Oops

[ElNono]

Who gives a if she's spends money on Iranians?

Aren't they evil?

[Yonivore]

That's certainly unreasonable, given what we know today.
Where are they? Back it up.

Really? If they were destroyed or moved or hidden (and not yet found), that would explain their absence. In my mind, discounting the possibility of any of those three alternative propositions is unreasonable.

Does that mean you can't back up your claim?

It means, I don't know.

Because that's the opposite of:
"Actually, I've supported every position I've ever posted on every one of these issues"

No, it's not. That I can't prove they existed does not mean I didn't provide support for my position it was reasonable to believe they did.

That one, two or ten reasonable people thought back then Iraq might have had WMD (for whatever reason) doesn't make it a reasonable proposition today.

It was more than that but, that most of the rest of the world has moved on from the question doesn't make it any less reasonable today, than it was in 2003, to believe Iraq possessed -- in 2003 -- weapons of mass destruction.

I don't recall either. I'm merely pointing out that "sourcing" alone doesn't make you reasonable or credible. Depends on the source. If the source isn't reasonable or credible, then neither are you.

I didn't say it did; I said I sourced my assertions with links I believed were reasonable. You said I didn't support any of my posts.

For example, I find quite unreasonable to take Barry's quotes on jobs created by his stimulus package. That's just buttons-esque.

I would never source Obama on a position about his own accomplishments.

[ChumpDumper]

In fact, aren't the Iranians closer than Saddam ever was to making a nuke?

Didn't North Korea actually make a nuke while Bush did all about it?

[Yonivore]

So we found a squadron of jets buried under the desert but no WMD anywhere?

And you don't think that still hoping to find WMD is an unreasonable proposition?

Yep. Jets are bigger and less easily hidden, destroyed, or moved.

So you agree they didn't have any WMD?

No, I agreed no stockpiles were found.

[clambake]

i remember when reagan showered those evil iranians with gifts!

[ElNono]

Yep. Jets are bigger and less easily hidden, destroyed, or moved.

Are they? They didn't manufacture those jets.

You don't think it's relatively easy to find radiation or high concentration of certain chemicals?

No, I agreed no stockpiles were found.

So, no WMD were found. You can say it, it's ok.

Unless you claim WMD were found. If that's the case, where are they?

[ChumpDumper]

Is it reasonable to assume that, having Saddam in custody for several months, he would have said something about WMDs?

[CosmicCowboy]

You guys forget that Sadaam himself was perpetuating the WMD myth as a defense against Iran and to bolster his image in the Middle East as a power to be reckoned with. Sucks for him that the US called the bluff.

[clambake]

You guys forget that Sadaam himself was perpetuating the WMD myth as a defense against Iran and to bolster his image in the Middle East as a power to be reckoned with. Sucks for him that the US called the bluff.

sucks for the u.s. that the bush admin. lied.

[CosmicCowboy]

sucks for the u.s. that the bush admin. lied.

You can't actually prove they lied. They obviously had no good inside human intel because Sadaam's inner circle was all relatives or long time cronies from Tikrit. If they really believed there were WMD's then it wasn't a lie.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys forget that Sadaam himself was perpetuating the WMD myth as a defense against Iran and to bolster his image in the Middle East as a power to be reckoned with. Sucks for him that the US called the bluff.

Sucks for all the thousands US servicemen and women who died needlessly on Bush's hunch, not to mention all the tens of thousands of Iraqis

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not saying Sadaam had WMD's, just that they had a reasonable strong su ion (reinforced by Sadaam's own actions and statements) that he did.

[ChumpDumper]

You can't actually prove they lied. They obviously had no good inside human intel because Sadaam's inner circle was all relatives or long time cronies from Tikrit. If they really believed there were WMD's then it wasn't a lie.

It sucks because they believed cab drivers who made up out of whole cloth and were soundly discredited by other intel agencies.

[clambake]

You can't actually prove they lied. They obviously had no good inside human intel because Sadaam's inner circle was all relatives or long time cronies from Tikrit. If they really believed there were WMD's then it wasn't a lie.

weapons inspectors (remember them?) said there were no wmds.

and the sec. of state (remember him?) said the evidence used to justify the war was deliberately misleading.

[CosmicCowboy]

I didn't even support the war in Iraq, but don't try to rewrite history now.

[ElNono]

You can't actually prove they lied. They obviously had no good inside human intel because Sadaam's inner circle was all relatives or long time cronies from Tikrit. If they really believed there were WMD's then it wasn't a lie.

Do you still think today Iraq had WMD and that we haven't found them yet?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying Sadaam had WMD's, just that they had a reasonable strong su ion (reinforced by Sadaam's own actions and statements) that he did.

Even then, so what?

Saddam never used them on US forces when he had every opportunity to.

Twice.

, North Korea has nukes.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you still think today Iraq had WMD and that we haven't found them yet?

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

I'm not saying Sadaam had WMD's, just that they had a reasonable strong su ion (reinforced by Sadaam's own actions and statements) that he did.

[ElNono]

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Sorry, I missed that post when I asked the question.

But see, you're a reasonable chap.

[CosmicCowboy]

Even then, so what?

Saddam never used them on US forces when he had every opportunity to.

Twice.

, North Korea has nukes.

uhhh o. reading is fundamental.

I didn't even support the war in Iraq, but don't try to rewrite history now.

[clambake]

I didn't even support the war in Iraq, but don't try to rewrite history now.

weapons inspectors (remember them?) said there were no wmds.

well? you must be referring to the history after this. right?

[CosmicCowboy]

well? you must be referring to the history after this. right?

Sadaam also played multiple games of hindering the weapons inspectors and they never had unfettered access. Again you are twisting history to conform to your desired conclusion.

[ChumpDumper]

uhhh o. reading is fundamental.

How is saying Saddam didn't use WMDs on US forces in the Gulf War rewriting history?

Explain this to me.

[Yonivore]

Even as late as 2006, 50% of the population believed Iraq possessed WMD's at the outset of hostilities.

The Harris Interactive Poll, taken July 5-11, shows that half of Americans (50 percent) believe that "Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded." That represents a rise of 14 points from February 2005 when only 36 percent thought Iraq had WMD.

I tried to link to the actual Harris Interactive data but, was unsuccessful in navigating their archives.

This was embedded in a site that I've never heard of.

[CosmicCowboy]

I hated the war in Iraq because there was never a viable exit strategy. For the same reason I hated Obama helping the "rebels" in Libya. Now we have a bunch of ing Islamic fanatics running around with surface to air missiles. Just wait till they start blowing up with THOSE.