WMDs found in Iraq

[BoarSpear]

Actually, Boar, if you had actually read the article you would have clearly seen right there in the first paragraph that Senator Rick Santorum reported the news in a conference call.

Here, I'll even quote it for you.

uh huh reread your article dipshit!! then go read page 4 of the 'declassified" pdf file note all the wording, "assessed to have" (means we think but cant find)....."could" ( could not do but could). my favorite "might"...".iraqis would like to acquire"....wait would like to aquire? yes a big article about....NOTHING!!! read your own article...all of it, INCLUDING THE PARTS YOU DIDNT COPY AND PASTE ON PURPOSE (run fix it go ahead I didnt bother quoting it, you already look like a fool.)

.....notice where they say pre gulf war 1? and notice where they said "THESE ARE NOT THE WEAPONS WE WENT TO WAR OVER" and notice also this was from 2003 and recently declassified...so when did your friends from iraq check to see what you heard again? See either way reason you posted this is BULLSHIT and doesnt fly, but....thanks for the amusement.

[Garland]

Liz is being dumb..like this footage of her being dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTSgak0BL9Q&search=lizard%20dumb

[BoarSpear]

Btw. the article was from the 22nd and today's the 25th... very relevant.

Yep to a report from 2003...not to some hot news from your friends on the frontlines in Iraq checking to see if the new find made the news...and dont bother claiming thats not what you tried to tie that article into, you panicked and went frantically searching for anything to save your ass but didnt really absorb what you read to well huh?

[Garland]

KOTF messing with a hungover "Boar"spear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKZHoO1zuhM&search=funny%20pig

[treelizard]

The article pointed out that weapons had been discovered, more exist, Iraq was not a WMD-free zone like Saddam and various Americans kept insisting,

The article lso says that inspectors found, from talking to scientists in Iraq, that "it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction."

The article also implied that it's possible our President didn't mention this to the public earlier because he was focusing on developing a secure government in Iraq.

I don't have any more information than what I posted.

I assume there is more because the article stated they are working on declassification.

I didn't post that part of the article because it's a PDF file and I can't cut and paste from Adobe Acrobat on my computer.

You are, once again, completely wrong about your conspiracy theories about me, which makes me question your ability to analyze anything, let alone world politics.

Anyways, so they found proof that there were weapons of mass destruction!!! And Zarqawi is dead!!! I say, it's been one hell of a month!!!!

[treelizard]

Liz is being dumb..like this footage of her being dumb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTSga...=lizard%20dumb

AWWW that was so cute!!! Thanks!!!!!!

[treelizard]

Yep to a report from 2003...not to some hot news from your friends on the frontlines in Iraq checking to see if the new find made the news...and dont bother claiming thats not what you tried to tie that article into, you panicked and went frantically searching for anything to save your ass but didnt really absorb what you read to well huh?

Uh, no, you're wrong. The report, LIKE I SAID, was just released.

But, uh, nice try. Better luck trying to come up with accurate conclusions next time?

[jubaji]

fox news=right-wing conservative propaganda machine.

and, CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS = what?

[stabbychick]

From the article:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

So what exactly are we getting all excited about here?

[Garland]

and, CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS = what?

conservative propaganda machines.

[BoarSpear]

Uh, no, you're wrong. The report, LIKE I SAID, was just released.

But, uh, nice try. Better luck trying to come up with accurate conclusions next time?

sure was but its OLD info that your friends currently serving wouldnt have shit to do with...but the funniest part is first you asked if it was in the media, then claimed thats the article they sent you, again if they sent the link why did you ask if it was in the media? even funnier, why did they ask if it was in the media? That was your original claim!! the article came after you got neg repped and realized your mistake....that doesnt fly no matter how hard you try.

[treelizard]

Yes it's OLD info that was JUST released and since my friends are serving IN Iraq then it's very relevant to the work they are doing.

And like I said (wow, you really are very slow today), I asked if it was in the media to see what the response would be, in order to make a point about the article. But this is a complex thing to do that requires forethought and reasoning so I can see why you are having trouble understanding.

[treelizard]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises

Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made

[BoarSpear]

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.

Circulus in demonstrando (circular argument). Circular argumentation occurs when someone uses what they are trying to prove as part of the proof of that thing.

Complex question. A complex question is a question that implicitly assumes something to be true by its construction, such as "Have you stopped beating your wife?" A question like this is fallacious only if the thing presumed true (in this case, that you beat your wife) has not been established.

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises

Petitio principii (begging the question). This is the fallacy of assuming, when trying to prove something, what it is that you are trying prove.

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Slippery slope. A slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies.

Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made

Beating you over the head with your lies is just that, try to deny the facts you freakin lied more than Bush and Cheney combined ....so just STFU liz its painfully obvious the article and your friends are BS...just like the proof of WMd you posted that clearly says "these arent the droids you're looking for" oopps wrong discussion sorry, must be a jedi around here screwing with the force...

nighty nite liz..blabber on..you're just looking sillier as you go...

[Garland]

Non Sequitur ("It does not follow"). This is the simple fallacy of stating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly follow from the premises

Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand.

Me? Por Que?




Carne Asada??? Cervesa??? Cocahiba?