[loveisdead]

This is the best piece you'll read on Paul Ryan probably ever

[loveisdead]

[birdman]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

You said it. He'd have been doing this long ago. He got a good report when he needed one. End of story.

I said the same thing when everyone accused Bush of cooking the WMD intelligence as an excuse to go to Iraq. If Bush really had that capability, he would have just planted the weapons there to vindicate his decision. Seems like it would have been a pretty easy thing to do.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by birdman

I said the same thing when everyone accused Bush of cooking the WMD intelligence as an excuse to go to Iraq. If Bush really had that capability, he would have just planted the weapons there to vindicate his decision. Seems like it would have been a pretty easy thing to do.

Uh...not at all. Sneaking weapons of mass destruction into a soverign nation is not essentially the same thing as making up false intelligence.

[loveisdead]

[birdman]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

Uh...not at all. Sneaking weapons of mass destruction into a soverign nation is not essentially the same thing as making up false intelligence.

I realize they are not the same thing, but are you suggesting that putting a hundred viles of anthrax into a backpack and getting it into Iraq would have been impossible, or even difficult if one were as evil as Bush was portrayed?

[loveisdead]

Listening to Pandora. Play Crack the Sky came on. That song is so beautiful.

[caveBEAR]

Originally Posted by birdman

I realize they are not the same thing, but are you suggesting that putting a hundred viles of anthrax into a backpack and getting it into Iraq would have been impossible, or even difficult if one were as evil as Bush was portrayed?

This is just semantics at this point, and I agreed with you up until 'they're pretty much the same thing'. Don't care to get into it any further.

[Holly HoX!]

Originally Posted by Broken Parachute

Snoop Dogg:

Lolololol

[birdman]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

This is just semantics at this point, and I agreed with you up until 'they're pretty much the same thing'. Don't care to get into it any further.

Yeah me neither, except to say that I never said they were "pretty much the same thing".

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by birdman

I realize they are not the same thing, but are you suggesting that putting a hundred viles of anthrax into a backpack and getting it into Iraq would have been impossible, or even difficult if one were as evil as Bush was portrayed?

amount of "evil" a person is =/= ease at which they can smuggle things into other countries

a vile of anthrax =/= a weapon of mass destruction

jobs reports numbers being slightly off =/= spending billions of dollars to put thousands of troops in other countries on a gamble that said countries might have weapons and might be aiming them at us

This is what we're talking about when we say "apples to oranges" after you say things. In any case, with Bush it wasn't an abundance of evidence that Iraq had WMDs that convinced Congress to go along, it was the deliberate withholding of information to the contrary. Basically, the evidence for WMDs was exaggerated and the evidence against it was tucked away. By George Bush? Probably not. By key members of his administration? Absolutely.

Edit: just saw you point out that you aren't equating the two situations, just what you said about them. Feel free to ignore this post.

[Holly HoX!]

Originally Posted by loveisdead

For NFL fans...

Hahahaha!!!!!

What is this awesome shit?

[perceptrons]

Originally Posted by birdman

Yeah me neither, except to say that I never said they were "pretty much the same thing".

He said, that you said, that they were, 'pretty much the same thing,' not, what you said, which was that you never said, that they were, "pretty much the same thing"

I think that clears it up.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

amount of "evil" a person is =/= ease at which they can smuggle things into other countries

a vile of anthrax =/= a weapon of mass destruction

jobs reports numbers being slightly off =/= spending billions of dollars to put thousands of troops in other countries on a gamble that said countries might have weapons and might be aiming them at us

This is what we're talking about when we say "apples to oranges" after you say things. In any case, with Bush it wasn't an abundance of evidence that Iraq had WMDs that convinced Congress to go along, it was the deliberate withholding of information to the contrary. Basically, the evidence for WMDs was exaggerated and the evidence against it was tucked away. By George Bush? Probably not. By key members of his administration? Absolutely.

Edit: just saw you point out that you aren't equating the two situations, just what you said about them. Feel free to ignore this post.

Wow, and you say I don't know how to read.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by birdman

Wow, and you say I don't know how to read.

But at least when I read something incorrectly I own up to it instead of being a dick about it, continuing to say the same things I read incorrectly, and then lecturing other people about owning up to their mistakes.