisdom in those words.

Mike,

Your mother either misspoke, or suffers from a congenital condition.  What is true, is that the older we get the more we recognize how much we don’t know, and how much of what we do know is far less useful than we used to think it was.

“Capitalism is optimism monetized.”

I don’t think it is but you’re entitled to your opinion.

My positions are knowledge on my part, opinion on yours.  Whenever you attempt to speak for me, you get it wrong, and in a way that favors your dismissive approach.  Again, rather than argue the facts in a logical manner, you choose to try to invalidate my thinking by misstating my positions on the issues.  This is personal attack, and is apparently your only tactic.

I think you’re basically unhappy with the fact that your political philosophy does not hold the sway that you believe it should.

There you go again; you are arguing the person, not the facts.  This is your consistent error.  My happiness has no bearing on the truth of what I say; if you don’t know that, I pity you.  I have political principles, not a “political philosophy”; you are projecting again.  I have no particular “belief” about who should or shouldn’t do what.  I evaluate people on what they produce.  I vote for politicians on the basis of what they do, not what they say.
I know none of these facts about me will make any difference about your distorted and agendized view of me; I’m just stating my truth.  Whether you are capable of taking it in is up to you, Mike.
It might help if you expressed what you believe, not what you believe I believe.  I would then have some respect for you, whether I agreed with you or not.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I was chatting with my mother today and she told me that the older she gets, the less she knows. As I get older, I am coming to believe the wisdom in those words.

As usual, Mike speaks only for himself.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

robert108,

My positions are knowledge on my part, opinion on yours.

“A man is getting along on the road to wisdom when he begins to realize that his opinion is just an opinion.”

Nunez: You don’t seem to understand what “knowledge” is; I suggest you acquire some, then you will know.
I do believe you when you say your opinions are just opinions, though; it is quite obvious from your comments on this blog.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

B1…I provided the abridged version. 

Nunez…well played.

r108

My positions are knowledge on my part, opinion on yours.

That defintely helps me understand where you’re coming from and I won’t bother you anymore.

That defintely helps me understand where you’re coming from and I won’t bother you anymore.

Your snotty, dismissive reply tells me you have, once again, mischaracterized what I said.  To make it simple for you, I’ll ‘splain it in another way.  I know what my positions are, and you are just guessing at what they are.  You seem to delight in restating them in the way that is most favorable to your preset positions, and thus I spend most of my time in discussion with you clarifying your mischaracterizations of what I have already said, instead of moving ahead with my particular argument.  In light of that, I would appreciate it very much if you would stop bothering me with your inaccurate revisions of my positions, and just argued yours, instead.  You seem to be arguing the person, and not the facts.  If you do, in fact, “understand where I’m coming from”, it’s not clear by your ad hominem style of argument.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Mike:

To demonstrate that my position is firmly grounded in reality, I can confirm that Saddam had weapon programs, he had connections with terrorists and he posed a threat to many people both inside and outside of Iraq. I think what 2H9 is referencing is my refusal to drink the koolaid and agree with his zanier variations of those basically true positions.

There is no evidence that Saddam had an active nuclear program in the days and years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there is no evidence that Saddam had significant connections to Al Qaeda and there is no evidence that Saddam posed a significant threat to the United States and the world at large.

These statements are inconsistent or miss the point in one case.

First the threat that was posed by Saddam in terms of a nuclear program was not an active program, but the threat that he would restart his program after the sanctions ended.  I provided evidence for that above.

Secondly, al Qaeda isn’t the only game in town in terrorism, and if Saddam were not actively cooperating with them, it is because he was in competition with them in international terrorism.  That has also been well established.

These two statements, corrected, are sufficient to render inconsistent your thesis statement that “Saddam posed no threat to the US or the world at large”.  Clearly we have a stake on the ready flow of oil from the mideast, and if the continued irresponsible (at best) actions of Saddam put that at risk, then yes he does pose a threat against us.  Perhaps even militarily via his support of terrorists who have been known to carry out attacks on US interests in the past.

r108

Your snotty, dismissive reply tells me you have, once again, mischaracterized what I said.

I did not intend my last comment to be snotty or dismissive.

In light of that, I would appreciate it very much if you would stop bothering me with your inaccurate revisions of my positions, and just argued yours, instead.

As I indicated, I will not bother you again.

Carrick

First the threat that was posed by Saddam in terms of a nuclear program was not an active program, but the threat that he would restart his program after the sanctions ended.  I provided evidence for that above.

I’ve agreed with that point before but I didn’t make that agreement explicit this time. We can disagree about how likely a restart would be but it clearly is a possibility to be considered seriously and would pose a significant threat if accomplished.

Secondly, al Qaeda isn’t the only game in town in terrorism, and if Saddam were not actively cooperating with them, it is because he was in competition with them in international terrorism.  That has also been well established.

AQ was the important game in town post 911. Saddam’s support of various terrorist enterprises was well known but to argue that Saddam was intimately connected with terrorist organisations who posed global threats on the scale that AQ did is over reaching IMO. I would characterise Saddam’s support as more ad hoc or on a transitory case by case basis rather than part of an organised structure or relationship. I’ll look at your evidence to the contrary again but that is my position today.

These two statements, corrected, are sufficient to render inconsistent your thesis statement that “Saddam posed no threat to the US or the world at large”.

It would have been more accurate had I said that the threat that Saddam posed to America and the World was over stated by those anxious to take him out. Looking back on it now, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that we’re all better off without him but that we’d likely still be here with him now and in the future. I shouldn’t say he posed no threat but that doesn’t mean that he posed a significant threat because I’m not aware of any credible evidence that he did.

We still disagree I know but my sweeping and vague statements left me open to your reasonable criticism and I hope that my clarification helps make me appear less pollyanna.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Robert108:

My positions are knowledge on my part, opinion on yours.

Arrogant and dumb as always—-and, of course, too cowardly to accept my challenge.

You believe a thing is true because you believe it and no amount of reality will move you.

Jebus, it must suck to be you.

e can disagree about how likely a restart would be but
it clearly is a possibility to be considered seriously and would pose a
significant threat if accomplished.

We could disagree, but I’m wondering how you account for hiding the means for reconstituting his nuclear weapons making capability in that case?

AQ was the important game in town post 911.

There was plenty of non-AQ terrorist activity post 911, and given AQs decimation by the Afghanistan offense, by 2003,  I’m not sure you could make that claim.  Further, Saddam’s stated goal was to destabilize Israel, and given the anarchy that would have ensued in that case, I can see why people took this threat pretty seriously.,...

It would have been more accurate had I said that the threat that Saddam posed to America and the World was over stated by those anxious to take him out.

Well that’s your opinion.  The question is not what is the decision now based on the information we have now, but what was the most prudent decision given what was believed at that time.

I’m not even sure if we use what is currently known about Saddam’s intentions post sanctions, that we can even make the case that it was imprudent to put an end to his threat.  I wouldn’t normally make that argument in judging Bush’s decision to go to war, but you seem to have no problem with that, so….

First, jackoff, reality is real. Your"challenge” for someone to “prove” it is only “proves” you are an idiot.

All R108 has to do is prove “reality” and he gets a cool $200. Why won’t he do that?

Because he’s 1) wrong and 2) a coward.

Jack, you should make sure you have $200 in your bank account.  Not that I expect a blow-hard like you to make good on any challenge.

As I indicated, I will not bother you again.

What part of “...and argued yours instead.” didn’t you understand.  I’m interested in your views on the issues, not your mistaken views on me.
BTW, I’m sure you meant to compliment the US military for doing the very dangerous job of getting Saddam’s yellow mountain to Canada, where you can make money from it.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

r108…“I will not bother you again” means that you won’t have to put up with our discussions any longer. I’m glad that you’re interested in my views and I’m sure that I will continue to read many of your comments. I’ve simply reached the conclusion that meaningful dialogue between us is impossible and so I won’t waste our time by trying to engage in same.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Pouting is so unnecessary, Mike; but if that’s what you need to do, go for it.  I just want discussion on the facts, not the personal opinion stuff.  When you’re ready for that, I’ll welcome you back.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

Carrick: Saddam was also a threat to his neighbors, most notably Saudi Arabia; his long term ambition was to be the Hitler of the ME.  We did the right thing by deposing him, on many levels.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”

Colin Powell
February 24 2001

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

BFD.  Meaningless tripe from RBb.

Actually C, that was a quote from Colin Powell.
You know Colin, doncha?

He was awarded the Purple Heart, and later that year, the Bronze Star.
Powell served a second tour of duty in Vietnam in 1968-69

Powell was assigned to the Office of Management and Budget during the administration of President Nixon

Brigadier General

assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and to the Secretary of Energy

senior military assistant to Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Secretary of State

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

If you want to put so much weight on his comments, why not accept what he said in February, 2003 as well?

You are as consistent as a pretzel.

Obviously Colin has his own pretzel demons to deal with.

Why not accept what he said in September, 2005?

Telling one lie or even consistently lying about one subject…doesn’t make you a liar…

robert108 on May 18, 2009 at 03:23 pm

“You have absolutely no reason, none, to trust our word or our actions at this point.”

Titular gop Head Mr. Steele

Why not just use your brain and address the facts that are currently known, rather than pulling some quote out of your a$$?  I know, I know, that would take thinking and analysis.

And you’re all about reality, which has more to do with sneering than facts.

How is that single-digit approval Democratic-controlled congress working out for you?