• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran'

2 words: Common Sense
Yes.. in a situation where you cannot possibly have 100% of the facts, it is common sense to act based on the perponderance of evidence.
Thanks for agreeing with me.
 
Yes.. in a situation where you cannot possibly have 100% of the facts, it is common sense to act based on the perponderance of evidence.
Thanks for agreeing with me.

Once again, 2 words: Common Sense
 
I'll take these as concessions of the points, in that you cannot support your positions any further -- its YOUR job to "look it up", not mine.

Take it as you will. I have not the time today to rummage through my library to give you quotes. Ultimately, voters decided which method they trusted. I do not have to provide you the results of that do I?
 
Take it as you will. I have not the time today to rummage through my library to give you quotes. Ultimately, voters decided which method they trusted. I do not have to provide you the results of that do I?
True -- Bush did beat Kerry fairly convincingly.
 
Here watch this video clip of both Powell and Rice stating that Iraq was not a threat.
Sorry -- I thought the conversation was over, as the voters decided who they trusted. I guess you didnt want to leave it at that?

How do you know that what Powell/Rice said in 2001 was correct?
 
Sorry -- I thought the conversation was over, as the voters decided who they trusted. I guess you didnt want to leave it at that?

How do you know that what Powell/Rice said in 2001 was correct?

......are you serious? Where are the nukes they said weren't there? Oh yeah, they weren't there.
 
Sorry -- I thought the conversation was over, as the voters decided who they trusted. I guess you didnt want to leave it at that?

How do you know that what Powell/Rice said in 2001 was correct?

On that, you know I was talking about this past election. Presidents never change in the middle of war, I should hope that you know that and do not proof.

Anyway, if I cannot trust them then, why should I have trusted them when they contradicted themselves and were arguing for war. You are cherry picking. Regardless, I tire of this conversation, you nor I will be convinced.
 
......are you serious? Where are the nukes they said weren't there? Oh yeah, they weren't there.
Please, follow along.
We're diuscussing information availabel before the invasion.
 
Please, follow along.
We're diuscussing information availabel before the invasion.

You said how do we know they were either correct/incorrect. I answered. If you want to cherry pick as tlmorg said, go on ahead, and waste everyone's time. The fact remains, the war in Iraq was perpetuated because of a lack of intelligence/competence in the Oval Office.
 
On that, you know I was talking about this past election.
The last election didnt involve Bush or Cheney, and so does nothing to prove your point.

The 2004 election, however, which took place after all the information we're discussing here was made public, DID involve Bush and Cheney and their method for deciding how to act.

Thus, Americans decided that they trusted them and their method.
Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

Anyway, if I cannot trust them then...
America trusted them in 2004... why didn't you?

And tell me -- did you trust Clinton/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/et al?
After all, they said the same thing that Bush/Cheney did.
 
You said how do we know they were either correct/incorrect. I answered.
An out-of-context asnwer is meaningless.

The fact remains, the war in Iraq was perpetuated because of a lack of intelligence/competence in the Oval Office.
This isnt a fact, this is partisan bigotry.
 
The last election didnt involve Bush or Cheney, and so does nothing to prove your point.

The 2004 election, however, which took place after all the information we're discussing here was made public, DID involve Bush and Cheney and their method for deciding how to act.

Thus, Americans decided that they trusted them and their method.
Not sure how you can argue otherwise.


America trusted them in 2004... why didn't you?

And tell me -- did you trust Clinton/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/et al?
After all, they said the same thing that Bush/Cheney did.

Look at what tlmorg said goob.

And Clinton, Gore and Kerry led us into a war that has resulted in thousands of Americans killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed? And they led us into that same war based on the falsely held belief that there were WMD's in Iraq? And they had a reasonable amount of intelligence that contradicted said WMD accusation? Hmmm......
 
An out-of-context asnwer is meaningless.

This isnt a fact, this is partisan bigotry.

1. Don't side-step the answer because it crushes the foundations of your arguement.

2. So failing your way through both Yale and Harvard after your father got you in isn't a lack of intelligence? Now that's partisan ignorance.
 
Look at what tlmorg said goob.
I did, and I addressed it.
If his standard -- 'look at the election results' -- is sound, then America agreed with the method used to decide our course of action, and trusted the people that made those decisions.

And Clinton, Gore and Kerry led us into a war that has resulted in thousands of Americans killed, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's killed?
You DO know that they all publicly agreed with the intel assessmant of Iraq, yes?
Did you or did you not trust their assessments?
 
1. Don't side-step the answer because it crushes the foundations of your arguement.
I didnt. I told you how it is meaningless.
You dont have to like that fact, but it is a fact.

2. So failing your way through both Yale and Harvard after your father got you in isn't a lack of intelligence? Now that's partisan ignorance.
No... proof of a lack of intelligence and partisan bigotry is holding the belief that GWB failed thru Yale and Harvard.
He does, after all, have degrees from those places.
How about you?
 
I did, and I addressed it.
If his standard -- 'look at the election results' -- is sound, then America agreed with the method used to decide our course of action, and trusted the people that made those decisions.


You DO know that they all publicly agreed with the intel assessmant of Iraq, yes?
Did you or did you not trust their assessments?

1. Not that. Look back a few posts, there was something you missed, which was rather crucial.

2. You do know they aren't part of the President's Cabinet, or involved in activities in the WH, do you not? Therefore, they did not get the same intelligence reports except what the Shrub decided to let loose.
 
1. Not that. Look back a few posts, there was something you missed, which was rather crucial.
If you want me to address it, you'll have to specify it. I'm not going to try to guess what you mean.

2. You do know they aren't part of the President's Cabinet, or involved in activities in the WH, do you not? Therefore, they did not get the same intelligence reports except what the Shrub decided to let loose
You didnt answer my question.
Did you or did you not trust their assessments?
 
I didnt. I told you how it is meaningless.
You dont have to like that fact, but it is a fact.


No... proof of a lack of intelligence and partisan bigotry is holding the belief that GWB failed thru Yale and Harvard.
He does, after all, have degrees from those places.
How about you?

1. No, I'm talking about a fact you completely ignored, look for it.

2. He did fail his way through both yale and Harvard. And maybe you don't know, but I'm 15 and my dad won't be the Senator/POTUS by the time I'm about to enter college. ;)
 
If you want me to address it, you'll have to specify it. I'm not going to try to guess what you mean.


You didnt answer my question.
Did you or did you not trust their assessments?

"On that, you know I was talking about this past election. Presidents never change in the middle of war, I should hope that you know that and do not proof."

I ignore all assesments, and look for the information that led to said assessments. And seeing as they were told that Iraq had WMD's by Bush, and didn't have anything else to go on, only a partisan hack would attack them for not being told the entire truth.
 
1. No, I'm talking about a fact you completely ignored, look for it.
I'm not sure how think think I'll know which 'fact' that is w/o you telling me.
So, I'll just assume you arent serious about it and let is go.

But, thanks again for agreeing with me in that it is common sense to act according to the perponderance of evidence.

2. He did fail his way through both yale and Harvard.
So... he -didnt- graduate?
He -doesnt- have degrees from those places?
As I said:
To hold that belief is proof of a lack of intelligence -and- partisan bigotry
 
So... he -didnt- graduate?
He -doesnt- have degrees from those places?
As I said:
To hold that belief is proof of a lack of intelligence -and- partisan bigotry

What part of "failed his way through" do you not understand???
 
I did, and I addressed it.
If his standard -- 'look at the election results' -- is sound, then America agreed with the method used to decide our course of action, and trusted the people that made those decisions.

Tell me, the Goob, if this past election wasn't a referendum on Bush/Cheney, then why did McCain do his best to distance himself from them? Why did he blame their policies for his loss? You know as well as I that voters never change Presidents during war time. People were already questioning Bush/Cheney on Iraq, it wasn't until they realized it was a total failure, prior to the surge, that Bush's numbers plummetted to the lowest approval rating ever for a sitting President.

As earlier stated, I do not feel that Bush meant any harm to this country ever. But if he, in his good intentions, would have listened to Powell and others when they tried to have him hold-off on the invasion, then he would still be a favored president. Instead, Cheney fed him the questionable intel, he acted and the rest is history. There, I have said my piece on the matter, and I hope Iraq stands the test of time.
 
Back
Top Bottom