BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 05:35 PM

The war has made the world a far more dangerous place. And the indications are it has in many ways made Iraq an even worse place to live than it was under Saddam, especially for women.

All the reasons given for the war have turned out to be false.

In these cirvumstances the only honest thing for people who supported it, even Blair, is to say is "Sorry, we got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake - we really believed those things we said." (Except that in the case of Blair he avoids actually using the word "Sorry".)

That seems to be the general thing that many of the politicians and media people in the UK who backed the war are saying anyway.

From this thread I get the impression that in the USA there is more of a tendency to say "Don't confuse us with facts - we were right all along, and we still are right." Is this really how it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM

The war has made the world a far more dangerous place. And the indications are it has in many ways made Iraq an even worse place to live than it was under Saddam, especially for women.

All the reasons given for the war have turned out to be false.

In these cirvumstances the only honest thing for people who supported itis to say is "Sorry, we got it wrong, but it was an honest mistake - we really believed those things we said."

That seems to be the general thing that many of the politicians and media people in the UK who backed the war are saying anyway. Even Blair. (Except that in the case of Blair he avoids actually using the word "Sorry".)

From this thread I get the impression that in the USA there is more of a tendency to say "Don't confuse us with facts - we were right all along, and we still are right." Is this really how it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 05:53 PM

Yes, McGrath. That's how it is. There's always a reason for everything they do, and they try to justify all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 08:45 PM

Not to mention that CBS fired 4 of their execs and are pushing San REather into an early retirement over using documents that *may* (but may not...) have been falsified in which no one died and here over 100,000 innocent folks have been killed by the Bushite' falsified documents and not only no one gets fired but the falsifier gets a friggin' medal???

Would any of you Bushites like to explain the reasoning???

Didn't think so....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: GUEST,George W. Bush
Date: 17 Jan 05 - 08:58 PM

"I guess I goofed. I wanted so much to believe that the hateful stuff I fed Rummy was acurat. Achually, I got most of this hype from Dick who has shared with me a lot of money from the rebuilding efforts and the privatised military efforts in Iraq.

Sorry,
George

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 07:16 AM

Er, what LAST CHANCE, beardedbruce? Oh, you mean resolution 1441? The one that US Ambassador Negroponte encouraged nations to vote for by giving a categorical assurance that it was not a trigger for war? (That would be why Kofi Annan, when pressed, gave a view shared by most international jurists around the world, including most in the UK, that the war was illegal.)

Maybe Saddam played awkward with the US to avoid loss of face on the home front. So what? He wasn't compromising the inspections, and Hans Blix and his team were strongly of the view that the inspections regime should have been given more time. (After all, "Iraq is as big as France" as we heard parroted endlessly while the survey group was at work.)

Maybe, beardedbruce, you just think that anyone who teases the Bush administration deserves to have his civilian population slaughtered in tens of thousands. Well I, for one, am delighted that Washington is now paying, in cash and loss of worldwide respect, for the mess it's created.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: GUEST,Peter K
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 08:48 AM

Previous post was mine. Came in by the back door again when Mudcat was down (again).

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 10:26 AM

The WMD danger was the only (or the main, depending on which old article you read) reason for strting the war. If that's true I would expect Bush to say: "With the information then that I have now, we wouldn't have started the war."

He doesn't say that. Am I very wrong in inferring from that that he never really took serious the WMD reasoning in the first place?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Nerd
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 12:41 PM

Uh, oh, Wolfgang is trying to confuse us with logic again!

Beardedbruce, using the UN resolutions as a justification for war is poor logic. If the UN is a meaningful body, then its own wishes should be respected as to how its resolutions are enforced. The UN was against the invasion of Iraq. On the other hand, if the UN is NOT a meaningful body, then its resolutions should be held to be irrelevant.

Saying that the UN resolutions must be enforced regardless of the UN's opinion on how they should be enforced is a classic case of wanting to have it both ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 02:07 PM

The bottom line was that Saddam was ordered to get rid of the WMDs, and in fact it is now clear that he did in fact do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 05:17 PM

The war of the abstract noun:
War against Terrorism.

Were going to war to get the bastards who did 9-11 and were going in 16 months to look for you in Afghanistan so please be there.

Rats, we missed em.
Oh well bring em on in Iraq.

We got Hussein, nah na na na nah nah.

..........................

All you need to do is ask Condi Rice if all is well with the war.
She will tell you yes.
But be careful to not pursue an expanded answer or you will be accused of insulting her integrity.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jan 05 - 05:57 PM

And lets not forget before the revisionists come thru and try to rewrite the nightmare-ish policies of this most immoral adminstration that what it boiled down to was Bush telling Saddam that Saddam, if he didn't want to get whacked, had to prove that he didn't have WMDs???

LIke, how does one go about proving they don't have something???

When I brought this question up back before the invasion, Teribus, et al, wrote "War 'n Peace" length rebuttals that never quite got around to answering this very basic question...

Hmmmmmm?

Now here's what to this very day I don't understand and maybe a bb, or one of the other blind followers of Bush, might have an answer:

Like, ahhhh, if millions of folks seemed to have the "intellegence" that the Big Three (mishroom clouds, WMD's and Al Qeada connection) were bogus, then why is Bush now hiding behind the "Gee, I acted on the intellegence I had"?????

Yeah, Bushites. Answer us that one, if you can...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:33 AM

On the other hand, Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me. Millions of folks could tell that the threat of the USA in case of noncooperation was not bogus. Then why did he lead his country into that nightmare of defeat, loss of life and possible split up into at least three different parts? That's his responsibility and I don't believe he was in error of the consequences.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:49 AM

Wolfgang,

Perhaps Saddam was listening to his friends in the UN who were making money off violating the UN sanctions. Or perhaps Saddam was listening to all the people who insisted that the US should do nothing, and who NEVER hinted that Saddam should comply with the 14 years of UN resolutions.

Perhaps the words and actions of those here who insist the US should not have attacked, even after the UN declared Saddam in violation of the resolutions gave him enough encouragement to think that he was not in danger of attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:30 AM

The war was begun by George Bush; he planned to start the war,a pparently, from long before he actually coud and did do so.

I do not believe his real rational has ever been honestly, clearly and completely laidout.

I believe one reason is that he does not have a genuine rationale, and deployed the greatest military force in the world without a well-reasoned rationale for doing so.

In this, he was criminally negligent, and perhaps even guilty of murder.

Because he called it war, he will escape standing trial for murder; but it was murderous and inept at very best.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:35 AM

The war was begun by Saddam, when he invaded Kuwait.



I believe that, with the information available at the time, had Bush NOT taken action against Iraq, he would have been criminally negligent and guilty of violating his oath of office.

I also belive, as I have stated before, that the implementation of the attack and occupation was not well thought out.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:21 AM

Fine, bb, then Bush Ist should have continued killing Iraqi's until they were all dead. Remember the "Highway of Death", bb? The world opinion was turning against the US with every hour as the US bombed people who were in retreat.

But if you were president, I'm sure you would have bombed Iraq back into the Stone Age because you can bet that Saddam would have been in the most secure area meaning that by the time you got to him everyone else in Iraq would already be dead...

But I am very curious about your reason fro attacking Iraq. Have you given up on the ususal list? I can't think of anyone in the Bush administartion touting the "Kuwait occupation" some 12 years earlier as the motivation for the invasion. Maybe you should email that one to the Bush PR folks 'cause they are running low on excuses...

And lastly, at the time of the invasion, Saddam's government was cooperating with the inspectors and doing everything that Bush was asking of him. This, sadly, is fact and not something that is debatable. Go back to the archives of the Washington Post in the run up to the war and reread the real events that took place in the months before the attack, if you have forgotten them...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:41 AM

Amos wrote:

"The man is a leather-headed fascist with the conscience of coprolite."

MG wrote:

"Go suck coprolite, Amos

Take coprolite up your ass, Amos. I'm sure it won't burn."

Nice to see some Ichnology on the Mudcat!

Excellent debating technique Martin.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:52 AM

"Running out of excuses" will be my next cartoon.
Calling any of the cast of PNAC characters to task is out of bounds.
Their appointed puppet leader GWB was appointed by God, so all these events are not manmade but instead an act of God.

Has anyone ever asked Bush if he was appointed by the father the son or the holy ghost?

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:29 AM

I'll gladly forgo any royalties, Donuel...

Have at it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 03:02 PM

Hussein's actions are also very hard to understand for me

There are at least two fairly plausible explanations for why Saddam wasn't completely open about having got rid of his WMDs. They aren't alternatives, because each would have reinforced the other.

One is that he could have been hoping that the threat of them might actually deter an attack which was otherwise sure to take place.

It seems pretty certain to me that if he had been completely open, and cooperated fully, this would have been treated as just another lie, and underhand manoeuvre, and that the attack would have gone ahead anyway. (After all he did in fact repeatedly say that there were no WMDs.) I suspect that the main reason the attack had to be pushed ahead so rapidly, before many necessary preparations had even been completed, was a fear that Saddam might move to cooperate fully with Blix's inspection, and that growing evidence that there were no WMDs would undermine the justification for the attack.

The second plausible explanation is that, if the people in Iraq who hated Saddam's regime had known that the stocks of gas no longer existed, and that in many ways he was a paper tiger, the possibility of an effective overthrowal of that regime would have been greatly increased.

Moreoever that would have been likely to throw up a replacement regime whch was no less hostile to the USA than Saddam's, but was far more dangerous because far more popular. Which would have been another reason for the rush to war. Too much delay, and the other justification for the invasion, that it was the way of getting rid of Saddam, might no longer be available, because the Iraqis might have done the job themselves

My own belief throughout has been that, if the USA and its junior partners had really believed in the existence of these massive stocks of WMDs, they would have proceeded far more cautiously. This suggests that the Bush and the Pentagon and Blair and the War Office actually had a pretty good picture of the real situation so far as these weapons were concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

You're right, McGrath. On that level of 'understanding' (seeing what may have motivated him to act like he did) there are plausible explanations for Hussein's behaviour. I also can 'understand' some of Hitler's actions when I think this way. But when I think of the foreseeable consequences Hussein's behaviour had for his country and his people I still have much less 'understanding' (in the sense of agreeing with what he did).

I wish he had made an attack much less likely by a full cooperation, but obviously he didn't care at all about his people up to the last day in power.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Pauline L
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 04:52 PM

A day or two after the election, in a self-congratulatroy speech, Bush said that we are bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration now admits that the upcoming election in Iraq is "less than perfect." The administration believes that this is a good reason to continue the war, with no end in sight, per Condoleeza Rice. Meanwhile, someone has said that there might be WMDs in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:02 PM

Stigweard or Stigweird or whatever you call yourself

No one says one has to come here and debate.

I can just tell you your opinion sucks and walk out the door. where does it say I have to debate anything that I don't agree with.

we don't all have to be like Amos and PRETEND we know everything and act like we are pseudo intellectual teaching assistants in rumpled sports jackets with patches on their elbows.

I like posting an opinion, that's all. You can like it or not. Fuck wasting time debating a bunch of crap that isn't going to convince anyone here, anyway.

Why don't you go suck coprolite, Stickweird?

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:13 PM

Excellent debating technique Martin. (Stigweard)

Stigweard, Martin is a very generous person: you praise him and he gives you a new sample.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:22 PM

But you'll notice, not highly original.   He borrowed my subject twice just o say something nasty. But it is a big improvement, since most of the cheap stuff he borrows has been used several million times.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

Plus, Stigweard, Anything more than three lines from Martin contitutes then highest level of debating from him. I think you got 6 or 7. You must really have gotten unner the boy's skin...

Another reason that Martin doesn't like to debate is because he knows he's wrong which I think speaks volumes about his intellegence. Folks like beardedbruce aren't smart enuff to know they are wrong so they just debate wrong ideas and facts after other wrong ideas and facts... But not so with Martin. Thats a sure sign of an intellegent wrong thinking person...

So cheer up, my friend...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

what subject amos? the subject of your anus?

Sniff, sniff.

do I smell a hhijacked thread?

Is this now another thread about Amos and me?

all because I voiced MY opinion which you didn't fucking like?

Hah!

Wolfgang, I hardly looked at Stickyweird's comments as praise. I look at it as possibly another guy who only hears what he likes to hear.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 05:53 PM

I don't think "understanding" why someone might have done something ever implies agreeing with what they have done.   Once we understand why someone has carried out an action, we might indeed sometimes go on to agree with that they have done, in the light of out having a fuller appreciation of the actual circumstances and options. But "understanding" and "agreeing" are two entirely separate processes.

In some circumstances fuller appreciation might in fact serve to change our opinion the other way. For example we might think some action justifiable, but change our minds about that when we reach a fuller understanding of the circumstances. (Some people have indicated that they now see the Iraq invasion in that way.)

Clearly if Saddam Hussein had been concerned for the wellbeing of his people he would have made an invasion far harder to carry through by resigning and going into exile, or by shooting himself. However, fairly clearly, the wellbeing of his people was not a high priority for him, or rather he was incapable of seeing their interests as detached from his own. He can reasonably be categorised as a megalomaniac. There are a lot of powerful and important people in all parts of the world who are rather like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:04 PM

Of course, if people in the US really cared about the wellbeing of the Iraqi people, they wouldn't keep advocating punishments for Saddam (for not caring about his people), that hurt the Iraqi people at least as much as, if not more than they hurt Saddam. Saddam is still alive after all. This certainly cannot be said about the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by US forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:09 PM

It could also be argued that no one, except a few folks in Bush's inner circle, actually thought he was evil enough to actually go beyond the bluff. Even though I marched in just about every anit-war demonstartion in DC prior to the invasion, deep down inside I was saying to myself, "Man, he really can't be this evil". I always figgured that he'd figure some way out of the bluff.

I don't blame Saddam in that in the run up to the invasion Saddam did everything that was asked of him except leave, which I'm sure he would have thought to be a hopeless trap.

No, I put the blame 100% on the Bushites. Not 99.9%....

Bush made up his mind on this inasion the day that the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:17 PM

100 per cent on Bush, and 100 per cent on Saddam. (And Blair? I doubt if he could have stopped Bush by refusing to back him up, so possibly a bit lower down. Basically a bit player.)

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:23 PM

I really dont know why we are still debating the rights and wrongs of the war,there is simply nothing left to debate.
Those who still attempt to justify our actions in Iraq, both in government and here in Mudcat, are either stupid or evil, (take your pick).
The latest photographs showing British troops physically abusing and sexually degrading Iraqi civilians is unspeakable,and gives the lie to those that politicians call "our brave boys". Most are in reality
psycopaths after a few months of military training.
Perhaps the only good thing to come from this dreadfull episode, is that our much vaunted Western democracy and its championing of human rights,is shown to be the biggest lie ever told...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:37 PM

It would be nice to see George and Hussein tried together. Failing that, they could be just tied together and left somewhere remote.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 06:42 PM

How do you figure 100% on Saddam, McG???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 08:48 PM

He could probably have stopped the rush to war in its tracks, if he had shot himself, or even retired to a luxury villa in Saudi Arabia or Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:10 PM

Yep, like Ake said, stupid or evil.

I'll go with stupid, as in get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:16 PM

Come on McG... Yer a smart feller... Think about it... Put yerself in Saddam shoes fir a minute... Yer doing everything that Bush is askin'... Yer opening up one presidental compound after another trying to satisfy Bush... Then Bush finally says, "Hey, just leave"... Yeah right, McG?... If I'm Saddam I ain't going nowhere... No, make that NOWHERE... Like the Bush's are some folks to be trusted here??? They're gonna kill me, fir sure... Hey, these are the same folks who gave me a bunch of chemical weapons to use on folks and now they are using this as an excuse to kill me??? These are the folks that gave me a big ol' wink when I told them that I was gonna occupy Kuwait then killed off a couple hundred of my people for doing it??? They're gonna kill me. Sho nuff are... These are the folks who brought me presents after I had gassed the Kurds and now they are painting me as the badest man to ever live??? They are gonna kill me!!! These are the same folks who provided me the intellegence that I used to kill off a couple hundred thousand Iranians for them and now I'm the bad guy??? HEY, THEY *ARE* GONNA KILL ME!!!!!!

Now Iz not trying to make Saddam a saint 'cause, like other dictators, many of whom the Bush folks have bno problems with, he is a bad man but is he responsible for Bush being even a badder man? I don't think so.

I'm stickin' with putting the invasion of Iraq 100% on the shoulders of the man who gets the credit/blame: George W. Bush! No one else...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:23 PM

Martin..Although you express right wing views occasionally, I give you credit for not attempting to justify the Iraq situation.
On reading your few serious posts, i would say your ideas on freedom,patriotism ect are miles away from the thoughts of the neo-cons
   Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 09:28 PM

Oh, don't try gettin' all warm and fuzzy wid ol' MG, Ake, 'er he'll surely tell you to stick some nasty thing into a body cavity... Sho nuff will...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Once Famous
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:25 PM

No Bobert, I will tell you to go fuck yourself with a broomstick.

Ake has many times said some kind things about my thoughts and opinions.

What's the matter Bobert? There are plenty more who've PM'd me in support of me not buying your complete left-wing radical doper baby politics. I get praised often for having the guts to stand up to the crap that you and your gang of Amos (the anus) and Donuel dish out in your daily whinefest campaign against America.


As long as you do, I will constantly be there to remind you how full of crap you all are and how you take for granted the good things about living in this country. I don't need to debate you. There's no debate and it's a waste of my time to do so, but I will let you know that I think it's completely doper politics.

You're a square peg in a round hole America Bobert. And you have to write here every day the same old song and dance to try to justify it.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 05 - 11:33 PM

Nice try, Martin. Bobert was making an important point, but you lost it. You didn't speak to the issue. All you can do is cavil and call names, and whine in your own little way.
Bobert at least says what he thinks rather than resorting to personal attacks and teenage insults.

One decision, alone, began the hot war; it was the first order to cross into Iraq and head for Baghdad, and the order following shortly thereafter to drop a missile on a nightclub where the Hussein and sons clique were supposedly hiding, but weren't. Both those orders lay on one desk for signature, no other.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 12:18 AM

Question; who won the election in 2004? Seems that he majority of voters selected GWB, so it really doesn't matter a rat's ass what the left wingers think. Get yourself organized and elect your owwn candidate in 2008. Whining is unbecoming.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:08 AM

Jeez, Doug--

Nixon won an election or two. So did Warren Harding. And U S Grant. Huey Long. That dead guy in Missouri that beat Ashcroft. Winning an election doesn't mean you're smart, honest or competent or even alive; it just means you can win elections sometimes.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 01:28 AM

"so it really doesn't matter a rat's ass what the left wingers think."

I hope you are just talkin', Doug, and that you don't really mean this. It matters what ALL people in a democratic country think. If an election negates the thoughts of half its citizens, then maybe the country has to take a second look at itself and its way of evaluating the wishes, aspirations and hopes of its people.

I was in Quebec when Bill 101 passed. It basically stripped my rights as a citizen. What Canada had done to Quebec, Quebec did to its English-speaking residents. Please don't ever think that the people who 'lost' an election have lost their rights. It's a very dangerous way to think. If you really think that (which I don't believe), then your country has found a road to civil war. Mine did, and we are still trying to get things patched. War is an easy place to get to and a bitch to get out of.

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:47 AM

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary:

understand...
   (4) to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something...

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 04:50 AM

Crikey, I thought I felt my ears burning!

I don't get offended by Martin's comments, they are faintly amusing once or twice although the constant reference to bodily functions shows a slight lack of imagination.

You certainly don't have to debate Martin - and you rarely do, but I would rather debate a point of contention than simply eff and jeff at anyone who doesn't agree with me.

Also Mr G, I am impressed you know what a coprolite is - perhaps that education wasn't such a waste after all.

Pseudo-Intellectual Stigweard

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 06:52 AM

The point of my message to Martin was that,unlike other folks of a "Rightwing" persuasion, he has the intelligence not to try and defend the indefensible.
Martin defends his right wing views with passion and good luck to him ,Ill argue against him all day and thats as it should be.

The people who make me angry are those who allow their political beliefs to blind them to the atrocities ,like the destruction of Fallujah,being committed in our name in Iraq.

I would say to Martin, that although there are those on Mudcat who deserve his invective, Bobert is not one of them.

I think Boberts remarks were meant to be taken in the same humourous way that martin himself often posts...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:35 AM

Yup, when I popint out that it was Bush who made the decision to start and unwinable war rather than Saddam, I'm invited to do something with a broomstick...

Hmmmmm?

Typical evasive tactics. I don't think Martin is capable of providing a rebuttal to much of anything because of his obvious anal fixation but, sniff, he is amusing, if nuthin' else...

Sure would be nice if he could work thru some of his polymorphorse perverse guilt issues, however, becuase there's an entire world of insults out there just waiting to be discovered...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Oops (No WMDs in Iraq)
From: Once Famous
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 02:56 PM

Bobert, you don't get it.

I don't owe you or anybody an explanation on WHY I think your agenda is full of crap.

I am not at all impressed with anyone's debating skills here, especially Amos, for he has none.

I just don't feel it is worth my time past giving an opinion that will, and obviously does, have more impact on you than yours seems to have on me.