The last time he got this angry...

[ChumpDumper]

Then it will be easy enough for you and Yoni to find administration quotes to that effect. There is no need for them to say it only through implication; they can simply say it.

[Yonivore]

I ask simple questions you are afraid or unable to answer.

Inability and fear have nothing to do with it. I've answered your question several times. You just don't like my answer. Disagree but don't change the question.

Why do you think that? It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing at all.

It does if you put it in the context of all the other statements you hear from the administration -- not filtered through ChumpDumper sources.

Not at all. I want to know what "getting the job done" means. All I've heard from the administration is about handing off the fight to the Iraqis when they're ready, not establishing peace first than handing off responsibility. It's a very important distinction and one you have failed to prove when asked directly -- so you start whining about the ignore function again. You had your chance.

Fine, I'll play your game. Let's see you link to the "handing off the fight" quote. Then, if you find it, we'll look at the larger context.

I think you're going to find the administration's position on Iraq is just exactly as I've stated it, we will stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to provide for their own security. Wait! The administration has said one other thing. We will stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to provide for their own security or until we are asked to leave by the Iraqi government.

I should have known this would be the case trying to argue with an idiot who believes, to this day, that the President lied in the 2003 State of the Union address when he said, "British Intelligence has learned..."

[Crookshanks]

This is a stupid game Chump likes to play. He thinks the President owes him a specific outline of what he wants accomplished in Iraq - but this war is not black and white.

Heck, even when the Germans and Japanese surrendered in WWII, it took us years before we were able to turn over complete governance to them. In fact, we've had a substantial military presence in those two countries since the end of the war, and it doesn't look like we'll be leaving any time soon!

[ChumpDumper]

I've answered your question several times.

So you've given me administration quotes? No.

It does if you put it in the context of all the other statements you hear from the administration -- not filtered through ChumpDumper sources.

My source is the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq. It's pretty vague, but you guys know exactly what the administration is saying by what they don't say - that's better.

I think you're going to find the administration's position on Iraq is just exactly as I've stated it, we will stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to provide for their own security.

That's not how you stated it. That's how I stated it. You added the little tidbit that we were going to reasonably pacify the entire country. Why are you lying about what you just said?

I should have known this would be the case trying to argue with an idiot who believes, to this day, that the President lied in the 2003 State of the Union address when he said, "British Intelligence has learned..."

Never said that. Why are you lying about that too?

[ChumpDumper]

This is a stupid game Chump likes to play. He thinks the President owes him a specific outline of what he wants accomplished in Iraq - but this war is not black and white.

But you guys are saying he has given you a specific outline through your inferences. I'm merely ponting out that it's not very specific.

Heck, even when the Germans and Japanese surrendered in WWII, it took us years before we were able to turn over complete governance to them. In fact, we've had a substantial military presence in those two countries since the end of the war, and it doesn't look like we'll be leaving any time soon!

Welcome to yesterday's talking point, moron.

[Yonivore]

But you guys are saying he has given you a specific outline through your inferrences.

That's your characterizations. I've never said that or inferred that.

I have, however, listened to the administration's words and, if you ask me, the conclusions I've drawn are fairly representative of what they're saying.

Welcome to yesterday's talking point, moron.

A point that stands the test of time.

Indeed, we were in Germany and Japan for some time after the fall of those regimes and, in Germany at least, faced with an insurgency for quite awhile after the surrender.

I think that is a relevant point. I think it demonstrates how unreasonable are your expectations of war.

[Crookshanks]

But you guys are saying he has given you a specific outline through your inferences. I'm merely ponting out that it's not very specific.Welcome to yesterday's talking point, moron.

God, are you really that dense, or are you just being contrary for grins?

The POINT was that even when there was a specific end to the war, it still took us years to stabilize the countries. In this war, there will probably never, ever be a clear-cut end because we are not fighting a country.

So, given that observation, why in the world do you think it will be easy to give a specific point of reference for leaving?

[ChumpDumper]

That's your characterizations. I've never said that or inferred that.

I have, however, listened to the administration's words and, if you ask me, the conclusions I've drawn are fairly representative of what they're saying.

Then why is finding those words so difficult for you?

A point that stands the test of time.

Indeed, we were in Germany and Japan for some time after the fall of those regimes and, in Germany at least, faced with an insurgency for quite awhile after the surrender.

I think that is a relevant point. I think it demonstrates how unreasonable are your expectations of war.

Not at all. I said on this very board that we would be in Iraq for years to come. I don't understand why you have such a problem backing up your points when asked to really examine what you are saying. If you have such a problem with the way I dissect your sentences, you should be more careful with your posts.

Or ignore me.

[ChumpDumper]

God, are you really that dense, or are you just being contrary for grins?

The POINT was that even when there was a specific end to the war, it still took us years to stabilize the countries. In this war, there will probably never, ever be a clear-cut end because we are not fighting a country.

So, given that observation, why in the world do you think it will be easy to give a specific point of reference for leaving?

I don't. But others are telling me it is easy and they have it all figured out from what they've heard. I ask for a futher explanation because I haven't seen anything even that specific and everyone wigs out.

[Crookshanks]

Or ignore me.

I'm quickly coming to conclusion that this may be the best way to handle you!

[ChumpDumper]

I'm quickly coming to conclusion that this may be the best way to handle you!

No one is stopping you.

[Crookshanks]

I don't. But others are telling me it is easy and they have it all figured out from what they've heard. I ask for a futher explanation because I haven't seen anything even that specific and everyone wigs out.

Okay - how about this - We'll be in Iraq until we're not in Iraq. Now can we drop this argument?!

[Yonivore]

Then why is finding those words so difficult for you?

I'm not having any trouble finding words. You're having trouble making my answers fit your conception of how you want the argument to progress.

Not at all. I said on this very board that we would be in Iraq for years to come. I don't understand why you have such a problem backing up your points when asked to really examine what you are saying. If you have such a problem with the way I dissect your sentences, you should be more careful with your posts.

I don't have a problem with the way you dissect my sentences except for the fact you change what I say when you do and then you want me to answer a completely different question formed out of your perception of what I said.

Or ignore me.

Good advice. But, have you ever been walking down the street and ever absentmindedly kicked something like a can or box.

Well, you're kind of like that except, unfortunately, you're one of the cans or boxes that are full of putrid, bug-infested, weeks-old rainwater in which a dead rat has been decomposing.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not having any trouble finding words.

Then where are they? I asked for administration quotes.

I don't have a problem with the way you dissect my sentences except for the fact you change what I say when you do and then you want me to answer a completely different question formed out of your perception of what I said.

There was no change. You tried to change what you typed after I asked you about it. Get it right the first time.

Good advice. But, have you ever been walking down the street and ever absentmindedly kicked something like a can or box.

Well, you're kind of like that except, unfortunately, you're one of the cans or boxes that are full of putrid, bug-infested, weeks-old rainwater in which a dead rat has been decomposing.

And you're a plagiarist and a liar.

[clambake]

The repubs are always boasting about how they have a clear plan and the dems have nothing but cut and run. Seems fair to ask for clarification that doesn't include " your too stupid to understand even if I tell you". Besides, Yoni, i've been asking for clarification about one, single statement. Are you ready to revisit that statement yet?

[ChumpDumper]

Good luck, he couldn't even say he wanted to be able to ignore me when asked directly.

[clambake]

How many threads do I have to post in to ask you about your statement?

[ChumpDumper]

He might have you on ignore.

[Yonivore]

The repubs are always boasting about how they have a clear plan and the dems have nothing but cut and run. Seems fair to ask for clarification that doesn't include " your too stupid to understand even if I tell you". Besides, Yoni, i've been asking for clarification about one, single statement. Are you ready to revisit that statement yet?

Sure, what's the statement?

[clambake]

I wouldn't blame him for that. His statement was certainly groundbreaking

[clambake]

He's back!

You said that if it weren't for Bush there would be no successor to his presidency.

Explanation please.

[Yonivore]

He's back!

I don't live here.

You said that if it weren't for Bush there would be no successor to his presidency.

Not what I said.

Explanation please.

Quote me accurately then, and why not just copy and past the post here.

[clambake]

Is what you said. Try not to do what you blame others of doing. I did not twist your words. Come on, real answer please. I find that statement fasinating.

[clambake]

Oh, you said "I think". "I think if it weren't for Bush, there would not be a successor to the presidency".

[Yonivore]

Is what you said. Try not to do what you blame others of doing. I did not twist your words. Come on, real answer please. I find that statement fasinating.

No, it isn't. I know what I said but instead of repeating myself and having you or ChumpDumper say I've changed what I said, I want you to go find my quote and post it here.

First, I'll show you how you've changed my words then I'll explain to you what I meant when I said it.