doublegunshop.com - home Forums NY Times admits Iraq had WMD'S after all !

No reason why anyone should feel like poop, Craig. Jim was challenged for saying something that isn't true. The NYT didn't admit or lie about WMDs in Iraq. No one produced evidence it did. Jim withdrew and, like Obama, is back again.

As for definitions, it's not enough to just use a dictionary, as we're instructed regularly by the "purposivists" and "textualists" in the your Supreme Court debates, or similarly by Second Amendment advocates in Misfires.

A good read on this is the book Judging Statutes by the chief judge of US Court of Appeal, Robert Katzman, who supports Chief Justice John Roberts' take on textualists.

Roberts says all legislative history is not created equal. There's a difference between the weight you give a conference report and the weight you give to a statement of one legislator on the floor i.e. Jim vs international authorities.

Experimental and aircraft "don't go together," Dave? The US is home to the largest homebuilt aircraft activity in the world. I built and fly, with my 98-year-old builder and pilot colleague, an experimental high-performance bush plane. As for the unneeded human costs of Iraq, Obama inherited the war from his predecessors, as he did the financial meltdown. Is it the schooling down there or blind partisanship that you don't know these things?

Nothing wrong with my "schooling" King YOU are the chump who comes one here lacking any EVIDENCE and just relies on "look it up" when challenged on the liberal lies while playing your "punks game"

Are liberals giving President Obama a pass for waging the kind of war they would instinctively oppose?

In other words, are they opposed to bombing only when the missions are ordered by Republicans?

Defanging the Left: Why liberals are staying silent on Obama�s war

There is anecdotal evidence, at least, that some on the left have lost their antiwar passion now that George W. Bush has decamped to Texas. Which means they�re more about partisanship than principle.

Dana Milbank, the liberal Washington Post columnist who can be tough on liberals, was at the White House for an antiwar demonstration in the wake of Obama�s airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. A grand total of 22 people showed up.

Here�s what he quoted lefty activist David Swanson as saying:

�If George W. Bush were launching wars with Congress out of town, oh, it would be flooded. They would be screaming.�



Medea Benjamin of Code Pink was asked why so few on the left oppose Obama. ��He�s totally defanged us,� she said, citing his party, his affability � and his race. �The black community is traditionally the most antiwar community in this country. He�s defanged that sentiment within the black community, or certainly voicing that sentiment.��

Defanged. Wow, those are damning words.

Now of course a president�s strongest partisans will give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to controversial policies. And of course they will be quicker to jump on a president of the opposing party. But war, and peace, would seem to be one of those issues that would trump ideological allegiances.

Rand Paul hurled this charge in a Senate speech last week during a debate over funding for the Syrian rebels:

�When there were Republicans in office, there were loud voices on the other side. I see an empty chamber. There will be no voices against war because this is a Democrat president�s war�The hypocrisy of that should resound in this nearly empty chamber.�

Maybe you recall how easily it is to get hung up on the critical importance of words, say for instance 'wmd'.

Did bo say he was forced to 'inherit' war and financial meltdown, I can't recall it. He has chosen to remind us of the last eight years to imply blame, but he said by his own words many times that he had the qualifications and desire to take on issues that his campaign could spin.

What exactly is 'unneeded' when it comes to human cost. Though constantly contradicting, doesn't bo regularly say he'll 'do whatever it takes' and 'it won't be easy'. Is that wink and a nod code for where's the prompter, I don't like this military stuff. Or, can we infer that the importance of those catch phrases are reserved for domestic policy remaking.

Obama is a disappointment to me, as I said earlier several times, Craig. I also believe because of circumstances he'll be rated in the top third historically and, if he had served under a parliamentary system, a top 10.

What's more radical institutional change for the US than trying to introduce universal healthcare---the country pays a high price without it---and not engaging in poorly planned foreign adventures ?

In debt to its ears, financing China's total military cost with its interest payments, sacrificing its young and treasure as occupation forces, the US told the world it would no longer pay all the costs as the world cop.

Makes sense to me.

Quote:
"Jim, NYT terminology isn't the issue. It's your claiming what it did when it didn't. Not the first time you let one off coming out of "

Holy mackerel:
Would this claim constitute the equivalent of Al Sharpton calling Jesse Jackson an "Oreo" because he's too soft on Whites! K Brown doesn't even have this right as I went back through this whole thread and Dave made the assertion that the Times used the term WMD NOT ME .
The biggest prevaricator on this site having the audacity to call someone else a liar when he's been caught with his foot in his mouth more times then Slick Willie Clinton.
And just like the Slickster I guess from Brown's point of view it's what your definition of WMDs is!
:/Jim

Let it go, Jim. Threshing about, name-calling is unbecoming to a mature person.

Please produce evidence that I've said something here I knew not to be true. Not something you don't agree with. A lie.

Prove to members I'm the biggest liar on the board. Man-up or close.

For our resident LIAR King,who keep his head in the liberal sand no matter what FACTS are presented to show otherwise.

http://www.examiner.com/article/wmd-foun...hemical-weapons

It's been 11 years since George W. Bush ordered an American invasion of Iraq after the 911 World Trade Center attacks. Then, President Bush was convinced Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, had an active chemical weapons program. However, no weapons of mass destruction were found, as reported by the Administration at the time. Nonetheless, a shocking report out Tuesday by the New York Times says that WMD were found in Iraq after all, but the Pentagon did its best to hide the truth.

Sources, namely former and retired U.S. and Iraq veterans, shared appalling stories of U.S. troops coming across dangerous abandoned chemical munitions during a span of time from 2004 to 2011. One such incident took place in 2008 with a team of military technicians charged with disposing of artillery left behind in the toils of war.

They told of handling shells that oozed of some pungent liquid that smelled acrid. "That doesn't look like pond water," said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling. And after swabbing the discharge, the color indicated the presence of the agent mustard, a potent chemical weapon outlawed from past a war, that burns the skin, eyes, and airway of anyone exposed.

Quote:
"Let it go, Jim. Threshing about, name-calling is unbecoming to a mature person"

And what exactly am I supposed to let go of? You call me a liar and maintain I made a statement I don't believe I made and you expect me to just "let it go".
I'll let it go when I get an appology and an admission I never stated what you claimed I did.
An NO I won't let you just change the subject and now your accusing me of calling you names?

I did not call you a liar, Jim. I make a point of not name-calling or insulting in my posts. It's childish, sandbox behaviour. What I did do was challenge your and Dave's interpretation of the NYT story, and provided evidence the NYT admitted nothing claimed in the title of this thread.

Looking for a crutch, you inferred the gassed Kurds probably thought they were victims of WMDs---as if that would make them so. If you go back to reporting of the time, you'll find among the first words from the villagers was "Gas." Whether they linked it with WMD is problematic.

Yes, I accurately called you a name-caller. You said I was the biggest prevaricator on the board. That's a long pull on the bow, Jim. Where's your proof? Challenging some of the nonsense here doesn't make me a prevaricator, or any others of the liberal left and conservative right.