Hey thanks for the moral support. I only wish it were more of a challenge.

Because clearly some have conveniently forgotten what this "challenge" was.

he is a coward. afraid to stand up to a real challenge. he has to make things up knowing the real stuff he mouths is wrong.

This is an easy one. Thanks!
Mr. Bush went to war for the reasons stated in his address to the nation. At no time did the President nor his administration state that we were in imminent danger. On the other hand I believe Senator Kennedy stated that Iraq was an imminent threat. When the press reacted to this statement or misstatement by the Senator they asked the President directly if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. The president replied that no, Iraq did not pose an imminent threat but a threat on the horizon.

Next the WMD issue itself.
At the end of the gulf war an agreement was signed by the leaders of Iraq and the United Nations. The agreement included an accounting of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This was done, Iraq provided a list of supposedly all WMD stockpiles within their borders. UN inspectors went in to verify the list. This was mostly done and then the Iraqi leader changed his mind and began moving things around. The short story is that there were large amounts of various WMD missing or as the administration put it unaccounted for. At about the same time the leader of Iraq started making noise about supporting terrorist in Israel, then 9/11 happened. The leader of Iraq made some really bad moves while the rest of the terrorist states were giving us any and all information to show they had no part in 9/11 and please Mr. Bush don’t mess with us. The leader of Iraq gave aid and comfort to our enemy. Another thing that our President said would be bad. With the concern of the leader of Iraq making good on his publicly stated promise of selling or even giving his WMD to terrorist who promise to attack Israel or the United States. AQ had demonstrated the ability to directly attack the US three times and the possession of WMD would be real bad for Americans. Our only logical choice was to get rid of the leader and control the missing WMD. What happened to the stockpiles of WMD that the leader of Iraq said he had and was verified by the UN inspectors? We don’t know. Just because we have not found them in Iraq does not mean that they did not exist because the UN verified their existence as well as our own inspectors. Did that take care of your misconception of imminent danger and WMD that was not there when we got there? I had to do this on the fly from memory. I only have 20 minutes a night on line for the next few days so if I was unclear then I let me know and I will make corrections as we go.

Be nice. He was asked and he answered I replied we will see what happens as we go.

I have to agree with TW on the other article, you are funny. You should change your name to Twister. Fearless, no; wannabe fearless, yes. But hey, it's just an opinion from one who doesn't lose his cool and start name calling as my first post.



So you agree? Well, at least you are "man"(?) enough to admit it.



Oh trust me, don't take it personal. I don't usually pick on specific people (besides Col gene) because it's personal. I just like to make sure those who are acting the fool are aware that they are acting the fool. As you can see SanChonino's pat in the back shows how they beg for someone to actually find something liberally legitimate to say since their arguments don't hold much around here. I mean, really, how can anyone prove anything with feeling? Last I checked it took a diamond ring to get the average woman to believe a man loved her. All those "I love you" feeling never had a leg to stand on till the dozen roses, box of chocolates and that Kay Jewelers box came thru the door first.

Oh and I shouldn't be calling people blind when you can't even read what the posts on this and other articles say. Keep in mind that the only reason you are gonna get pats in the backs by suckers like SanChonino is because you are simply "twisting some tails" but not really putting a foot forward for the Liberal crybabies of this site.



LOL, name calling. You really are funny. I mean, I don't normally like to laugh at dumb people, but in your case I can make an exception. Maybe if you can point out where I clearly called you anything. If anything I passed the chance to you to name yourself. That is clearly not name calling. But you're one to talk since the first thing you offer ShadowWar as an argument is an insult by stating he lacks a specific degree as if that somehow makes him stupid. But I guess since you didn't call him stupid directly just like I called you no names directly I guess no one here is name calling at all, or are we, buddy?

Oh and so Tiddler doesn't get his panties in a knot, here's my "opinion" about the subject. Terrorist, insurgents, freedom fighters; call them what you want. Our soldiers are fighting to bring order from a chaos that was created by not flexing our muscles when we should have. We failed to accomplsih our ammended goal in Iraq because we chose to be kind and careful instead of being swift and to the point. Thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of the enemy and for what? We are still blamed for their deaths. The way I see it we should have just blacketed those towns once the Iraqi army under Saddam gave up and these insurgents/terrorist,freedom fighters began to emerge. We would have probably had the same amount of dead civilians but most likely with less problems than we have today.

Call me a monster, a war monger or even a infidel for all I care. Those soldiers are there to do a job and it's sad to see that only their deaths are being reported in detail with videos and images while their work, progress and successes are kept in the dark just to maintain an agenda to destroy anything that is Bush. If I were a soldier, I would be embarrassed to come back to this country, I would be sad to know I risked or gave my life for a bunch of ingrates.

Wanna-be fearless now is it?



Man enough? How old are you Charles?



This would be an example of what I referred to as your carry over hatred Charles.Quite a rant isn’t it.

Let see you’ve bagged Col Gene, San Chonino, liberals as cry babies and mentioned something about you being too impoverished to get laid. If this is not carry over hatred Charles I dunno what is.



O.k so you’re not calling me names your just calling me a dumb, wanna-be-fearless liberal crybaby. Thanks for the clarification.



Sure.





And given subsequent posts from you Charles I think most reasonable people would agree that

[quote]I guess DrGuy was right when he said you contradict yourself a lot. Have you been hanging around the real resident troll of this site? Col gene. If not I can introduce you two and you guys can form a duo. You can be the Duo Ben-gay, but it will be upt to you 2 to decide who will be Ben. [quote]

could be considered name-calling but if not by all means free feel to put it into the other category of “assorted nonsense” that I suggested.



No what I said was:



The possession or not of marketing skills hardly determines ones basic intelligence and says nothing about their ability in other areas. It simply means the individual concerned probably is not a marketing expert.

It is only you who makes such a very desperate connection between the lack of a specific skill and stupidity. Given that we’re some 50 odd posts down the line and Shadow War hasn’t mentioned it I’d suggest he took it for what it was: a light hearted comment made in jest.

You’ll also note this was two lines a 14 line reply that was very much on topic as opposed to your snide interjection which was 5 lines about me, Col Gene and Dr Guy that completely ignored the subject of the article.



At this point Charles Im calling you a troll just like Dr Guy.

LOL, hatred? I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. I don't hate you, or anyone on this site for that matter. I get a kick out of annoying people like you, but I don't hate. It's not my fault you like to bust into articles making accusation of lack of inteligence while not providing a single piece of evidence to back up you opinions all while avoiding direct challenges.



Well, SanChonino is usually pretty cool even if we don't always agree. But he stuck his neck out and became a target as well. Not my fault. Col is a special case, he likes getting slammed on a daily basis. Otyherwise there is no reason for a guy like him to hang around here. And if you think talking about my sex life will get you points for comedy, you might wanna try harder because if anything you lose points. At that last line is the point of all of this, you don't know what is anything.



Again, you show your stupidity and lack of ability to read and follow an argument. I will baby step you so you can get it. You said I was name calling way before I said any of those words (which I wasn't) but I figured since I was to be labeled something I wasn't anyways I may as well take the part.



Ah, typical Liberal tactic of acting as if they have been deemed speaker of all people. You know, this is a common tatctic used by Loca and Col gene, always passing themselves as the voice of the majority as if they were giving this power to know what the majority thinks. Nice try though. However, once again, you failed at making a point or fact since, as usual, people like you depend on emotion to win any situation. In this case "could be considered" is not proof or fact by simply a subjactive opinion. But I'll take your advise and put it into the "assorted nonsense" category. After all it takes one who uses a lot of "assorted nonsense" to recognize it when he sees it.



OK then, I guess I will use your own words against you with a small change. I think most reasonable people would agree that



could be considered "insulting".



LOL, what ever dude. Just keep grasping for something to cry about since it seems to be what you are good at. And keep in mind that poeple like ShadowWar don't usually bother with insults from people like you. He already expects it. I just personally don't mind picking it up for him, its fun to see you try so hard to insult na prove points and come across as a hero to some here. Its simply entertaining.



You're one to claim otehrs to be interjecting with non topic replies. Just keep trying my friend. It makes it all the more enetertaining.



Is that suppose to hold some kind of tag on this site that I am forever a troll because you think it? LOL, so far you have been playing with some minor players here. But in time you will find yourself taking bits at the bigger bashers here and you will most likely find yourself at the end of the whip (pun intended). Have fun trolling around my friend.

I love how opposing viewpoints are almost always considered trolling. And how people can always consider others' posts as trolling, but fail to see the trolling in their own.

Very, very cute guys. At least I admit it when I'm being a troll.

Read it again tidler. He is asking for proof of your claim. Pure and simple. If you cant, admit it. if you can, do it. If you cant understand the written word, say it. ESL is not just for foreigners.

Amd I would take a hard look in the mirror since it is not only me saying you are a bit remiss in thread reading and english comprehension.

At this rate, everyone on this site is going to be a troll, except the new kid on the block. Perhaps you do need a copy of a dictionary. Since you seem to not comprehend english(and yes, I am repeating myself, but then with you that is the only thing you can understand - what was written in the last 10 seconds).

I was wrong, and I am honest enough to admit my errors. It was not Senator Kennedy that said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. It was Senator Jay Rockefeller that said it. My mistake but as soon as I got home I had to report it.

I also notice that Tiddler commented a lot but not on the subject at hand. Is there a problem or what? Did he agree with me and in doing so agree never to bring up the lies he has been saying these many years? Or is he ignoring me so he can continue to tell the same lies? An answer or admission would be the proper thing to do. Am I wrong here?

Clearly, hence my reference to you as a troll Charles... still recognizing your condition is the first step in any recovery process.



So you're in the habit of calling people you think are pretty cool "suckers" then are you Charles?



The difference of course is that I offered it as my opinion of what reasonable people would think rather than as a claim that I spoke for them.



So you dont claim to speak for everyone you just speak for ShadowWar? And you claim that I tried to insult him? What could be more insulting to one man than to have another claim to speak and fight his battles for him? Especially by one so readily submissive as you.



O.k so note to self. Charles does what Tiddler tells him to do.

Lets see you finally make a contribution to this thread for fear I might get my knickers in a knot that you hadn't and now your acting out the roles you think I picked for you. In addition to all the other names you've proffered, I hope you're not now going to start calling me "Daddy" now as well.



So according to you Charles, Dr Guy, Shadow War and Paladin are all lightweights then? I wonder what they might think of that characterization? But as above given your predilection for falling into line and doing as you're told its not surprising that you should so readily offer your rank.

Yes there is, we seem to be getting a lot of noise on this line Paladin. So before we continue from reply #54 lets clear a couple of things up.





Paladin, although Dr Guy has made this claim, can you
a) quote where I "stated it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs". Can you then
point out where "you challenged me to prove that it was a lie that Saddam had WMDs"? In fact can you then
c) point out where you've challenged me to prove anything?

Reply #1. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #1? Yes or no?

Reply #8. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #8? Yes or no?

Reply #35



Lets break that down. First sentence: stating something about how you feel. Second sentence:claiming you will help me to "see the light". Third sentence: asking me to list one or as many [of my claims] as I wish and then claiming that YOU will disprove them point by point.

In which of those sentences did you challenge me to prove myself??? Was it sentence 1,2,3 or none of the above.

Reply #36. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #36? Yes or no?

Reply #54. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #54? Yes or no?

Reply #55. Did you challenge me to prove myself in Reply #55? Yes or no?

In fact can anyone, coroberate what Dr Guy "The Guardian of Reading Comprehension" has claimed I stated. Anyone at all??

Clearly YOU'VE challenged YOURSELF to disprove everything I say Paladin. So I'd like you to address these claims before we continue.

Thanks

Last I checked a troll is someone who goes around making things up with little if any facts and sticks to his guns. Sounds familiar. But hey, if you wanna go around giving new definition to words be my guest. Sticks and stones as they say. I see you're gonna milk the word.



So, as usual, you assume. Well you know what they say. Besides, I may think someone is OK, but will point out when I think they being suckers, or what every other name I chose to use at the moment. Besides, why do you care what I do to others, or are you one of those sensitive people who's bothered with others picking on your friends, or fans in this case?



So you talk for others, again? Col, someone is stealing your act here!!!!



No, I speak for myself and back up those who I agree with. Guess you don't like getting ganged up on, huh?



Haha, your jokes are killing me, but not fast enough.



Proof of how idiotic you are, I already said my 2 cents. Goes to show just how much you pay attention. Couldn't expect less from you though. Just like Col you ignore things and then act as if you never saw them so that you don't have to respond to it.



Well, in a sense. You see they all like to debate in a nice way. With facts and very little insult. But there are some here who will eat you alive. Anyways you will eventually feel it. These guys could probably teach you a thing or 2 but will do it in a more calm way, which in the end is still a but whipping.

He does not debate. I am beginning to think he is Furry Canary come back in another guise. But then at least Furry was rational and knew how to follow a thread.

Some people think that a molotov cocktail is debating. All flash and no memory.

Sure does. See reply #65 and perhaps you can give Paladin a helping hand.



They're not jokes Charles. They're observations. Observe reply#59.



2 cents..... in a sellers market "maybe".



So being nice and debating with facts and very little insult is what you call "lightweight"? You continue to reveal yourself.

By all means feel free to address reply #65 Dr Guy and then we can all move forward.

What does this have to do with the deal I asked if you would make? Why are you dragging me into your spat with Dr. Guy? My, deal was with you. Are you setting up a straw man for you to knock down and look good in your mind? You brought up lies, I asked you do list them the only one you came up with was answered by me. You don't seem to have a reply so that means to me that you agree with what I wrote.



Not at all. I stated that if you wish to continue to state lies about the president I was going to answer each of those lies and disprove your side of the argument. Your challenge to me meant you accepted the deal. Why do you need to deflect that with your pissing contest with Dr. Guy? Did I join this spat and not know of it? Can you deal with two issues at one time or is that beyond your ability?

My point is you told an outright lie. I proved it was a lie. Now like most liberals you wish to move the goal post to include someone else, I don't ask people to fight my battles and I don't fight other peoples battles. Look at all my replies you will see that this is true since I have been on JU. you went fishing with the wrong bait.

Its hardly deflection Paladin. It will only take you all of a minute to answer my questions? a,b,c on reply #65

If you're annoyed by the distraction then put it out of its misery. Its quite simple.

Are you referring to the Jan 2003 State of the Union address?



I dont care who stated it. I didn't and dont believe it at all. Its my opinion that Iraq posed no threat to the US population.



Yup. Thats right. No imminent threat. None as in zero.

So when I claim false pretences what am I referring too??

Statements such as these:

August 26, 2002—Vice President Dick Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us.”

NO DOUBT??? No doubt he has them. No doubt he is amassing them for use against us. NO DOUBT. False pretence.

September 18, 2002—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee, “We do know that the Iraqi regime has chemical and biological weapons. His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons—including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.”

Well as we know they had NONE.: false pretence.

October 7, 2002—President Bush declared in a nationally televised speech in Cincinnati that Iraq “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.”

No they didn't: false pretence.

March 16, 2003—Cheney declared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” referring to Saddam Hussein, “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

Nuclear weapons??? Based on what evidence??? False pretence.

March 17, 2003—In his final prewar ultimatum, Bush declared, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

NO DOUBT?? False pretence.

March 30, 2003—On ABC’s “This Week” program, 10 days into the war, Rumsfeld reiterated the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, adding, “We know where they are.”

He knows where they are??? Where are they then?? False pretence.

Bush 2003 State of the Union Address:

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons "

They didn't have any. None. false pretence.

"If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world,"

Sorry how were they a threat again??? They already had disarmed. False pretence.

a) "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied - finally denied access, a [report] came out of the Atomic - the IAEA that they were [six months away from developing a weapon]. I don't know what more [evidence] we need." (Bush speaking at a news conference Sept. 7 with Tony Blair)

This is just a flat out lie. As per :

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said. ... "We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998."

Hence my use of the term false pretence Paladin.

where is your proof that he had disarmed. according to one of his generals the chemicals went to syria. and i believe the nuke went to iran.

You still cant tell the difference between a lie and bad intelligence. Now for honesty sake (if you are that honest), list the quotes from the democrats from 1998-2002 that said the same thing -WITH access to the same intelligence.

In your world, there is no room for errors, only lies. You live in a very sad world.