[quote]vroom wrote:
Why are you making such a fool of yourself over this?[/quote]
that in no way means that I think The Big Hairy One is making a fool of himself here, btw.
[quote]vroom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
It went that way cause you accused him of hating all liberals.
Hahahahahahahah! And you got that from this… ?
I know that neither of you has much respect for “liberals” or the democratic party, but do you really think they are that stupid?
I mean, we’ll find out whether or not you are right shortly, I am certainly not claiming to know!
I’m not trying to criticize your viewpoints at all, it just seems astounding to me to reject a party that represents nearly half the population so casually.
Joe went out and said yes, he did think the current leadership is that stupid (or something to that effect, I’m to lazy to go back and quote it exactly, feel free to do so yourself). I then said that I don’t have any issue with that opinion.
Hardly anything untoward going on there… talk about reaching! Why are you making such a fool of yourself over this?[/quote]
Your reference hear vroomy was to if they were so stupid to try to impeach Bush with little to no evidence. You see, I just didn’t pull a small ditty out as you are so want. I read your post and that is what you were referring to not the leaders of the Dem party. Once again you try to deceive with your clever little pasting jobs.
Nice try-
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
vroom wrote:
It’s baseless and not even worthy of such highspeak like impeachment. It comes from a source that’s less than reputable. What else could they have if this is the card they are showing.
Well, first, is the link I pointed to the wrong document? If it is, point me to the right document, otherwise stop accusing me of not reading the damned thing.
Now, second, you are so guilty of what you accuse me of. I’ve expressed the opinion that I’d be surprised if that was all they had. I may be wrong, so be it if so.
Also, third, you have absolutely no idea whether or not they have more. I at least am willing to admit the same with respect to my knowledge.
Finally, fourth, you have absolutely no idea whether or not the claims are baseless, other than again, your own opinion.
Monday, assuming anything happens on Monday, and the days that follow, could end up being interesting. Shoot, if this document is indeed everything, then Monday will be over within minutes.
What are you so fired up about?
You simply cannot stand when I discuss an issue. Too bad. Can you not have an opinion, a simple opinion, without it having to hinge on how wrong I am in some way?
My opinion has exactly zero to do with you. Your opinion should have exactly zero to do with me. However, it appears to be all tied up in some type of purported agenda you think I have in this matter.
Why don’t you explain to me what it is? At least that way I’ll know…
if they had anything else we’d have seen it or heard of it by now.
They’re incapable of keeing their mouths shut…they hate GWB so much.
Why are you so ready to say that they have more…?
[/quote]
It’s just to obvious Joe. There has to be more to it!? Ya know–what if they have a double secret document that shows Cheney, Rummy and Bush all plotting this attack during the campaign. Ya that’s it, I’m sure there is one of those around and they are just holding it for the right time.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
and my pair is gonna bust his ass. Any takers![/quote]
if you wanna rephrase this part I’m with you.
Greetings!!!
Please, please, PLEASE!!! Go to it kerry!!!
That was one hell of an explosive memo!!! Fantastic bunch of horseshit!!
I wonder if john “pay my parking tickets, bitch” kerry will apologize when everyone laughs.
Oh, remember people, Bush lied, Jesus died.
From redwinsgline:
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
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.
“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
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.
“Iraq is a long way from USA 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
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.
“We 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-According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.
“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-The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.
“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, 1999This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, “There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.”
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace 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 Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find did not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed nine other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.
“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-
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.
“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-Truth!
“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-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.
“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-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the need to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there would be the need at that point.
“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 believe 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-Truth!
Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.
“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 Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.
“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-Truth!
Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.
“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. 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-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.
“Without 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
continued 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-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University
JeffR
nice work Jeff.
Sasquatch, sometimes I really question your sanity.
I too have said that if this is all they have, then it is nothing. I’ve said it would then be over before it began.
So, since I can see this, and assuming that somebody doing strategy on this would probably be smarter than me, I thought maybe there could be more. Hell, maybe they are all stupid. I find it hard to base my thoughts on the assumption that everyone is stupid.
Holy fuck. You’ve gone on for three pages just because I’m wondering if perhaps they could have more, because we’ve all agreed that there certainly should be more for this to be worth bringing up at all.
How you get more out of this than the fact that I’m waiting for Monday, to find out whether there is anything to this or not, is fascinating to me.
Going off on the Prof because he feels we should simply wait and see, instead of prejudging everything, as you have, is completely wrong.
Talk about throwing insults for no reason at all. You do realize that is what you claim I do – but you’ve gone and done it yourself in this thread.
Way to go. Nice job of being hypocritical. Nice job trying to shut down any discussion other than your own viewpoint.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
my opinion is based on the document that started this thread. Please remove lips from vrooms ass and listen. Or better yet, read the document in question and tell me if you see any validity. [/quote]
Vroom’s ass? Nowhere in my post did I refer to standing up for Vroom. You act as if anyone doesn’t agreee with you specifically, that it is some conspiracy. I think it would be stupid if one memo were the only evidence available without pointng to a trend. No one here has a clue what all of the evidence involves if it is being taken this far. You only assume that one memo that ahs been partially leaked is all there is.
I personally don’t give a damn about your personal judgements on the matter. You don’t exactly strike me as being someone to trust when it comes to opinion on international conspiracies. You simply shout out the general view from your party…as usual. Unlike you, I will wait and see what all is exposed and it has nothing to do with Vroom or anyone else you try to connect me with.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
and my pair is gonna bust his ass. Any takers!
if you wanna rephrase this part I’m with you.
[/quote]
My–lousy pair of dueces–is gonna bust his ass. Any takers?
On reread, this was a poorly constructed sentence.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I drew my conclusion on the basis that this is the document Kerry quoted and if that’s all they got it’s nothing.
Sasquatch, sometimes I really question your sanity.
I too have said that if this is all they have, then it is nothing. I’ve said it would then be over before it began.
So, since I can see this, and assuming that somebody doing strategy on this would probably be smarter than me, I thought maybe there could be more. Hell, maybe they are all stupid. I find it hard to base my thoughts on the assumption that everyone is stupid.
Holy fuck. You’ve gone on for three pages just because I’m wondering if perhaps they could have more, because we’ve all agreed that there certainly should be more for this to be worth bringing up at all.
How you get more out of this than the fact that I’m waiting for Monday, to find out whether there is anything to this or not, is fascinating to me.
Going off on the Prof because he feels we should simply wait and see, instead of prejudging everything, as you have, is completely wrong.
Talk about throwing insults for no reason at all. You do realize that is what you claim I do – but you’ve gone and done it yourself in this thread.
Way to go. Nice job of being hypocritical. Nice job trying to shut down any discussion other than your own viewpoint.[/quote]
First and foremost you never once said that if that’s all they got or it would be over. You attacked me for giving no credence to a memo. Then suggested that they had more or must have. So twist it the right way vroom. Had you state it as matter of factly as you just did I would have agreed with you, instead you attacked.
I believe it is you who often says others can fight their own fight. I said nothing to Prof X he didn’t first say. He saud anyone who has come to a conclusion is biased. he said we should wait till Monday and shut up. Because your tag eam didn’t work, don’t go all girly on me protecting someone who clearly doesn’t need or want it.
I’v gone on just long enough to defend muself from each and every one of your posts and will continue to do so. I don’t think it right that you feel free to challenge all, and when you are cjhallenged you resort to attacks. Others walk away, I choose to stand my ground. Read my original response and your rebuttal. It started there and moved to here.
I’ve shut down no discussion. You’ve offered nothing in the way of discussion. Give me something now vroom. Something plausible and fact based that we can discuss and You’ll get that back. Or as you are so want, insult me again.
It just started to rain, so I got the kids out of the pool and I have all night to chat with you.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, Zeb,
I know that neither of you has much respect for “liberals” or the democratic party, but do you really think they are that stupid?
I mean, we’ll find out whether or not you are right shortly, I am certainly not claiming to know!
I’m not trying to criticize your viewpoints at all, it just seems astounding to me to reject a party that represents nearly half the population so casually.[/quote]
Vroom:
Those are very fair comments. However, I do not reject “the party” or “the People” of the party.
I reject the fringe element which has taken hold of the democratic party. As you have probably read before, my father is a life long democrat and I love and respect him. However, even he is disgusted with where the left has taken his party.
As Ronald Reagan (the greatest President of the past 50 years) a former democrat once said: “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me!”
Does the democratic party want people to vote for them?
Okay, then do the following:
-
Forget about fighting the past two Presidential elections. We know, we know: "Bush stole them both. "Give up the ghost!
-
Stop the anti-Bush hate speech. It’s not working. Hate him in private. Publicaly at least try to look like you are working with him for the betterment of the country.
-
Fire Dean as Chairman of the Party and replace him with someone who can actually give a speech without foaming at the mouth.
-
Take Hillary aside and tell her that she might very well have a place on the next Presidential ticket, but as VP only!
-
Actually nominate a moderate Governor from the South. Forget Senators they can’t win! Especially liberal ones!
I am a big believer in the two party system, but I can honestly say that unless the democrats do the five things above (and probably even more) they have no chance of gaining any of the seats back that they lost, and they will certainly not win the White House.
The point of this long winded post is that this impeachment nonsense is the exact worse thing that they could do to themselves. It’s odd but they can’t seem to dig out of the deep furrow that they are in. The more the hit the gas the deeper the rut becomes.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
and my pair is gonna bust his ass. Any takers!
if you wanna rephrase this part I’m with you.
My–lousy pair of dueces–is gonna bust his ass. Any takers?
On reread, this was a poorly constructed sentence. [/quote]
I just didn’t want to think about your pair anywhere near his ass is all.
lol
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
my opinion is based on the document that started this thread. Please remove lips from vrooms ass and listen. Or better yet, read the document in question and tell me if you see any validity.
Vroom’s ass? Nowhere in my post did I refer to standing up for Vroom. You act as if anyone doesn’t agreee with you specifically, that it is some conspiracy. I think it would be stupid if one memo were the only evidence available without pointng to a trend. No one here has a clue what all of the evidence involves if it is being taken this far. You only assume that one memo that ahs been partially leaked is all there is.
I personally don’t give a damn about your personal judgements on the matter. You don’t exactly strike me as being someone to trust when it comes to opinion on international conspiracies. You simply shout out the general view from your party…as usual. Unlike you, I will wait and see what all is exposed and it has nothing to do with Vroom or anyone else you try to connect me with.[/quote]
Once again you misquote. I said the original document-IMO- is not worth the paper it was wrote on. I didn’t suggest anything more or less, even though several would suggest so. The thread started on that document and that was my stance.
I didn’t bring up any other docs. someone else did. My only thought on that was to agree with another poster that if they had anything more they’d be using it. The rest is all answering attacks from another. It has nothing to do with agreeing with me or not. It was the --once again–attitude of well there might be this or there might be that. I said show me, I’m responding to the document in question, nothing more nothing less. If you think the doc. shows something then let’s discuss. otherwise it’s just another baseless attack and I’m bored with answering the same questions.
Yes, more brilliance! I try to deceive by quoting the exact text of the conversation?
Whoa! Holy deception Batman, that looks pretty underhanded to me!
Hahahahahaha! Please, you are killing me with these little quips of yours.
Wow, I can’t wait until Monday.
We’ll see whether Sasquatch can bust Kerry’s ass. We’ll see whether there is anything more in the DNC bag of tricks than this document. We’ll see whether I get to claim to be smarter than the DNC strategists.
Tune in tomorrow evening, on the same bat channel, at the same bat time, for the exciting conclusion to this cliffhanger.
Well, unless you are one of the few who already knows how this will play out…
Zeb, thanks for the reply. As I said to Joe, I certainly won’t begrudge you your opinion.
For all I know, you may even be spot on!
Who, if I may be so bold as to ask, mentioned other documents? I don’t recall reading anything about other documents?
This will not work…
-
There have already been admissions of “failed intelligence” and people have already “fallen on the sword” for it.
-
There is not going to be a majority for impeachment.
-
The DEMS will only put a “nail in their coffin” (IMO), coming off like “sore losers”, especially if Kerry presents this.
-
The DEMS better spend a LOT more of their time a) finding their voice and connecting it to the Electorate and b) figure out how they are losing a number of key elections.
This isn’t the way to do it…
Mufasa
[quote]vroom wrote:
I didn’t bring up any other docs. someone else did.
Who, if I may be so bold as to ask, mentioned other documents? I don’t recall reading anything about other documents?[/quote]
I digress. You said you believed them to have other information because they would not be so stupid as to proceed without this. I assumedthat info would be in written form—
hence the term documents.
Again nice try
Listen–let’s forget the past 20 posts
my original contention was the worthlessness of the original doc and even the publication that reported this ‘news.’
Do you or anyone else have anything w/r/t this opinion? I just want to try and get back on topic.
It’s not about agreeing or disagreeing, do you have any info on the original topic to convey? If not we’ll call truce to let anyone with an opinion or info inform us/me.
Zeb
Zell Miller said a lot the same things in his book a year ago. It was totally lost on the Dems. Thank God.
They have alienated so much of the party the base is withering. The fringe will be all that is left.
Whether the document in question is real, all they got, etc. The fact that Kerry would move for impeachment is reason enough to suspect other motives. This type of attack, warrented or not, should be left to others. A ninny like Schumer would do better with it anyway.
Yea, what is it about Schumer that makes me skin crawl?
I think the only one who would be worse (presenting this impeachment nonsense) from a PR standpoint would be Al Gore.
Honestly if they keep this up I can see three or four states that they barely won turning red.