in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| ABC News | New Tone: Obama Camp Says Clyburn’s ‘Raping’ Comment Is Inappropriate |
0 |
| Biz Insider | Intriguing: EXCLUSIVE: Here’s The Inside Story Of What Happened On The FB IPO |
0 |
| Lee Stranahan | This: Friday, May 25th Is “Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day” |
0 |
| Gallup | 0 | |
| The Hill | Whoa: 4 in 10 Democrats desert Obama in Arkansas, Kentucky primaries |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) first ‘big name’ from DC madam’s phone number list
It apparently happened several years ago, he’s apologized to his wife and asked for forgiveness from God, but the beat goes on.
As Brian at Iowa Voice points out, the left is predictably latching on to this news as if it ‘proves’ something about the right and some kind of ‘morals hypocrisy.’ All it proves to me is that we’re all fallible and susceptible to the unseemly trappings that the ‘good life’ entails, and how we must work hard at resist them. It’s easier for some than others.
Contrary to the usual gum-flapping coming from the typical leftiots about how the ‘right’ has no room to talk about morals seeing as some of their own don’t hold up to standards they say others should, here’s a much needed clarification – which I’m sure will be ignored by the willfully ignorant: The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.
Of course, the left would have any discussions on leading a good, moral life shut down if they could and this is the perfect way they try and do it: by yelling about moralistic conservatives gone bad, because if the left had their way on this, we would all be wallowing in the same moral relativism pit that they do, where there is no right or wrong, no moral or immoral – there just “is” (think Bill Clinton) and our cultural decline would be even worse than it is now.
Sorry, ‘bats. I’ll take a pass on that.
And one other thing, as Brian also notes: Vitter’s name is only the first of many – Republican and Democrat alike – we’ll be hearing about from this infamous list in the weeks/months to come. So don’t get too giddy with excitement, Democrats.
Update I: Just to clarify, none of what I wrote in this post was done in an effort to ‘excuse’ the wrongness of what Vitter has done. I just get irked at the fact that the left thinks things like this are supposed to invalidate the message across the board. It doesn’t. It just means there are hypocrites on both sides of the aisle on the issue of ‘morality’ who should do a lot better job of practicing what they preach. It makes it a lot more difficult to sell the message when the salesman isn’t doing his part, too.
Update II: I see from my Sitemeter this post is getting a lot of attention in, ahem, certain ‘bat caves. Good. Just a reminder to newbies: insulting the host and utilizing extremely vulgar language in an attempt to ‘prove’ your point is a surefire way for your comment to get dumped in the trash heap. If you can’t grow up for a few minutes and behave yourselves, it’s probably a good idea for you to slither back to your little lefty havens where you can whine about how mean ol’ radrighty ST ‘censored’/banned you. 
Others: Captain Ed, Rob at Say Anything (who notes that this will affect Rudy’s campaign, too, for reasons explained in his post), John Hawkins, Ann Althouse, Dan Riehl, JammieWearingFool, James Joyner
Related/Flashback:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
ST,
Cheney has made conflicting comments about marriage equality:
More from the same story:
As I said, Cheney gets to have it both ways–he can be seen as supporting marriage equality by those who support it, and as opposing it by those who oppose it.
Oh, come on. Mary Cheney was working for the Bush/Cheney campaign, and when John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney thanked Edwards for his comments.
Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation was NOT a secret. For righties to construe Kerry’s remarks as mean-spirited is just ridiculous.
Just the Facts,
Why didn’t you note that your source was the very biased GayWired.com? I’m guessing because if you had, all one had to do was check the link and go to the article to see how it was spun to make it look like Cheney had ‘flip flopped’ on a issue he clearly hadn’t? He’s obviously got to balance his personal beliefs alongside the administration’s (the President’s) agenda (which is why he said he would support “whatever decision the admin makes” meaning he’s going to support the admin no matter what), but he has made it very clear – both in 2000, and in 2004, that he personally does not support the idea of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Try again.
ST,
You’re attacking the source without denying what the source said is true.
It’s a little difficult to swallow the “I’ll go along with what the President says” line in this administration, because Cheney has wielded an extraordinary amount of power for a Vice President.
You haven’t gone after those who have falsely claimed that Edwards and Kerry “outed” Mary Cheney–you can’t out someone who’s already out (and has, in fact, worked in outreach to the Gay and Lesbian community.)
ST,
You haven’t answered my question about kevin–what did he say that’s out of line?
That’s really none of your concern. Please stop asking it.
?? Has nothing to do with the fact that the man’s role, as VP, which is to throw his weight behind “whatever decision the president has made.”
You’re right. I’ve made it a point to corner you on the point about Dick Cheney supposedly supporting “restricting” the rights of his daughter, which you are flat out wrong about (as I have proven).
Cheney isn’t all bad. After all, only 87% of his fellow citizens disapprove of his performance in office.
But it is my concern–if I’m posting here, I want to know what the parameters of acceptable discourse are. What you’re saying is that you’ll decide on the spot what they are, with no recourse.
That’s certainly your right, as the owner of this blog, but it’s not conducive to reasonable debate.
As far as I could see, kevin wasn’t being abusive, or even saying anything that wwasn’t true.
By the way, Newsmax, hardly a leftist site, also said that Cheney switched to opposing marriage equality:
Yes, he “prefers” it be handled by the states, but he doesn’t seem to have a big problem with the Federal Government decreeing that no state may allow marriage equality.
Your attempt at “cornering” me has failed, and you’ve proven nothing. Perhaps instead we can have a real discussion.
Everytime anyone posts a comment here, they see a box in dark grey right above the formatting keys that lists my comment policy. You have been posting here quite a bit the last two days, well long enough to have seen it and read it. Don’t blame me for your failure to read it or failure to comprehend it, and I believe it’s more the latter than the former, since you’ve clearly misconstrued what I’ve said.
Somehow that doesn’t surprise me that you’d view things that way.
Uh, no. That’s what their headline said, but what the article quoted was almost exactly how the MSNBC piece stated his opinion. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
LOL! Denial is a river, “Facts.”
I think the types of ‘real’ discussions you like to have involve the ones where everyone agrees that the administration is into “stealing elections, outing CIA agents, misleading the nation into war, breaking the law to spy on citizens, trashing Habeas Corpus and so on and so on. ”
With that in mind, and since you’re obviously so intent on being able to continue to have “kevin” post alongside you, I suggest *you* go back to where you both came from, where you can have more of these ‘real’ and ‘true’ types of “discussions.” Buhbye.
It might not have been a secret Facts, but it was a big surprise to the evangelical community. It didn’t come out in the 2000 election, sorta puts the kibosh on your theory. Also as far as Dick Cheney saying thank you, a true statesman would never allow something like this to get under his collar. Which was yet another reason to tell the whole nation in a national debate, which isn’t outting, that she is a lesbian. Hey Facts would you like a scapel to cut this hair abit thinner?? – Lorica
Reluctant, this does bother me, but I am not willing to crucify the guy over it. Did you read the whole article?? Did you see the above quote. Maier’s own attorney didn’t know that Vitter was a client. The funny thing is most on the left flat out refuse to believe that testimony of most people. Tell me when you hear someone say that God healed them from cancer what is your first thought??? Yet you believe this woman just because she can float an accusation and the MSM decides to run with it. – Lorica
NC Cop wrote:
“Another favorite argument of mine. Do tell, what false pretenses do you speak of? Also, do you harbor any anger at the many democrats who voted for this war and defended it, up until it began to cost them their jobs, or do they get a pass?”
You know, the WMDs that Bush and Cheney went on about, which were never there in the first place. Those pretenses.
And yeah, I’m not big fans of Democrats who supported the war, either. Still, most of them are the lesser of two evils.
“The right typically preaches about the goodness of leading a moral life – they don’t claim to be immune to the temptations of immorality, just that your life is more fulfilling pesonally, professionally, and spiritually if you don’t succumb to them.” Ah, but life is so much MORE fulfilling if you do succumb, enjoy yourself thoroughly, repent, get forgiveness, get redeemed, and then do it again and repeat the process as often as necessary. Vitter had a long-standing contract with a prostitute in Louisiana before moving upmarket to the services of the D.C. Madam. Of course, he repented for the earlier youthful indiscretion as well as the later youthful indiscretion, and I’m sure he’s still youthful enough to manage a few more flings before he’s done. I imagine Ted Haggard is also due for a few more rounds of falling, repentance, and redemption, as are Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley and a long, long list of others. As St. Augustine said, “Let us be saved, but not too soon.” Words for a Republican to live by!
You know, the WMDs that Bush and Cheney went on about, which were never there in the first place. Those pretenses.
Ah, you do know that there were more than a few other reasons, all of them listed in the AUMF that all of your fellow Democratic cronies voted for. And you do know that over 500 chemical munitions were found, there is ample evidence of weapons being moved to Syria, etc.
And if Clinton or the other Dems asserted that there were WMD but none were found, that’s just a mistake, anyone could have made, but if Bush made the same mistake that’s obviously a malicious lie designed to get us into a war. Riiiight. If a Dem does it it’s a mistake, if Bush does it it’s a lie. Nice parsing. I guess BushCo was so omnipotent he knew that all the intelligence about WMDs were wrong, hell, he’s so good he managed to corrupt the intel info for years before he was president. Love the way the libs take an intel error and turn it into a deliberate evil lie by Bush, you know, the same Bush you think incapable of tying his own shoes.
But it’s always the same, every time a lib comes around here, like I said, the exact same statements and arguments, like a hive mind shared among pod people. And you can refute them over and over and it rolls off their backs like water off a ducks, and they go right back to parroting the same idiotic statements.
The only thing the libs have is a violent, visceral hatred of Bush. No ideas, no responsibility, no maturity, just hatred and a childish need to scrunch up their faces and stamp their little feet until they go blue. And you wonder why we conservatives don’t trust you with adult responsibilities…
As St. Augustine said, “Let us be saved, but not too soon.” Words for a Republican to live by!
As opposed to the Democrat words to live by: Save us, hell, what perversion should we try next? Gay necrophilic bestiality is a right!
Sev:
Thanks for pointing out that Saddam did in fact have WMDs. I have often argued this fact on other blogs – to the amazement of anti-war activists. They claim that they were too old, the wrong “type” (whatever that means), the wrong size, color, odor, blah blah blah….
I also recall (link lost due to a computer disaster) that some 200 empty chemical warhead shells were also found. These were important because although they had no chemicals they were also banned. By my count that puts the WMD count at over 700.
I’m sorry, but I still don’t see the problem with the Mary Cheney comment from the 2004 VP debate. Edwards’ comment about Mary was a statement of praise for the Vice President; he said that it was a wonderful thing that Mr Cheney loved his daughter, and I don’t imagine anyone here, Left or Right, will disagree with that statement. The fact that the Religious Right would find such a statement of love for an openly gay daughter offensive says more about them than it does about Edwards.
I’ve read people on the Right complain that folks on the Left have this unfair view of Bush and Cheney being 100% EEVIL!!!, and I agree that such views are incorrect. Bush has some fine qualities, as does Cheney, and they deserve praise from the Left when they exhibit them. Cheney standing by and supporting his openly gay daughter is to be lauded. I, for one, refuse to deny Cheney the credit he is due for this simply because he might lose political points with those who think he should abandon or ignore his daughter.
Severian wrote:
“there is ample evidence of weapons being moved to Syria, etc.”
Yes, I’m sure that Saddam, while on the verge of being invaded by the world’s greatest superpower, decided to move his WMDs to Syria. Just because he felt like it! That makes total and complete sense!
Yeah MD, out of all the people I’ve seen who say they were too old and not really WMDs, I’ve not met anyone who wanted to sit next to one. And as they were all supposed to have been destroyed, the mere possession of them is a major, actionable violation of the UN resolutions.
Then there’s the mobile weapons labs. Two of the three agencies who investigated these say they are weapon labs, but the one who disagrees is the one that gets all the press. Like an oil rich country needs to make hydrogen for weather balloons from organic bacteria, yeah, riiiight.
severian.
Can you please let us know where can we find the links to the evidence of any WMD’s moving from Iraq to Syria? EVIDENCE not hear say, or theories by the Right.
Also can you please point out to us where is the reference to the 500 “munitions” in any report from the three commissions sent by Bush to Iraq. I am specifically looking for any report that mentions these munitions of yours in direct reference to proof of any findings of WMD’s.
Severian. Have you heard the saying “You are entiteled to your opinion, but not to your facts” ?
I am just trying to find out if the sudden exsistance of WMD’s in Iraq is your opinion, or a fact. If it turns out to be a fact, then my friend you have made history on this blog, for not even the most rabid Bush staffer is making those claims any longer.
As for the “other reasons listed”. I hope they were correct because a lot of our soldiers have paid with their lives. But please Sir, don’t insult my intelligence by resurecting WMD’s again.
You are a serious individual I take it. Please try to keep your credibility.
Sorry Sister, that is exactly what republicans try to do. Your argument is a liberal argument, basically live and let live. It is the republicans who try to get into everybody’s business. Vitter actually claimed he was better than those liberals who got caught doing exactly what he was doing all along. Oh, and by the way, thanks to your party, it won’t be long before the supreme court will make you have to pay some sort of internet tax to keep your site going!!! Think voting!!!!
Severian, I can’t help noticing how lip-smackingly creative and imaginative you guys are about thinking up perversions to blame on “the Democrats.” Ever heard of a thing called projection? It’s common among very repressed people trying to deny their own urges while sanctimoniously ranting about the immorality of others.
Lorica.
“Gil, you know so little is truly shocking. The defense only gets twelve rejects, then they have to take what comes” . “The prosecution loaded the jury with Liberals”.
Lorica, please try to make some sence will you? ANd please try hard not to invent your “facts”.
From where are you getting that the Jurors were Democrat partisans? Where is the evidence that the prosecution loaded the jury with Liberals? Where is the logic that tells you that loading the Jury with Liberals will not result in a Republican Judge, a Republican Justice Department, a Republican Prosecutor, and a Republican Defense Lawyer not crying foul way before the tryal got started????????
Lorica, the selection of Jurors is called “voir dire (speak the truth)” and in Federal Courts is done by the Judge presiding the case PERSONALY. The Judge presiding the case was a Republican.
That is to say that your idea that a Republican Judge, a Republican Justice Department, and even a Republican Prosecutor would allow what you suggest defies all logic.
I don’t even know why I am even following you in responding to self serving theories . Like it or not LIBBY WAS CONVICTED. He had a first rate defense, and he has the Appeals Court willing to hear his case. I am sure your “stacking the Jury theory ” would have come up on Appeals, so what did Bush or Libby had to loose????
Furthermore what gives you the idea that using your party afiliation as the basis for rejecting some one could not be used by the defense as
gil,
Try to follow the logic:
1. Saddam used poison gas against both the Kurds and the Iranians. That is a FACT, so I’m entitled to it.
2. Poison gas is defined as a WMD. Another fact.
3. Therefore, Saddam had WMDs, Q.E.D.
So I throw it right back to you: you are entitled to your opinion, but not to your facts. And the facts do not support your opinion.
Regarding the question of a nuclear program, here’s my question: if Saddam wasn’t trying to build one, why did every intelligence agency – ours, the Brits, the French, and even the UN – conclude he was? Why was he trying to acquire yellowcake in Africa? Another fact that you’re ignoring, by the way.
So there are basically two scenario endpoints we can consider here:
At one end, either Saddam had a serious WMD program in place and he shipped much of it to his Baathist brothers in Syria,
Or the other end: every intelligence agency was wrong, and he had an entirely benign use in mind for yellowcake uranium.
The second scenario doesn’t pass the laugh test for anyone even one step to the right of Michael Moore. The reality needle is much much closer to the first one.
Susan lectures us:
Ever heard of a thing called projection? It’s common among very repressed people trying to deny their own urges while sanctimoniously ranting about the immorality of others.
Ah, but lookie here, in her earlier comment:
Ah, but life is so much MORE fulfilling if you do succumb, enjoy yourself thoroughly, repent, get forgiveness, get redeemed, and then do it again and repeat the process as often as necessary…I’m sure he’s still youthful enough to manage a few more flings before he’s done.
Projecting here, Susan?
I don’t like debating with my lib friends, as they always end up looking stupid, and I feel bad.
Wow, we are still stuck on that one, huh? Let’s see:
I’ll let you all browse all the quotes by some famous dems, including your god Clinton, about Iraq’s WMD program.
Quotes on Iraq
Just in case you miss my favorite, here it is:
So I’m curious, was Clinton lying about the intelligence HE had, or did Bush doctor the evidence while he was still governor of Texas? It has to be one or the other, which is it?
You mean the Hans Blix who said this:
Interestingly enough, he said this just two months before the war started as Coalition forces were surrounding Iraq. So, was he lying then or is he lying now? Just because he didn’t agree with the war , doesn’t mean he didn’t think Iraq had the weapons. There are some other quotes by Blix in the link above, feel free to check them out.
Have to admit, I don’t remember this one. Got a link? I’d love to read a quote, like the ones I’ve provided. I do seem to recall Bush saying the war on terror was going to be long and unlike any war we have ever fought. Then again, maybe they only showed that speech on Fox. Hmmmmmmm.
Wow, so now they’re guilty of insinuations, huh?
LOL!! That’s great, because we all know how reliable and fact based lefty websites are!! Did you happen to catch the quotes by all the dems on Iraq in that link, even Joe Wilson!! The dems were all on board and cheering it on, but when things turned bad and opinion started to drop, they bailed out like rats on a ship. Absolutely cowardly.
Apparently they do since I don’t hear anyone calling for their impeachment or prosecution. It seems that your excuse for the democrats is that they were either incompetent or lying, which is it?
Nickj wrote:
Guess you haven’t been paying attention.
I guess you also believe that Bush somehow manipulated the intelligence of Russia, England, France, Germany, and the U.N. who all believed that Saddam had WMD’s. They must all be part of the vast right wing conspiracy!
Oh, but Nick, Saddam had plenty of advance warning that we were coming, oddly enough given to him by a democrat:
Rockefeller’s treachery
Just so you don’t miss the good part, I’ll highlight it:
Hmmm, January 2002 more than a year before the U.S. invaded Iraq. I would hardly call that “on the verge of”, would you? It would seem Saddam had plenty of time, don’t you think?
Sister Taldjah.
Was there a problem with my posts answering Lorica, and severian or do you have a problem with a Centrist in your blog?
No insults on my part, no bad language, so it most be that you simply feel free to delete any one that sounds reasonable.
Also guys there is some precedent that Sadamn would do this sort of thing. In 1991 he knew that our Air Force would rip his to shreds so he asked Iran if he could move his fighter jets there, which they readily agreed to do. When the war was over he asked for his fighters back. Iran told him no and dropped his pilots off at the border.
That is why this time he buried his “illegal” fighter jets. – Lorica
NC Cop.
I hope you get my response before is deleated. For some reason I became “Persona non Grata” … Go figure.
Just a few points on WMD’s that I tried to make before to Lorica, but were deleated.
A) There were three different commissions sent by the Bush Administration. There were no WMD’s found.
B) There were hundreds of inspectors on the ground prior to the war.
Now the WMD’s could have been moved to Syria, or Iran, or wherever you like. But in fairness that is a theory, not to be confused with facts.
You see credibility demands that you either debate theories on its merits, or you try to debate facts as found by Professionals on it’s merits.
Is not fair to try and debate facts Vs. a personal theory.
When you say Democrats gave Saddam an advanced warning that we were comming…. I ask myself, if the warning was not about 100,000 troops in Kuwait and our fleet in the Mediterranean warning enough.
NC Cop. Anithing is possible, but the reality as it stands today is that no one in a position of Power has ever come out to declare that the Syrians have Saddam’s WMD’s.
There is another thing that troubles me about this WMD ‘s move to Syria theory. If Saddam had WMD’s ready to be used…. What do you think he had them for ???? To be moved to Syria when U.S. forces are massing at Iraq’s border’s ??
Is it logical for a mass murderer like Saddam to move his WMD’s to Syria thereby making them usless for his defense when confronted with the entire U.S. Army ready to attack??
He was a mad man, he was not stupid.
What do you think?
Then why do you suppose Bill Clinton said what he did and supported the war, calling Saddam Hussein a threat? Was he just trying to help Bush out? There was plenty of evidence that Saddam had those weapons and we all saw how willing he was to use it.
Indeed there were, and they were constantly denied access to sites, threatened, and thrown out of the country. Why do you suppose Saddam would not allow inspectors into certain sites? Because he had nothing to hide?
Sure it’s a theory, but as Lorica just pointed out it’s a theory that Iraq has already used in the first Gulf War when it flew it’s air force to it’s enemy Iran. It’s not as if the theory is without precedent.
And I ask myself, during the year of Rockefeller’s treason (Jan. 2002) the buildup had not yet begun there were not hundreds of thousands of troops on the border in Jan. 2002.
Many of the U.S. critics, including France, had stated that if Saddam used WMD on U.S. forces they would join in the war to remove Saddam. Saddam had everything to gain by getting rid of those weapons. Again, if Saddam had no weapons, why would he refuse weapons inspectors?
Gotta disagree on that one, he was pretty stupid.
What are you talking about, gil? I haven’t deleted anything you wrote. Unless you used a word that is blacklisted, which would mean that the post would be deleted automatically without me seeing it. That has happened to regulars before. Please on’t assume just because you don’t see something that I’ve deleted it. Try posting whatever you did again, and if it doesn’t go through, email it to me so I can see what words might be causing it to be deleted. Sometimes the blacklist deletes on a partial match (like it used to delete posts with the word “via” even though I had “viagra” in my blacklist at the time, not “via”).
gil, the only way you would look like a centrist is by comparison to Trotsky.
500 WMD Found in Iraq
WMD to Syria
See, a few seconds on Google, and there you go. Now I fully expect the usual weaseling out of any facts that are inconvenient to your continued refusal to remove your head from the sand.
Many of the U.S. critics, including France, had stated that if Saddam used WMD on U.S. forces they would join in the war to remove Saddam. Saddam had everything to gain by getting rid of those weapons. Again, if Saddam had no weapons, why would he refuse weapons inspectors?
NC Cop, all the usual liberal apologists who are so incredulous that Saddam would move these tend to forget that in the first Gulf War he flew his fighter aircraft into Iran to try and keep the US from destroying them, so there’s ample precedent for him moving WMD to Syria.
Wow. I completely forgot what this thread was about!!!
LOL!! You and me both!!
Heheh! Well, considering that the Vitter/Bubba arguments the left have been making have been thoroughly refuted, of course, ‘certain folks’ had to switch off to something else
I’m just going to hijack this thread and discuss Johan Santana’s performance in last night’s all star game for all of you baseball lovers
2 strikeouts… nice
“than pressuring an unpaid intern to put out or get out.”
Uh, I think the record shows who was the sexual aggressor in Monica v. Bill. This is the sort of statement for which there is no factual basis that one gets used to from dittoheads.
There are these other delightful fantasies on parade here. Such as the person who believes that this article
LINK
which asserts what nobody disbelieved–that Iraq had chemical weapons–somehow disproves the assertion that Bush, Blair, Powell, Cheney, Rice made over and over again–nuclear mushrooms, thirty minute deployments etc. “The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.” oooh I’m scared! Wave the flag! Kill the towelheads! Or at least kill the Dixie Chicks!
I have to say I don’t believe some leftover corroded mustard gas shells with all the sophistication of 1915–despite the fact that “technically” they “meet the definition of WMD”–in a basketcase country 10,000 miles from the USA seems like a great justification for spending a half trillion taxdollars, getting 30,000 US soldiers killed and wounded, and destroying the international standing of the USA. But if you think it was worth it just keep posting.
Heheh! Well, considering that the Vitter/Bubba arguments the left have been making have been thoroughly refuted, of course, ‘certain folks’ had to switch off to something else.
Apparently Iraq is all there is with these people. And if Iraq hadn’t happened, they’d be as whiny and violently upset by Afghanistan. The only reason Afghanistan isn’t getting the same treatment from them is that they think they can look more hawkish in their surrender monkey chops by saying “well, I support the war in Afghanistan it’s only Iraq I have a problem with.”
Wasn’t there a politician who, in the last couple of years, said that those who think the WMDs that were found really ‘aren’t’ WMDs, then they shouldn’t mind putting them under their kitchen sink?
Classic. Does anyone out there want an artillery shell under their sink?
Righto ST. Knowing the leftist mentality the way I do, if we had found stockpiles, the meme would have been “Well, with the US constantly bombing and threatening Hussein, he had to have them to deter US aggression. If we’d just been nicer to him he would never have felt the need to have them.”
Lorica.
Your observation about WMD’s sent to Syria by Saddam is pure speculation and a self serving theory.
On the other hand you do have a Good point about the Saddams Jets sent to Iran, and more importantly your point is factual, and that’s why is good.
That’s progress.
It would be nice if you will stick to facts, not theories that you or someone else comes up to justify facts that’s you can’t explain, and don’t like because they don’t fit your prearranged ideas. You remind me of Hillary defending Clinton’s behavior with her ” Is a vast Right Wing Conspiracy theory” Did you not laugh at the remark???? I did. You know why? Because is a clear attempt to explain and defend, what can’t be defended.
Case in point. I am suppposed to accept that Libby is not guilty because you now have the theory that the Jury were a bunch of Democrats????? I gave you a bunch of reasons why Libby was as guilty as Clinton, I gave you a bunch of researched facts in my deleated post, but you change the subject and come up with self serving theories to justify facts you don’t like, and then you believe you are actually debating. And of course Clinton comes out guilty, and Libby inocent with the exact same set of FACTS, and the world is right on the Right. No Sir is not, you are simply making up a set of ideas to your liking as you go along, and then make pretend that you made a point…. Like Hillary.
Now back to Saddam.
Saddam knew for a FACT that his regime was not under treat. The Gulf War was a war designed to take Iraq out of Kuwait, not to invade Iraq. Saddam had the full expectation of keeping power after the war, and therefore he had that incentive to hide everithing of military value before it was destroyed. And so he did. That is unless you actually believe that the man’s intentions were to use his Air Force in the after life.
With Bush’s invation of Iraq, Saddam had no hope of continuing in power. The entire purpose of the invasion was to take him out of power. If he had WMD’s to defend his regime having our Army and Navy poised for invasion would have qualified as a good time to use them, unless again you think the guy tough they could be of any use for him while burning in hell…. In any case your logic as usual escapes me.
Lorica. Any one can “make a point” , but you only win that point when it is made with FACTS, AND FOLLOWING FACTS TO LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS.
If GWB was a clone of Bill Clinton, the left would still hate him because he ‘stole’ the election in 2000. Everything always goes back to that.
Hey, Ryan, I may not have an artillery shell under my sink but I have part of an anti-tank missile in my den!
Or “bbbbut it wasn’t the quantities we were told they’d be in!!” “Bush lied!!”
gil wrote:
If he wasn’t stupid then why did he allow himself to be duped by all those scientists telling him he had more WMD than what they actually had?
You could also argue that he moved them/hid them because he didn’t think the invasion would actually take place. “Hey, if they don’t find them, I might get out of this alive!” Too late.
How many UN resolutions did Saddam violate? That’s a good enough reason to take him out right there. IMO, he should have been taken out in 1991, but that’s an entirely different thread than this mess of a thread.
Now, back to artillery shells and anti-tank missiles in the den..