Who in here would still have invaded Iraq in 2003? We know JD , LL and LustingGayAss would!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

He gave you a beat down with the previous posts, proving his assertions, and you still lie away. You are lame.

Whould you invade Iraq knowing then what you know now?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

He didn't write that book. You flat-out lied you piece of shit. He didn't misrepresent.

You'd be the lying, cock-sucking POS, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. The book shows Cheney's remark in context and illustrates how lying cock-suckers like you and Matthews misrepresent what Cheney actually said and then, in turn, misrepresent Morell's position, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

How about you answer the question now LL. Pretend you are Jeb Bush...Knowing then what you know now would you still invade Iraq in 2003?

How about it LL ,JD and LustingForCocks. Can you three answer the Megan Kelly question?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WTF

How about it LL ,JD and LustingForCocks. Can you three answer the Megan Kelly question?

We are waiting...for the response...from LL...and his merry band of Idiots...

...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock.. .Tick...Tock...and so on...and so forth...

While on the subject...of waiting...where's the link...LLIdiot?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by DSK

He gave you a beat down with the previous posts, proving his assertions, and you still lie away. You are lame.

JLIdiot, errr DSKIdiot, who pulled your friggin' chain?

But since you decided to stick your elongated nose where it does not belong...

Would you invade Iraq knowing then (spring of 2003) what you know now?

[shanm]

Originally Posted by DSK

He gave you a beat down with the previous posts, proving his assertions, and you still lie away. You are lame.

Jesus Christ you are a fucking ass kisser. Everyone from here to Shanghai can see LLIdiot's ass being ripped apart.

You mewing like a bitch in his support doesn't effect anything, except the fact that we consider you a bigger ass kisser and butt boy than we did before.

[JD Barleycorn]

What would we have done with the information that we had on March 20, 2003 which was the same information that Bill Clinton had in 1998? We would have gone to war with Iraq. No reasonable person would not have (ask Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry). Why? Lets see...
Saddam gave shelter to terrorists who had killed Americans. Why allow anyone to shelter terrorists is beyond me but there is more.
Saddam attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States and we can't allow that to pass if that name was Bush, Clinton, or Obama.
Hussein had used WMDs to kill over 100,000 civilians in his own country and still maintained that he had them (which was backed up by most, if not all, intelligence sources in the world).
We had to smack down some Islamic, Middle Eastern leader to send a message (pick one: Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi, Khamanei, etc).
Hussein had corrupted the oil to food program with United Nations.
Hussein had tortured and murdered thousands (tens of thousands) of his own people and anyone that he caught and determined to be a spy.
Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement that he had signed with the allied nations in 1991 which included firing on US aircraft, holding Americans hostage, not delivering US airman to safety, etc.

We had a solid interest in taking someone down (Khaddafi gave up his WMD program because of Iraq) for WMDs (the New York Times predicted on many occasions a chemcial weapon attack on our troops so they believed). Hussein (and his sons) were just evil people who kind of deserved what they got. This is the justification for the original invasion. Do you want to talk about how the peace was bungled by both Bush and Obama? Then say so.

[WTF]

This is the justification for the original invasion. Do you want to talk about how the peace was bungled by both Bush and Obama? Then say so.[/QUOTE]
JD,
Shall i put that down as a yes you would still send 4k plus soldiers to their death?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Two things: Your distortion is this: You, BigTits, were ONLY OPPOSED to the timing of the invasion, because you wanted some additional time for inspections, but you were not opposed to the invasion. Just the timing. What you would not say, and still not say, is how much time needed to pass for you to agree to starting the invasion. And you still have not made that commitment. So you are literally wrong when you say you were "n opposition."

Your second distortion is my position. I have repeatedly stated that given the information that was reportedly available to the decision makers of the time and the overall basis for the invasion AT THE TIME the decision to invade was the proper decision .... thus my criticism of you repeatedly of your "20-20 hindsight xray" vision, because you have repeatedly claimed you were correct there were no WMDs found.

WTF has also repeatedly stated "no WMDs were found," so we should not have conducted the invasion. Again 20-20 hindsight. WTF may have been opposed to the invasion no matter what was found afterwards. Frankly, I do not recall WTF posting on the issue in the ASPD days. If he did.

To put that in context of today's reality ... look at Iran. #1: Does Iran have a functional, deliverable nuclear warhead? #2: Does Iran have a functioning program with facilities to develop a deliverable nuclear warhead? #3: How long will it take Iran to develop a functioning, deliverable nuclear warhead.

Neither you, BigTits, nor WTF can post a link in which I stated ..

"Knowing what is known now then I would have agreed with the invasion of Iraq in 2003."

And to be extremely specific with you guys, who delete, modify, distort, and interpret what people say to make your points ... "then" was the day before the invasion began .. and "now" is May 25, 2015.

And as far as I am concerned if you all cannot produce that link, either Eccie or ASPD, you are both liars. Don't put YOUR INTERPRETATIONS ON IT or DELETE PORTIONS OF WHAT I POSTED .... and give a link that is functional.

The purpose and motivation of this thread is one: To marginalize and vilify those persons who are listed in another effort on both your parts to discredit them with, again, distortions and misrepresentations. And you do it with your assertions of "100% certainty" .... As I said, my recollection of your position, BigTits, is the correct one, and you have so acknowledged on Eccie.

Logically, had WTF been opposed to the invasion regardless of what was found AFTERWARDS, then it would not be important for him to continually argue that Bush-Cheney LIED and that no WMDs were found. He would be ON RECORD PRIOR to the invasion that he was opposed to it REGARDLESS of what Iraq may be doing or what may be found.... after the invasion.

As it relates to current events: On YOUR CURRENT ANALYSIS of Iraq, you both, BigTits and WTF, would be opposed to military action against Iran to stop its WMDs programs BEFORE they develop a functioning, deliverable weapons system.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

So far you are a liar. That's not "cherry picking"!

Produce the link. And cut the bullshit. Like I told you loudmouth.

You were working up to confirming on here you are a liar. You are there.

That's what you get when you post on the weekends.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where's the link?

Originally Posted by DSK

He gave you a beat down with the previous posts, proving his assertions, and you still lie away. You are lame.

Where is the link?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

How about it LL ,JD and LustingForCocks. Can you three answer the Megan Kelly question?

Originally Posted by bigtex

We are waiting...for the response...from LL...and his merry band of Idiots...

...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock.. .Tick...Tock...and so on...and so forth...

While on the subject...of waiting...where's the link...LLIdiot?

You two liars now attempt to avoid the obvious lie by answering the request for a link with a question, about which you two liars have previously lied about.

Diverting attention away from you two lying about what I said.

I am now going to return to honor ...

..............some honorable servicemembers

..............I check back for the link to prove you both aren't liars.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What would we have done with the information that we had on March 20, 2003 which was the same information that Bill Clinton had in 1998? We would have gone to war with Iraq. No reasonable person would not have (ask Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Kerry). Why? Lets see...
Saddam gave shelter to terrorists who had killed Americans. Why allow anyone to shelter terrorists is beyond me but there is more.
Saddam attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States and we can't allow that to pass if that name was Bush, Clinton, or Obama.
Hussein had used WMDs to kill over 100,000 civilians in his own country and still maintained that he had them (which was backed up by most, if not all, intelligence sources in the world).
We had to smack down some Islamic, Middle Eastern leader to send a message (pick one: Hussein, Assad, Khaddafi, Khamanei, etc).
Hussein had corrupted the oil to food program with United Nations.
Hussein had tortured and murdered thousands (tens of thousands) of his own people and anyone that he caught and determined to be a spy.
Hussein was in violation of the cease fire agreement that he had signed with the allied nations in 1991 which included firing on US aircraft, holding Americans hostage, not delivering US airman to safety, etc.

We had a solid interest in taking someone down (Khaddafi gave up his WMD program because of Iraq) for WMDs (the New York Times predicted on many occasions a chemcial weapon attack on our troops so they believed). Hussein (and his sons) were just evil people who kind of deserved what they got. This is the justification for the original invasion. Do you want to talk about how the peace was bungled by both Bush and Obama? Then say so.

What a big bunch of fucking bullshit. When are we going to quit playing world police? Huh? We had to smack down an islamic middle eastern leader? Saddam was a fucking secularist. He wasn't a hardline muslim, you fucking moron.

[JD Barleycorn]

Since you are the idiot that said it earlier, where is your time machine dumb fuck. Why are you still living in the past. What's done is done. The future (Hillary according to the DNC) and the present (Obama) are what is important. What are they doing, what do they intend to do, what would they like to accomplish?

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

Whould you invade Iraq knowing then what you know now?

Hell no! But that still doesn't change the fact that IvaBiggen is lame, and so is Shamwow.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You two liars now attempt to avoid the obvious lie by answering the request for a link with a question, about which you two liars have previously lied about.

Diverting attention away from you two lying about what I said.

I am now going to return to honor ...

..............some honorable servicemembers

..............I check back for the link to prove you both aren't liars.

So you will not answer the Megan Kelly presented to Jeb Bush? Don't worry Bush had a hard time answering it too!

And he don't crawfish near as much as you!

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since you are the idiot that said it earlier, where is your time machine dumb fuck. Why are you still living in the past. What's done is done. The future (Hillary according to the DNC) and the present (Obama) are what is important. What are they doing, what do they intend to do, what would they like to accomplish?

You're the one who went back in time to 1990, not me. I addressed it AFTER you had gone there. Why can't you wait for the debates? The question will no doubt be asked. Just relax.