Reply With Quote
Going on 3 pages, tbh
Maybe more
Going on 3 pages, tbh
Maybe more
Back when the discussion was being had, I sourced every position I took on whether or not it was reasonable to believe Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. That they haven't been found doesn't mean I didn't support my position it was reasonable to assume Iraq had them. In fact, I think it's still reasonable to believe that. But, you're changing the argument. We're talking about whether or not I supported my positions and, I did.
Again, not the question we are specifically discussing. When I was talking about that project [I forget the name], I sourced my posts and positions with links and opinions from others. I didn't make the up.
BTW, I would like to know whatever became of that effort.
But, back to the question at hand, you just disagreed with my position and the sources I used to support it. That's a reasonable position to take. Attacking me, now, and saying I just pulled these positions out of my ass and didn't support them is, in my humble opinion, unreasonable.
, in the early days, I plagiarized most of my content from other places -- sidestepping me altogether.
support for that position would require that they were found.
I didn't ask you "Where were the WMD back then?". I asked:
Where are the WMD?
Do you still think Iraq had WMD?
You didn't ask for "question we are specifically discussing"
Were they reasonable? For example, I don't think Cheney was a reasonable source when it came to Iraq, seeing he had a direct interest in certain message to be delivered.
And yes, I feel just the same about current administration officials talking about, for example, how many jobs the stimulus created.
Do you think it is reasonable to believe Jimmy Hoffa was murdered?
I didn't just rely on Vice President Cheney's statements.
As I've said before, there were plenty of people, on both sides of the aisle, who believed Iraq possessed WMD's. It was and is a reasonable position to take."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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], 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
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Cons ution 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"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
"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, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace 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, Dec 5, 2001
"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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"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
I don't know. I don't know much of Hoffa's death.
Again, because you're dodging the question. I didn't ask you what you thought back then. I asked you what you think now.
Where are the WMD?
And BTW, two, three or ten wrongs don't make a right.
And the Cheney comment was about 'translating the do ents'. Who was your source 'from both sides' about that?
Reasonable people think he was murdered and, yet, no body has ever been found.
Similarly, reasonable people believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's even though none have ever been found. I think that's still a reasonable position.
And, even though no stockpiles were ever discovered, there was plenty of evidence Iraq maintained the capability to recons ute a WMD program on a very short timeline.
I think it's reasonable to believe he had weapons of mass destruction.
I don't know but, that they haven't been found, doesn't mean they never existed.
I'm not sure I follow.
First, I'm don't recall sourcing the Vice President on the translation project. That was a project I found from another source. I'll see if I can re-locate the link and post it.
And, When have I ever claimed to have sourced both sides of an issue? I source my position, that's all. If I find people, with whom I normally disagree, that agree with me on a position, you can bet I'll probably use that source.
Well, if nothing else it gives me hope about that $5M I keep insisting is probably in my bank account.
Are you comparing hiding one body to hiding WMD, including WMD production facilities?
Yep. , Saddam Hussein hid a squadron of fighter jets under the Iraqi desert that weren't found until the second invasion.
And, if you'll read the Duelfer Report you'll learn there was quite a bit of WMD paraphenalia lying around. Iraq was far from clean of WMD evidence. There were just no stockpiles found.
here is a quote from powell that yoni left out:
"The evidence used to justify war was deliberately misleading"
Did you ever have $5Million dollars in your account?
Did you ever have a vast majority of world leaders claim you had $5Million dollars in your account?
That's certainly unreasonable, given what we know today.
Where are they? Back it up.
Does that mean you can't back up your claim?
Because that's the opposite of:
"Actually, I've supported every position I've ever posted on every one of these issues"
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.
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.
For example, I find quite unreasonable to take Barry's quotes on jobs created by his stimulus package. That's just buttons-esque.
It was totally reasonable to think Saddam would have used WMDs on the US in 2003.
Remember when he did in 1991?
Mushroom clouds of nerve gas everywhere!
I would like to have $5M in my bank account, have been actively working toward the acquisition and development of surplus funds, and have a specific use for stockpiled millions.
History shows that should be sufficient evidence for my being a threat to acquire $5M.
No, it doesn't. Now, if you had previously possessed $5M in your bank account and had shown that $5M to your Kurdish and Iranian neighbors and, then, after spending a part of that $5M entertaining those Kurds and Iranians, proceeded to actively work toward acquiring and developing more surplus funds, with the intent of showing and entertaining others; you'd have an corollary.
Who gives a if she spends money on Iranians?
Aren't they evil?
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?
So you agree they didn't have any WMD?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
