[jbartone]

For everyone who hasnt read his speech yet...

Transcript:
http://www.moveon.org/gore/speech2.html

Video:
http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.a...re&SortBy=date
Currently the top link there, and it's in Real Media format.

[MacGorilla]

Ya he did. Thats what every democratic candidate should be saying over and over if they want to get rid of Dubya.

[Developer]

That's over an hour!

Could you summarize please.

[Shaddim]

The man couldn't hit himself on the head... or maybe that's his problem. Damn, he's such an idiot. I've met him several times (I live close to his former "home" in TN). He has a good speech writer, but overall, he's a complete dimwit.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He has a good speech writer, but overall, he's a complete dimwit.

Reminds me of someone else....

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
Reminds me of someone else....

Yeah, I'm not too fond of Dubya either. Though, it would be difficult to imagine many political figures who are less intelligent than Gore. It's not hard for me to picture them tossing spitwads at each other on the short bus.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
The man couldn't hit himself on the head... or maybe that's his problem. Damn, he's such an idiot. I've met him several times (I live close to his former "home" in TN). He has a good speech writer, but overall, he's a complete dimwit.

Now I am no fan of Al Gore - he is a political mess and proved to the American people in 2000 that he didn't have a single original or inspiring issue to offer them. Even so Steve Jobs thinks highly of him and that is a man that doesn't suffer any fools in his company. I would not call Gore an idiot or a complete dimwit. He made some mistakes in his 2000 campaign but he isn't stupid enough to run in 2004 which is a sign of wisdom. The speech he made shows he can pick the right speechwriters and he can hold people's attention for more than 50 minutes at a time. Now this is a guy that is not running for president and he is talking better than any of the Democratic candidates. Respect your enemy, know and learn from him. Dismissing him as an idiot is risky.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, I'm not too fond of Dubya either. Though, it would be difficult to imagine many political figures who are less intelligent than Gore. It's not hard for me to picture them tossing spitwads at each other on the short bus.

tbh I don't know much about Gore's intellect (!) But I still think Bush would beat anyone at being a complete dumbass!

Regardless, Gore raises some good, important points in that speech.

[Millennium]

You know, when civil liberties are abused so badly that even Gore -one of the chief proponents of the Clipper Chip- sees fit to complain, you know it's bad.

I loathe Gore, and I think he would have handled 9/11 even worse than Bush did, in all possible aspects. However, I can't fault him for this speech, even if it does seem to be a reversal of his previous position.

[eklipse]

Why the hell wasn't he making speeches like that when he was running for President?

[nvaughan3]

More like someone hit a nail into gore's head.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Why the hell wasn't he making speeches like that when he was running for President?

Because in a Presidential campaign, he'd actually have to allow the opponent to respond (revisit: Bush-Gore debates).

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Why the hell wasn't he making speeches like that when he was running for President?

He's recently hired a better speech writer.

Now I am no fan of Al Gore - he is a political mess and proved to the American people in 2000 that he didn't have a single original or inspiring issue to offer them. Even so Steve Jobs thinks highly of him and that is a man that doesn't suffer any fools in his company. I would not call Gore an idiot or a complete dimwit. He made some mistakes in his 2000 campaign but he isn't stupid enough to run in 2004 which is a sign of wisdom. The speech he made shows he can pick the right speechwriters and he can hold people's attention for more than 50 minutes at a time. Now this is a guy that is not running for president and he is talking better than any of the Democratic candidates. Respect your enemy, know and learn from him. Dismissing him as an idiot is risky.

Jobs thought highly of Gore's name recognition. Sitting on a BOD doesn't take much in the way of brain power.

We in TN, who know him best, have been dismissing him for quite some time now.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Even so Steve Jobs thinks highly of him and that is a man that doesn't suffer any fools in his company.

In that case, perhaps the US should appoint Jobs to be in charge of selecting our Presidents.

Dismissing him as an idiot is risky.

No, overseeing the disintegration of out intelligence services (revisit: Clinton/Gore slash agencies' budgets) is risky.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In that case, perhaps the US should appoint Jobs to be in charge of selecting our Presidents.
No, overseeing the disintegration of out intelligence services (revisit: Clinton/Gore slash agencies' budgets) is risky.

Clinton hasn't been president for nearly 4 years. Gore has never been president.

Move on.

Move on.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Clinton hasn't been president for nearly 4 years. Gore has never been president.

Move on.

Move on.

Gore was VP to Clinton less than 4 years ago.

Being that this is a thread on Gore, I see no need to 'move on'.

Being that this is a thread on Gore, I see no need to 'move on'.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
In that case, perhaps the US should appoint Jobs to be in charge of selecting our Presidents.
No, overseeing the disintegration of out intelligence services (revisit: Clinton/Gore slash agencies' budgets) is risky.

If you think you have to be smarter to become President than to serve with Steve Jobs in a real business ... I don't know how to break it to you but Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison to name a few are all more INTELLIGENT than most recent presidents of the United States. I am NO FAN of Al Gore and I am certainly 100% behind my president MAKE NO MISTAKE. However I trust Steve Jobs to pick a more INTELLIGENT person to serve with him to make Apple a good company than voters here in America. I wouldn't want Steve Jobs to pick the President - I never said so. I voted Bush and I will again - but to dismiss the competition as stupid is not a good idea.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because in a Presidential campaign, he'd actually have to allow the opponent to respond (revisit: Bush-Gore debates).

And respond his opponent did, oh boy did he:

"My opponent seems to think that Social Security is a federal program. I believe that money is yours and you should be able to invest it yourself."

"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"

"If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it."

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
If you think you have to be smarter to become President than to serve with Steve Jobs in a real business ... I don't know how to break it to you but Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison to name a few are all more INTELLIGENT than most recent presidents of the United States. I am NO FAN of Al Gore and I am certainly 100% behind my president MAKE NO MISTAKE. However I trust Steve Jobs to pick a more INTELLIGENT person to serve with him to make Apple a good company than voters here in America. I wouldn't want Steve Jobs to pick the President - I never said so. I voted Bush and I will again - but to dismiss the competition as stupid is not a good idea.

I may not agree with our current president's policies, but I respect your opinion as you've stated it here.

See folks, it is possible to discuss politics without demonizing everyone who doesn't agree with you as "hateful", "stupid", or other such nonsense.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
I don't know how to break it to you but Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison to name a few are all more INTELLIGENT than most recent presidents of the United States... <snip>...I wouldn't want Steve Jobs to pick the President - I never said so. I voted Bush and I will again - but to dismiss the competition as stupid is not a good idea.

Thanks for the clarification.

As for Gates and Jobs, I don't know how you have measured their intelligence (fortunately, not the only factor in one's preparedness to become president), but I do know that having bachelors degrees wouldn't hurt their chances should they decide to seek high office. Maybe throw in some graduate degrees as well, and I'm not talking about those honorary degrees that they receive. Just a recommendation.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
No, overseeing the disintegration of out intelligence services (revisit: Clinton/Gore slash agencies' budgets) is risky.

Our intelligence was still good enough to predict the mire in which we've landed ourselves in Iraq�not that anyone in the administration wanted to listen.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Our intelligence was still good enough to predict the mire in which we've landed ourselves in Iraq�not that anyone in the administration wanted to listen.

That is the problem. People in administration heard only what they wanted to hear from the intelligence community.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
That is the problem. People in administration heard only what they wanted to hear from the intelligence community.

Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, 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 refine 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." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained 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 capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"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. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

[RooneyX]

Why do people attack the man for being a little slow minded instead of what's being said? What's the agenda against civil liberty here? Don't say there isn't one because otherwise the points raised would have been addressed instead. The guy's fighting for 'your rights' taken away by the Bush mob and all you can do is insult him?

[petehammer]

Yup, Spacefreak, even Bush's dad was speaking out on the issue!

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different � and perhaps barren � outcome.

GHWBush, A World Transformed

[swrate]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

no, the french intelligence had men in service in Iraq
they left before the US arrived.
Chirac knew they had them
until 96(see rapport Blix) but stopped working on them =others making them
the Russians also know more about the story

US forgot, Europe, Middle East, asia, we are the other bloc, other side of the ocean, in touch with another reality, time/space

did any one of you read any of Old Europes Inteligence analysis or other, (japan, india)
so much more complicated as it may seem


How can you blame the Intelligence?
Some who talked openly were killed (Dr.Kelly)

knowing all these good wise people die hurts me. -ONU-

i hope goulags, concentration camps, stadiums with prisonners will never exist in the future, am I dreaming....
saddam had a small organized one,
how many leaders are into that trend?

havent we learned yet?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

Really? Every intelligence organization? The quotes you've included to support your statement don't reflect the analysis and conclusions of any intelligence organizations. They only show the opinions of politicians attempting to use the issue to their advantage.

Even the CIA was unable to conclude that Saddam had WMDs.

[adamk]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Yup, Spacefreak, even Bush's dad was speaking out on the issue!

GHWBush, A World Transformed

i am pretty sure this quote applied to the first gulf war, and therefore, is out of context for the most recent conflict.

the goal was to get saddam out of kuwait, not get saddam out of iraq. which was clearly the case in 2003.

though, i think bush sr. was right: "the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land".

adam

[adamk]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

there are lots of "may", "coulds", "indicates", etc. in those quotes from politicians.

saying something doesn't make it true. nor does it prove it false. only finding said WMD will ultimately prove or disprove their statements. and given the severity of allegations in the above quotes, not finding any evidence for the types of programs described, should make one pause before taking them at face value.

adam

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by adamk:
there are lots of "may", "coulds", "indicates", etc. in those quotes from politicians.

saying something doesn't make it true. nor does it prove it false. only finding said WMD will ultimately prove or disprove their statements. and given the severity of allegations in the above quotes, not finding any evidence for the types of programs described, should make one pause before taking them at face value.

My post was in reply to a post that stated "People in administration heard only what they wanted to hear from the intelligence community."

I was simply proving that many outside the administration "heard" the same thing from the intelligence community.

It's always recommended that one read the post to which someone is replying to. Doing so often helps one in understanding the context in which an argument is utilized and aimed.

[swrate]

Originally posted by adamk:
there are lots of "may", "coulds", "indicates", etc. in those quotes from politicians.

saying something doesn't make it true. nor does it prove it false. only finding said WMD will ultimately prove or disprove their statements. and given the severity of allegations in the above quotes, not finding any evidence for the types of programs described, should make one pause before taking them at face value.

adam

how could the US not know, since they helped them in that quest.

Blix didnt think Iraqis were stocking on them
They couldnt reach Tel Aviv with the weapons they had.

Terrorist organizations move.

I was siddered to read these wise words from his father.

Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.......


GW suddenly thought the situation changed
if he had stayed a few weeks in Iraq maybe he would of realized.
Making deals there is not easy.

Did the response to agression change?
Determine Iraq as the agressor?
after hunting vainly

Didnt Iraq Afghanistan and and... "pay" enough for ll
Why persecute populations?







So strange wonder if his father changed his mind in between
or if he decided to go his own way
Free masons

Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Really? Every intelligence organization? The quotes you've included to support your statement don't reflect the analysis and conclusions of any intelligence organizations. They only show the opinions of politicians attempting to use the issue to their advantage.

The quotes I posted were in reply to a post that stated "People in administration heard only what they wanted to hear from the intelligence community."

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The quotes I posted were in reply to a post that stated "People in administration heard only what they wanted to hear from the intelligence community."

If that is the case, then what is your statement "every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them" in reply to?

"Many outside the administration "[hearing]" the same thing from the intelligence community" has nothing to do with "Every intelligence organization in the world [having] the same analysis and conclusion", especially if you're not quoting statments based upon intel of agencies other than the CIA.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by swrate:
Some who talked openly were killed (Dr.Kelly)

Did i miss the investigation determining this was a murder?

I know I didn't miss this: BBC Correspondent admits errors in report on Iraq intelligence. Some of the details:

BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan apologized to a judicial inquiry for making several mistakes in his May 29 radio broadcast that sparked a bitter three-month dispute with the British government over the accuracy of Gilligan's report.

In his appearance before the judicial inquiry investigating the apparent suicide of biological weapons expert David Kelly, Gilligan apologized for misidentifying Kelly as his confidential "intelligence source" who told him that the Blair government had deliberately embellished its prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons capabilities.

He said he regretted sending an email to a member of parliament in which he called Kelly "my intelligence source," when in fact Kelly did not work for an intelligence agency.

"I was under an enormous amount of pressure at this time and I simply was not thinking straight," Gilligan told the judicial inquiry, led by senior judge Lord Hutton.

Gilligan conceded that the theory that the Blair government was manipulating intelligence was his own, not his source's

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
If that is the case, then what is your statement "every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them" in reply to?

It was in addition to my reply.

I have yet to find one intelligence agency that had concluded (pre-March 2003) Saddam didn't have or wasn't developing WMD. Furthermore, if you read the the Kay Report , you would have seen that after inspecting only 10 of 130 weapons sites in Iraq, it is undeniable that Saddam was in clear violation of UN resoultions (both conventional weapons and WMD), including resolution 1441, and that their WMD research and development was undeniably ongoing.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion: Saddam had WMD, was a threat to use them,

So much effort to so little effect.

Yes, a lot of people believed Saddam had an arsenal; some were honest enough to admit he may not have one, but that he wanted to build one. That's not what I'm talking about.

The Bush administration were warned repeatedly that US soldiers would not be universally beloved as liberators, and that the occupation of Iraq would involve much more time, money, and manpower than the neoconservatives fantasized it would. Suddenly finding a cache of bona fide WMDs would do little to nothing to alleviate the burden we've needlessly placed on ourselves in taking on the rule of a foreign state without adequate planning and preparation.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Every intelligence organization in the world had the same analysis and conclusion

..Including Joe Lieberman? I remember I once believed it too -- although I'm no more an international intelligence agency than Lieberman. Why? Because Bush kept on claiming that he had all sorts of evidence that couldn't yet, but would soon, be made public. When senators on the Intelligence Committee came out in public saying that Bush was playing the same game with them -- claiming to have evidence, but refusing to show it -- I stopped believing. I think some of the quotes you have collected are from the period before congressmen started breaking ranks and publicly demanding more evidence from the Administration.

Basically, Bush ignored our intelligence on Iraq, on WMD and other areas. The uranium claim from his State of the Union speech is a good example. And when this became public, the White House retaliated by exposing an undercover American spy.

For political goals, Bush treats the intelligence as malleable and the intelligence agents who collect it as expendable. And you blame Clinton?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
So much effort to so little effect.

Yes, a lot of people believed Saddam had an arsenal; some were honest enough to admit he may not have one, but that he wanted to build one. That's not what I'm talking about.

The Bush administration were warned repeatedly that US soldiers would not be universally beloved as liberators, and that the occupation of Iraq would involve much more time, money, and manpower than the neoconservatives fantasized it would. Suddenly finding a cache of bona fide WMDs would do little to nothing to alleviate the burden we've needlessly placed on ourselves in taking on the rule of a foreign state without adequate planning and preparation.

excellent post.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
So much effort to so little effect.

Yes, a lot of people believed Saddam had an arsenal; some were honest enough to admit he may not have one, but that he wanted to build one. That's not what I'm talking about.

The Bush administration were warned repeatedly that US soldiers would not be universally beloved as liberators, and that the occupation of Iraq would involve much more time, money, and manpower than the neoconservatives fantasized it would. Suddenly finding a cache of bona fide WMDs would do little to nothing to alleviate the burden we've needlessly placed on ourselves in taking on the rule of a foreign state without adequate planning and preparation.

See, here's the thing, spacefreak (or whatever your latest name is), *everyone* is onto the PNAC thing. Hooray for the internet. You are toast. Go get a real job, sucker. Maybe back in whichever 'cheap-labor' think-tank you crawled out of?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by petehammer:
Yup, Spacefreak, even Bush's dad was speaking out on the issue!



GHWBush, A World Transformed

Just wanted to poke in on this posting. Nice work, pete. I see it has been ignored. Not by everyone.

[davesimondotcom]

Yes, but did he INVENT the nail? Or the hammer?

(We all know that Bill invented [the] head)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It was in addition to my reply.

If it was in addition to your reply, why was it between the statement you were replying to and the quotes you were using in your reply to that statement.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I have yet to find one intelligence agency that had concluded (pre-March 2003) Saddam didn't have or wasn't developing WMD. Furthermore, if you read the the Kay Report , you would have seen that after inspecting only 10 of 130 weapons sites in Iraq, it is undeniable that Saddam was in clear violation of UN resoultions (both conventional weapons and WMD), including resolution 1441, and that their WMD research and development was undeniably ongoing.

I have yet to find one intelligence agency that had concluded (pre March 2003) Saddam did have or was developing WMDs. Being in violation of the UN resolutions against it doesn't mean that Iraq had or was developing WMDs. There were many elements in those resolutions that have nothing to do with WMDs.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by gadster:
See, here's the thing, spacefreak (or whatever your latest name is), *everyone* is onto the PNAC thing. Hooray for the internet. You are toast. Go get a real job, sucker. Maybe back in whichever 'cheap-labor' think-tank you crawled out of?

I have never posted under any other name here. Nice try on the accusation.

I have a great job, thanks. Perhaps you should learn to argue with more substance and lighten up on the personal attacks.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I have yet to find one intelligence agency that had concluded (pre March 2003) Saddam did have or was developing WMDs.

Read the Kay report. Check out the UN's recorded inventory of Saddam's WMD stocks (pre-March 2003). Read some Clinton anti-Saddam speeches from 1998.

[maxelson]

read the reports of how many WMDs the single most powerful nation on earth in concert with the single most effective intelligence machine on earth have found. end of the day the scoreboard still reads the same... oh... except for the fatalities.
clinton got a blowjob and lied about it. didja hear?

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Just wanted to poke in on this posting. Nice work, pete. I see it has been ignored. Not by everyone.

You must have missed this excellent reply by adamk:

Originally posted by adamk:
i am pretty sure this quote applied to the first gulf war, and therefore, is out of context for the most recent conflict.

the goal was to get saddam out of kuwait, not get saddam out of iraq. which was clearly the case in 2003.

[maxelson]

I know precisely why and when it was written. Oddly accurate as a forecaster. Wasn't it. Maybe we need that other guy back. The older one.

[Spliffdaddy]

I wasn't aware that Clinton got a blowjob.

I do know he lied under oath, though.

What was the point of quoting Dubya's daddy about a different war that happened over a decade ago? That was stupid.

[maxelson]

Stupid is not taking a look at history.
Stupid is not being able to draw a correlation.
Stupid is not reading THEN into NOW.
Stupid is not being able to think critically about the situation.
Stupid is doing all you can to create more divisions.
Stupid is towing a party line and not questioning. No. Wait. That's treason. Yeah. Treason.
Traitor. Aintcha.

The harder you fight, the more I will see that you have no argument. That you have no sense other than the sense you are told to have. That you weakly clamber and grasp at straws.
Hit a nerve, did I?

What will you do when you discover Bush lied? Or maybe not him. Maybe Rove. Maybe Rumsfeld. Maybe some asshat in the CIA.
No matter. He's the leader. His fault. Right?


Oh. Oh yeah.

After all. It's only talk.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I wasn't aware that Clinton got a blowjob.

There we have it. Proof that Spliffdaddy has nothing relevant to say because he's been living under a rock for years.

Yes, Spliff, Clinton got a blowjob which caused some Republicans, who had never heard of such a thing much less experienced one, to blow their tops and try and take down Clinton. It was a really silly affair, showed how partisan the Republican party has become. Too bad you missed out on it.

I would also like to point out that it has been some time since Clinton has been president. To keep bringing it up makes it look like you are stuck in the past.