Poverty Rate Reaches Highest Levels

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And the Majority of Congress

I am glad you're finally starting to come around. Damn, it took you long enough! Eight and a half years is a very long time! All of this time you would not acknowledge the WMD issue in Iraq was a mistake of historic proportuions. It seems you are now willing to debate who all was a part of GW's biggest lie! Indeed, this seems to be quite a leap for someone who has tried desperately to cover-up the lie and/or misconception for over eight years. We can have that debate on another date and another time. Let's take it one step at a time!

First step: When did I first know the WMD's were not and/or no longer in Iraq. I understand your memory is very selective, in layman's terms, you remember what you want to remember and nothing else. As you probably recall, (but hesitant to admit) I was very clear in the spring of 2003 and its immediate aftermath. I stated many times on the P that I did not know with certainty if there were WMD's at the time of the invasion. But I stated that I felt the weapons inspectors should be afforded the opportunity to determine once and for all, whether WMD's were still in existence within the Iraqi borders. Prior to the actual spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, I clearly had the patience to allow the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Equally as clearly, you did not! For the record, history has shown I was correct!

You obviously felt otherwise. You were invested heavily in Bush Kool-Aid stock at the time. Your theme was clear: Invade Iraq now and ask questions later. Your theory was that our involvement in Iraq was not going to last long and it would be a minimal cost factor. Man, were you ever proven wrong once again! Your theory was eventually blown out of the water to the tune of an 8+ year investment of time, over a trillion dollars of American taxpayers money and more importantly, thousands upon thousands of American lives. I argued otherwise but you had obviously drank the Bush Kool Aid.

To answer your question, when did I first know? I knew with certainty when the rest of the world knew! In other words, I had long suspected as much but I did not know with certainty. I suspect that you probably knew, as well. But you were too hardheaded to admit that you made a mistake!

Second step: I suppose the more appropriate question would be: Since you are now willing to acknowledge there were no WMD's in Iraq during the ill fated spring of 2003, when did you first know they were not there and why did you it take you so long to admit your mistake?

I responded to Step 1. It is now your turn! I anxiously await your response!!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I was very clear in the spring of 2003 and its immediate aftermath. I stated many times on the P that I did not know if there were WMD's at the time of the invasion.

Finally an admission that puts your "superior knowledge" ... "to bed."

Good night!

You have the luxury, as a critic of the then President, to "assume" that the weapons inspectors will be shown any WMD's to inspect in the five to six months you would give them to do so, but the President of the United States does not have that luxury, and, as I asked you before, which you did not answer ...

what "more" would you have had Clinton do?

Not knowing if the were there after 11-12 years is just as bad as knowing they were there and not doing anything about it. Even Scott Ritter proclaimed (after he was kicked out by the Iraqis in 1998) that it would take the Iraqis about six months to reconstitute the capacity to have them to deliver and they had the deliver systems with more on the way as we were invading in 2003. If the President is going to err I would prefer that he err on the side of prevention, particularly post-911.

That's the difference in your "philosophy" and mine on the topic. That we know ... stressing that fact ... no WMD's have been found ... that is all you know and that is all I know. And all of that is after the fact. In this scenario I prefer that there were none from 1991 to now, because if there were .... where are they?

But I am glad you re-affirmed that you did not know.

I knew Obama was incompetent.

That's why I didn't vote for him.

Looks like you are batting "zero" on "knowing" ....

And I am batting .500.

Unless, of course, you want to admit that you knew Obama was incompetent when you voted for him. Now you have to live with voting for a liar, when you have zero evidence that Bush lied about the existence of WMDs ... any more than Clinton, et al, lied about them.

Because if Clinton did lie about them being in Iraq in 1998, then where are they?

Good day to you.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Finally an admission that puts your "superior knowledge" ... "to bed."

I did not state anything that I had not stated to you previously!

Now on to the question that begs a response!

Since you are now willing to acknowledge there were no WMD's in Iraq during the ill fated spring of 2003, when did you first know they were not there and why did you it take you so long to admit your mistake?

I anxiously await your response!

[Fast Gunn]

Well, this thread is certainly shaping up like court room drama.

Spoken in a loud voice:

. . . The defendant is directed to answer the question.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Since you are now willing to acknowledge there were no WMD's in Iraq during the ill fated spring of 2003, when did you first know they were not there and why did you it take you so long to admit your mistake?

Your question assumes facts that are not in evidence.

I did not "know" (and do not know) that WMD's "were not there," ...

.... and neither did you (or do you!).

You have no way of KNOWING that WMD's were not there, then or now.

The rest of your hot air, is just that. To redirect the focus of the thread.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your question assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Well, this thread is certainly shaping up like court room drama.

Spoken in a loud voice:

. . . The defendant is directed to answer the question.

Thank you your Honor!

Mr. Defendent---Your previous response: "Your question assumes facts that are not in evidence." Those were the words of an individual who is doing his best to keep from answering a very simple question.

When you asked me to respond to essentially the same question. I did so! Do you have the balls to do the same?

You heard the Judge, you have been instructed to "answer the question?" If you would like to first take a deep breath and grow some balls, feel free to do so! But prior to Hell freezing over, just answer the damn question!

Question: When did you first know there was no longer WMD's in Iraq and why did it take you so long to admit your mistake?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Question: When did you first know there was no longer WMD's in Iraq and why did it take you so long to admit your mistake?

"I did not "know" (and do not know) that WMD's "were not there," ...

.... and neither did you (or do you!).

You have no way of KNOWING that WMD's were not there, then or now.

The rest of your hot air, is just that. To redirect the focus of the thread."

Asked and answered. I have reposted my answer.

A problem you have BT (but don't feel alone its contagious) is reading comprehension as it relates to the meaning of words. Using your standard (I thought a new one for you, but I see its not) the current President lies every day and will continue to lie every day until the moving van departs in 2013.

First, you do not understand the concept of "knowing" as it relates to proof. Secondly, because of that you do not comprehend the meaning of "lie" .... and more importantly you do not grasp the reality of the inability to find something not conclusively establishing that it never existed in the first place.

Since you at least participate in church functions, I can "assume" that you have some general understanding of the meaning of a "belief in God" among many (most) people in this country. Those people are generally identified as "believers" as opposed to "knowers"! In fact I do not recall ever having heard such persons being called "knowers." I suspect that is because they are satisfied in their belief that God exists. Ask them to prove God does, by telling you how they "know" God exists. By your standards God does not exist.

Since you have such a keen recollection of postings 8+ years ago you are aware that I never posted that I knew WMD's were in Iraq when coalition troops RE-entered Iraq in 2003, just like you didn't post that you knew there were none. Also, I do not recall posted back then that Bush lied. I suspect that you are "playing to an audience" and overstating your thoughts on the subject for an effect.

I have been consistent, though, in the concern that if they were not present when coalition troops RE-entered Iraq in 2003, I wanted to know what happened to them, because I happen to have believed Clinton in 1998 when he announced that Iraq had them, Congress authorized him to act with the same power as Congress authorized Bush, and Clinton acted on the authority.

And my question to you has never been answered, which was:

What more did you want Clinton to do in 1998 that he did not do?

I asked that question, and I am again to you, because you are an unwavering Clinton supporter and fan, and have never suggested he was lying (nor did I on the WMD's issue) about the presence of WMD's, and there was never any confirmation that Iraq had destroyed them or otherwise rid themselves of them, on the other hand there was information to the contrary during the intervening five years between 1998 and 2003.

That is the important question in the discussion, not the question that you devise for the purpose of attempting to detract from the real issue TODAY and that is the incompetence of the person you helped elect as President, who is passing out taxpayers' money like party favors to his buddies before he gets the boot in 2012.

Solyndra, et al.
Unemployment
Deficit
Lack of consumer confidence
Wasteful and useless spending
Eliminating US jobs .... keep your eyes on Clear Lake & League City

It would be neglectful of me to recall your man's disgusting criticism of this country (along with his wife) to the world in an effort to curry favor for himself. It is small wonder that he is "popular" overseas, although hardly respected. More photo ops; more campaign posters; more campaign clips.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...0,440510.story

"Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra"

"Steve Spinner, who helped monitor the Energy Department's issuance of $25 billion in government loan guarantees to renewable energy projects, was one of Obama's top fundraisers in 2008 and is raising money for the president's 2012 reelection campaign.

"Spinner did not have any role in the selection of applicants for the loan program and, in fact, was recused from the decision to grant a $535-million loan guarantee to Solyndra Inc. because his wife's law firm represented the company, administration officials said Friday."

Now we can add corruption,

... although I do recognize that if you, BT, cannot "see it" it does not exist ....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

All of this time you would not acknowledge the WMD issue in Iraq was a mistake of historic proportuions.


I responded to Step 1. It is now your turn! I anxiously await your response!!!!!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
_____________End of quotes from fellow Democrats____


I am humbled to be in the presence of such extraordinary men as BT. To even beable to respond to his address to me is overwhelming. I am in awe.

Too bad you didn't offer your intellectual and analytical expertise to all those uninformed, ignorant, inexperienced "want-a-bes" before they "pulled the trigger" and pushed the button voting "yes"!

Now, "awesome" old wise-one, may we return to reality and the threat topic ... Obama?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

. . . The defendant is directed to answer the question.

The Prosecution offers: Former President Bill Clinton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs&NR=1

[Guest040616]

LL, we have plowed your diversionary tactical grounds hundreds, if not thousands of times in the past. Each and every time you paint yourself in a corner you resort to diverting attention from the spring of 2003 back to the Clinton years. Whether there were WMD's in Iraq during the Clinton Administration has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there were any in Iraq during the spring of 2003. Hell, if it makes you feel better I will concede one more time (for probably the hundredth time) that there probably were. Do you feel better now?

The time period that matters was during the build up to the ill fated spring 2003 invasion. Whether there were WMD's in Iraq during the Clinton years had become a moot point by the spring of 2003. The ONLY reason the Weapons Inspectors were brought into Iraq during November of 2003 was the determine if Iraq still had WMD's, not if there were WMD's in Iraq during the Clinton Administration.

I have said all along, why was there a rush to war during the spring of 2003? Why not give the weapons inspectors the additional 5-6 months to determine whether they were still in existence. I clearly stated at the time to allow the inspectors to complete their mission prior to an invasion. You drank the Bush Kool-Aid and said go ahead and invade and ask questions later.

Since you obviously are doing your best to keep from answering the previous question, let's simplify the request:

QUESTION FOR LL: Should the Weapons Inspectors have been afforded the opportunity during the spring of 2003 to complete their mission prior to the Bush Administration authorizing the invasion that eventually led to an 8 + year war at a cost of $1 trillion + and over 4500 American lives?

A simple yes or no will suffice!

[Laz]

If Iraq is a stable democracy the lives in peace with the rest of the world and its citizens have freedom from fear, torture, murder, etc. 20 years from now will you give a shit about why Bush invaded or whether it was worth the cost in lives and money?

I have concerns about whether that will happen but it is a possibility that only time will tell. What was done is done and even Obama realized the only remaining course was to let this process play out which is why he followed the Bush plan in Iraq. So let this lie and move on.

[charlestudor2005]

Boy, talk about thread hijack: how did we get from current poverty in the US to WMD in the mideast????

Attention Mods!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Whether there were WMD's in Iraq during the Clinton Administration has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there were any in Iraq during the spring of 2003.

Not in your mind, of course. But this discussion is not about your mind.Or it would have been "done" long ago.

"how did we get from current poverty in the US to WMD in the mideast????"

Please ask BT.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

If it is the $$$$ that you are concerned with, why did you not compalin about the $1 trillion the Bush Administration spent on a fruitless search for WMD's that no longer existed. .... It seems to be quite apparent that you would prefer to promote job growth in Iraq!

Here you go .... tudor2005

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Well, this thread is certainly shaping up like court room drama.

Spoken in a loud voice:

. . . The defendant is directed to answer the question.

Changing the topic of conversation happens frequently in political threads! That seems to be the nature of the beast, with the beast being how things intertwine in political decision making. It appears to me that the thread starter wanted LL to answer a simple question! For obvious reasons, LL is very reluctant to admit he was wrong! LOL