What Obama Said About Taking Vacations in 2008!

[Xavier_Onassis]

Not my ball, not my game, not my court.

Your insistence on Saddam Hussein actually having weapons of mass destruction was legendary.

It was Cheney, not Obama that proclaimed"deficits don't matter."

[sirs]

And most everyone else believed he had them as well.....does that make Clinton "Legendary"?  Gore?  Reid??  The UN?, nearly every other intelligence agency on the globe??  Nor has there been proof that he never had them...quite the contrary, he's used them on the Kurds, so he most assuredly did have them. 

As far as Cheney and his comments, how is that proof of what??  You need to present it in context, But not only would I not agree with it in general, neither did Obama, proclaiming such deficits under Bush was unpatriotic......again making his abuse of deficits and debt apparently treasonous

So what again is an actual example of "proof that I've rejected", that I guess everyone else hasn't (rejected)?  Ball back in your court

[Xavier_Onassis]

See what I mean?

He HAD then once, just not when the US invaded.

It is worthless to discuss anything with you.

[sirs]

No, I don't see what you mean.  Nor would anyone else.  What "proof" has been presented that I've rejected, that everyone else hasn't??  That's your latest error filled unsupported claim.  Most everyone else, including your precious Dems thought Saddam had WMD.  It's only until after we went in, that it was learned they had possibly had been destroyed, but more likely moved out, probably to Syria, but will never know because there's NO PROOF OF WHAT AND WHERE IT WENT.  BUT HE MOST ASSUREDLY DID HAVE THEM AT ONE TIME

So what again is an actual example of "proof that I've rejected", that I guess everyone else hasn't (rejected)?

[Xavier_Onassis]

He did not, however, have them at the time of the invasion, which was a terible idea at the time,and I think it is pretty obvious that invading Iraq was a terrible idea in retrospect. If you recall, I have ALWAYS been against it. It was obvious to me that Iraq posed no threat to any Americans other than those in the area of Iraq.

[sirs]

He did not, however, have them at the time of the invasion

And as FACTUALLY has been presented, most everyone thought he did....including a vast majority of your precious Democrats

You can argue about it being a "terrible idea", until your blue in the face.  I didn't "reject anything" that wasn't rejected by nearly every rational minded person as well

Being against the war isn't the same as the WMD issue however.  But that's more a philosophical debate, and one I still support to this day.  But that's not proof of anything that I've rejected.  It WAS a good idea, just poorly executed after Saddam was taken out.

So, we're back to square one, where you have yet to demonstrate a proof that I've rejected. 

But we have one for you, before this attempted projection effort.  There is proof beyond all doubt that this president has acrued more debt than all other presidents combined.  I can provide some website links for you to ignore, if you wish.  And yet, we're no longer spending all those billions on the Iraq or Afghan wars, that was being spent under Bush

So, despite the ongoing efforts of claiming how much Bush was spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have proof positive that Obama is managing to spend significantly more of our tax dollars, yet on less war. 

And yet *poof* you've simply rejected it...just can't be, so he didn't, end of story.  Blinders securely in place

[Xavier_Onassis]

It would have been a terrific idea had the US had the information, the Arabic speakers, and the plan to remove Saddam, placate the country and turn it over to an elected government. However, they clearly were ill-prepared and screwed nearly everything up. We would have been better off had we simply have waited for Saddam to die or be overthrown. So would most Iraqis, on average.

I was against it, I was against voting to give Juniorbush the authority to invade.

I was right.

[sirs]

Your "rightness" is indeed related to your definition of right.  If rightness is specific to have prevented Saddam from transporting any WMD that most everyone believed he did have to various terrorist groups, that he factually did have contact with, that was partially achieved, although the disposition of what WMD stockpiles he did have will never be known.   Point being, after 911, we couldn't simply wait to watch Saddam die of old age, so the decision was made for him to comply, or else.  He chose or else

Point being that is a philosophical debate.  The war was supported by a majority of the country, AND Congress, AND the intel that was being provided, AND he was given authority to act

That has squat to do with demonstrating some "proof that I've rejected" that everyone else hasn't.  Proof would be:
- Sirs says x (example, xo believes that Obama hasn't spent all that much),
- and the facts have said y (example, Obama has accumulated more debt than all other Presidents combined which takes into account he's spending only a fraction on the Iraq & Afghan wars compared to Bush),
- but sirs still believes x (example, xo still thinks Obama hasn't spent all that much, because ...well because Bush spent so much on the Iraq & Afghan wars....and and...besides, Cheney said it was ok, because deficits don't matter)

[Xavier_Onassis]

Blah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blah, Blah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blahBlah blah blah , jabber jabber jabber and blah

blah.

[sirs]

Priceless....the epitome of a hard core liberal's ability to rationally debate. (or perhaps in the case, more of that trying to defend the indefensible)   Your contributions are indeed appreciated   

[Plane]

   Sometimes when proof is not possible , it can be worthwhile to explore an interesting idea anyway.

   If interesting is possible ....


    I thought Saddam Hussein had WMD , and I think it quite possible that Saddam also thought so.

     But if he didn't, why did he spend a dime or a minute on concealing what he did not have?

[sirs]

Great questions, Plane.  None of them ever to be answered however, without some divine intervention.

I just found it odd that the professor would use WMD as my supposed outright rejection of something proven, when most folks believed he had them to begin with.....including possibly Saddam.  That is 1 theory, that his WMD stockpiles were moved without his knowledge.  In order for the professor's claim to have any merit, I'd need to be on record as claiming that Iraq must still have them, despite that its been proven that Iraq no longer has them

Perhaps xo was confusing what the intel was telling everyone with what the results of our going in discovered.  Not sure what it proved that I've supposedly rejected, but then again, that's only an answer he can provide......which ironically may also require some divine intervention   

[Plane]

    I certainly cannot prove this , but I think that Saddam wanted to fig leaf his lack of WMD because it was embarrassing to obey his enemies.

      In the face of Iran , and other enemies he wanted some doubt on their part about his ability to respond to attack , he probably  expected to fight again.

      So while proving he lacked WMD would have been simple and cheap, he preserved doubt at great expense and danger.

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is exactly correct. Either Saddam did not wish to show his weakness to the world, or he was lied to by underlings who feared what he might do if he discovered that he was an emperor with no clothes.

I was sure that he was no threat to the US, and that is why I was always against the invasion.
I was amazed by the total incompetence of Bush & Cheney after they invaded. What morons! They sent  grad students in to rebuild Iraq as some sort of Libertarian republic, but saw no need for Iraqi police.

[sirs]

I was sure that he was no threat to the US, and that is why I was always against the invasion.

Which puts you in a distinct minority of folks, at the time, not to mention does nothing to validate any supposed proof of something that I've rejected.

If you simply want to debate about why or why not it was a good idea to take out Saddam, that's cool, since I still think it was a good idea, given what the intel was telling us, and a risk we couldn't take, following the events of 911.  Only that such a dialog does nothing to prove anything that I've supposedly rejected, per yet another erroneous claim