SEALS Respond to Obama Campaign

Blaming Bush for not having a crystal ball is typical low class behavior for the left. Originally Posted by joe bloe

I am so gonna remember your saying this.

I believe that Bush spoke in good faith when he said that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended". He also said in the same speech that "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."

Bush's military advisors did not foresee the level of insurgency that would have to be dealt with. Blaming Bush for not having a crystal ball is typical low class behavior for the left.

Crystal ball my ass! Horse shit! I am calling both Bush and Cheney LIARS who were complicit in a plot that involved oil and obscene contractor and a war started for profits!

Listen to Cheney's 1994 Evaluation below, moron. Nothing - I repeat - Nothing had changed.

It's the nature of war that many expectations are proven wrong once the battle begins. New battle plans have to be formulated as the situation changes. The war in Iraq has been no different in presenting unforeseen challenges. Originally Posted by joe bloe

GOOD FAITH? HORSE SHIT!

Bush and Cheney LIED and forced Tenet to make a fake connection to WMDS in order to attack Iraq for profits and oil.

You are all supporting this shit by trying to revise history and excusing/defending their crooked asses to this day!

What Bush and Cheney REALLY knew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstVJo6URdQ

A Halliburton employee confirms how our troops were mistreated and given contaminated water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctIgY3QtNg

EVEN FUCKING WORSE - look at the hearing where Halliburton/KBR should have received the "Corporate Death Penalty" for their part in killing American troops!

KBR/Halliburton electrocute U.S. troops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeNcAasonyg

You TPunks are STUPID, pathetic, uninformed losers who do nothing but get in the way of true justice. These crooks you vote for COUNT on your STUPIDITY!

GOOD FAITH? HORSE SHIT!

Bush and Cheney LIED and forced Tenet to make a fake connection to WMDS in order to attack Iraq for profits and oil.

You are all supporting this shit by trying to revise history and excusing/defending their crooked asses to this day!

What Bush and Cheney REALLY knew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EstVJo6URdQ

A Halliburton employee confirms how our troops were mistreated and given contaminated water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctIgY3QtNg

EVEN FUCKING WORSE - look at the hearing where Halliburton/KBR should have received the "Corporate Death Penalty" for their part in killing American troops!

KBR/Halliburton electrocute U.S. troops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeNcAasonyg

You TPunks are STUPID, pathetic, uninformed losers who do nothing but get in the way of true justice. These crooks you vote for COUNT on your STUPIDITY! Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You are a liar. It is you and your ilk that seek to revise history, and for that you are despicable as shit. The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?” So fuck off with your ignorant liberal diatribe; you are profanely stupid and moronic, Little Stevie.

. The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If I shoot someone and say they have weapon and they don't is it then ok to say they probably would have had a weapon. You can never lose with that defense.

Bush from the start wanted to go after Saddam. Anybody that reads into the real history knows that. They thought it would be a cake walk and used 9/11 as the pretense to go in. It proved otherwise. They ran over anyone who questioned them, just ask Paul O'Neal. Saddam sealed his fate when he swapped dollars for oil to Euro's.

Obama can say he shot stimulis money to save the economy...call the recession WMD's (Obama's team thought the recession had WMD's) and you have the exact same defense that you are giving Bush.

If I shoot someone and say they have weapon and they don't is it then ok to say they probably would have had a weapon. You can never lose with that defense.

Bush from the start wanted to go after Saddam. Anybody that reads into the real history knows that. They thought it would be a cake walk and used 9/11 as the pretense to go in. It proved otherwise. They ran over anyone who questioned them, just ask Paul O'Neal. Saddam sealed his fate when he swapped dollars for oil to Euro's.

Obama can say he shot stimulis money to save the economy...call the recession WMD's (Obama's team thought the recession had WMD's) and you have the exact same defense that you are giving Bush. Originally Posted by WTF

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?”

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I think it's safe to assume you have no idea just how dumb you sound, so let me clue ya in.

If a sitting President makes a decision that turns out to be a total disaster, it doesn't matter what he thought he knew prior to making it. No matter how much guess-work goes into any particular decision, Presidents are tasked with one job and one job only; to get it right. Nowhere is this more important than in matters concerning war. Every President bases his decisions on what people tell him is a good idea, so your defense of Bush can be used to deflect blame from every President for every bad decision they've ever made.

If a President cuts taxes (or raises taxes) and that decision leads to a 3 year economic depression, the defense that "most economic advisers told him it would probably lead to economic expansion" would be laughed off this board and anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters.

You are that person.

I think it's safe to assume you have no idea just how dumb you sound, so let me clue ya in. Doofus, it's you that doesn't have a clue.
If a sitting President makes a decision that turns out to be a total disaster, it doesn't matter what he thought he knew prior to making it. No matter how much guess-work goes into any particular decision, Presidents are tasked with one job and one job only; to get it right. Nowhere is this more important than in matters concerning war. Every President bases his decisions on what people tell him is a good idea, so your defense of Bush can be used to deflect blame from every President for every bad decision they've ever made. In fact, Lincoln, FDR and Churchill had to make similar, unfortunate decisions. And at last report, Saddam Hussein and his two sons -- all complicit in mass murder -- were no longer ruling nor are they a persistent threat to international peace in Iraq.

If a President cuts taxes (or raises taxes) and that decision leads to a 3 year economic depression, the defense that "most economic advisers told him it would probably lead to economic expansion" would be laughed off this board and anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters. Doofus, you ignorant, lying twit, what about the 'Housing Bubble' super-fueled by Clinton's signing into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? It's so typical that your lying-revisionist ass would leave that out as the cause of a three year economic depression.

You are that person. Originally Posted by Doove

No Doofus, you are one of the dumbest posters in this forum because the fact remains: the WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors. Nothing you say can refute the findings of the WMD Commission and the Butler report. So quibble, quibble, quibble, you little twit.

If I shoot someone and say they have weapon and they don't is it then ok to say they probably would have had a weapon. You can never lose with that defense.

Bush from the start wanted to go after Saddam. Anybody that reads into the real history knows that. They thought it would be a cake walk and used 9/11 as the pretense to go in. It proved otherwise. They ran over anyone who questioned them, just ask Paul O'Neal. Saddam sealed his fate when he swapped dollars for oil to Euro's.

Obama can say he shot stimulis money to save the economy...call the recession WMD's (Obama's team thought the recession had WMD's) and you have the exact same defense that you are giving Bush. Originally Posted by WTF

I think it's safe to assume you have no idea just how dumb you sound, so let me clue ya in.

If a sitting President makes a decision that turns out to be a total disaster, it doesn't matter what he thought he knew prior to making it. No matter how much guess-work goes into any particular decision, Presidents are tasked with one job and one job only; to get it right. Nowhere is this more important than in matters concerning war. Every President bases his decisions on what people tell him is a good idea, so your defense of Bush can be used to deflect blame from every President for every bad decision they've ever made.

If a President cuts taxes (or raises taxes) and that decision leads to a 3 year economic depression, the defense that "most economic advisers told him it would probably lead to economic expansion" would be laughed off this board and anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters.

You are that person. Originally Posted by Doove

Excellent analogies, gentlemen!

And this is outstanding, Doove:

"...anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters.

You are that person."

It is the reason Hanky remains the only moron stupid enough to have a permanent place on my ignore list.

Excellent analogies, gentlemen!

And this is outstanding, Doove:

"...anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters.

You are that person."

It is the reason Hanky remains the only moron stupid enough to have a permanent place on my ignore list. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

Both are FALLACIOUS analogies; hence, that is why a pompous liar such as you finds them so praiseworthy.

BTW, being on YOUR 'ignore list' is an honor signifying you have yielded the field, and that you are the stupid moron.

He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Turns out he was hiding nothing. So what is everyone suppose to say, "sorry we thought you might hiding something, no hard feelings"

Turns out he was hiding nothing. So what is everyone suppose to say, "sorry we thought you might hiding something, no hard feelings" Originally Posted by BigLouie

No apology was or is necessary, BigLouse. You and these other three, bobble-headed, Kool Aid drinking distortionist are purposefully ignoring Saddam Hussein was -- and had been -- under obligation by numerous UN Sanctions to be honest and forthright: he wasn't, and that fact alone justified action.

Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on 8 November 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284).

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by Iraqi troops during the 1990–1991 invasion and occupation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_1441

Me:

If a President cuts taxes (or raises taxes) and that decision leads to a 3 year economic depression, the defense that "most economic advisers told him it would probably lead to economic expansion" would be laughed off this board and anyone who tried to use it would be considered the dumbest poster in the history of dumb posters.

Doofus, you ignorant, lying twit, what about the 'Housing Bubble' super-fueled by Clinton's signing into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? It's so typical that your lying-revisionist ass would leave that out as the cause of a three year economic depression. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What the heck are you talking about? I made an analogy (or 'straw man' if i were to use COG's parlance) using a pretend scenario. If you're too stupid to know what "if" means, then why is anyone even bothering themselves with you?

Me:
What the heck are you talking about? I made an analogy using a pretend scenario. If you're too stupid to know what "if" means, then why is anyone even bothering themselves with you? Originally Posted by Doove

Yeah, you offered a fallacious, off-topic analogy, Doofus.

Please do not present I B with FACTS it gives him diarrhea.

Please do not present I B with FACTS it gives him diarrhea. Originally Posted by ekim008

Doofus posted no 'facts' at #126, Ekim the Inbred. But since your inbreeding keeps you from recognizing a fact even if it bit you on your nose, you're excused.