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

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What it "SOUNDS" to you is immaterial.

You don't know how to ask nonobjectionable questions.

That is obvious. Let me repeat the OBJECTION ...

"Your question assumes facts not in evidence."

BTW: It was objectionable in the beginning. Nothing has changed.

That's what happens when a simpleton like you gets stuck in a rut.

You end up sounding like a scratched 78 record.

Now go play somewhere else, child.

What is the point of asking a question you wouldn't object to? The whole point is to get you to admit that you would still invade Iraq today, knowing what we know. Just answer the goddamn question.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

What is the point of asking a question you wouldn't object to? The whole point is to get you to admit that you would still invade Iraq today, knowing what we know. Just answer the goddamn question.

WombRaider, LLIdiot seems to be having a difficult time dealing with this situation. Apparently, LLIdiot is content to do the Idiotville, Cut and Run Shuffle. He has a long history of avoiding difficult situations. Whether it be the Vietnam War or answering a simple "yes" or "no" question. He will typically use extreme measures to "cut and run," when the going gets tough.

Does that make LL a Cowardly Idiot? You're damn right it does!

[Guest040616]

LLIdiot, I will graciously give you another opportunity to redeem yourself.

Listen carefully, ya' hear?

Knowing what we know now, would you have still supported the ill fated and ill advised, Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq?

"Yes" or "no"?

My answer is "no".

Shhh, don't tell anybody I said this but it is ok for you to cut and paste my answer.

I won't tell!

Which one is it, LLIdiot?

[TheDaliLama]

Give it a rest Perry Mason.

[gnadfly]

Your liver will thank you.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Your liver will thank you.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Give it a rest Perry Mason.

Would you give it a rest? Hell no, but you want someone else to. Typical conservative. Do as I say, not as I do. Yell to the heavens about gays, then get caught on grindr soliciting twinks.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Would you give it a rest? Hell no, but you want someone else to. Typical conservative. Do as I say, not as I do. Yell to the heavens about gays, then get caught on grindr soliciting twinks.

What the fuck are you talking about?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Give it a rest Perry Mason.

LLIdiot, even the Lama wants you to answer the question:

Knowing what we know now, would you have still supported the ill fated and ill advised, Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq?

"Yes" or "no"?

For the record, my answer is "no".

What say you, LLIdiot?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by atf searcher

Sorry to interrupt this shit throwing love fest but I just wanted to make one point.
All the talk about "GENERAL" Powell and the chain of command in incorrect because the time period we are talking about is the SECOND gulf war not the first. During the second gulf war Powell was not a military general he was Secretary of State.

The responsibilities of those two positions are completely different. Secretary of State is not a military position and does not contain any military chain of command. Powell was free to express his opinion to Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld in anyway he wanted to. I appears he chose to keep his mouth shut instead.

Exactly right. +1

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

What the fuck are you talking about?

Your hypocritical ass.

[Guest040616]

Apparently, LLIdiot has not sobered up (from last nights binge drinking episode) to determine how he plans to dodge the same, simple question.

Thus far (this morning), the Patriarchal Idiot has once again chosen to ignore the question at hand. Is this yet another "bob and weave?" Or just another drunken stupor? Or worse yet, both? Yikes!

Let's give credit where credit is due. The Patriarchal Idiot has repeatedly figured out creative ways to "bob and weave" from the question at hand. But a "bob and weave" is all he has done.

He has yet to deliver a punch! Or directly answer a simple question!

His continued refusal to answer a very simple question is the clearest indication yet that he still supports the ill fated and ill advised, Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

While he has yet to give a definitive answer, his failure to directly respond is a very clear indication that the Patriarchal Idiot has a "dirty little secret" to hide.

But I am not at the point that I am willing to "give up." Perhaps today will be the day that LLIdiot will finally grow some balls and "man up."

LLIdiot, let's try this one more time! Shall we? If nothing else, for old times sake.

LLIdiot, knowing what we know now ... would you still support the ill fated and ill advised, Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq?

"Yes" or "no"? (No elaboration is necessary, or expected!)

For the record, my answer is a firm and direct: NOT JUST NO, BUT HELL NO!

See how easy that was?

What say you, LLIdiot?

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Your hypocritical ass.

I've been consistent about my views since you were still shitting yellow.

Your the biggest fucking lair that's ever been on this board so go fuck yourself you little chihuahua.

Or should I call you Undercontruction?
Or Black man?
Or Wetback?
Or Wombraider?
Or White guy?
Or Mexican?

Go look at yourself in the mirror before calling anyone else a hypocrite you barking little chihuahua. Your nothing but an insignificant pod.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Exactly right. +1

http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/nea/disarm/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by atf searcher

Sorry to interrupt this shit throwing love fest but I just wanted to make one point.
All the talk about "GENERAL" Powell and the chain of command in incorrect because the time period we are talking about is the SECOND gulf war not the first. During the second gulf war Powell was not a military general he was Secretary of State.

The responsibilities of those two positions are completely different. Secretary of State is not a military position and does not contain any military chain of command. Powell was free to express his opinion to Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld in anyway he wanted to. I appears he chose to keep his mouth shut instead.

Keep his mouth shut or was not informed correctly?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/po...cord.html?_r=0
The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record.
"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world," Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation "will always be a part of my record."
Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: "It was painful. It's painful now." Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.