Page 2 of 2

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:41 pm
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:
Is it the same ego-driven stuff as Trump exhibits?
Yes.

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:06 pm
by Tunnelcat
callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:IThis is sounding more like the intelligence agencys that said Saddam had WMD and then we found out he didn't, yet how much did the liberal press and the Dems try to vilify Bush for believing those reports?
although this statement is bull★■◆●, could any of you dig up Woody's posts, circa 2002? I'd love to hear his spin of the Iraq matter back then.
I looked. Not from 2002, but 2008. :wink:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=14145&hilit=yellowcake
woodchip wrote:Way back when, Joe Wilson exclaimed how Iraq never had yellow cake 'cause none was sold to them by any African nations. Well then where did the yellow cake come from that is now being hauled out of Iraq (500 metric tons)?
Does anyone think Saddam was just going to store the stuff as a smart inflation hedge? Or do you suppose having the stuff was one of the reasons Saddam stopped allowing the IAEA from further inspections?
If Saddam was in the process of acquiring weapons grade uranium (yellow cake + centrifuges) then how does this affect the old adage Bush Lied/people died mantra so loved by the leftist?

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:08 pm
by callmeslick
so, in other words, he still bought the lies 5 years after they were SHOWN to be lies? And, yet, now claims that current informatkon isn't reliable, because it doesn't fit his narrative? Gotta love that consistency, Woody!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:09 pm
by woodchip
And yellow cake is a WMD...how?

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:11 pm
by callmeslick
raw material for nukes, Woody? Wasn't that the claim all along, that you bought into?

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:12 pm
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:so, in other words, he still bought the lies 5 years after they were SHOWN to be lies? And, yet, now claims that current informatkon isn't reliable, because it doesn't fit his narrative? Gotta love that consistency, Woody!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
context meboy, context. TC should post thread link if you want a better breakdown. Would you like for me to pull one statement of yours slick and use it to show you don't know what you are talking about?

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:16 pm
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:raw material for nukes, Woody? Wasn't that the claim all along, that you bought into?
what ever I bought into was because the intelligence agency were giving. Even Colin Powell bought into it. And raw materials didn't factor into it. Most of the concern was for chemical warheads. And it is still not proven the WMD's were not shipped into Syria. Of course when Obama backed away from his red line, we missed the chance to eliminate Assad and see if Iraq's wmd'd are in Syria.

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:21 pm
by Tunnelcat
woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:so, in other words, he still bought the lies 5 years after they were SHOWN to be lies? And, yet, now claims that current informatkon isn't reliable, because it doesn't fit his narrative? Gotta love that consistency, Woody!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
context meboy, context. TC should post thread link if you want a better breakdown. Would you like for me to pull one statement of yours slick and use it to show you don't know what you are talking about?
You started the thread woody. I gave the link too. :wink:

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:23 pm
by woodchip
Sorry TC, didn't see the link.

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:24 pm
by Tunnelcat
woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:raw material for nukes, Woody? Wasn't that the claim all along, that you bought into?
what ever I bought into was because the intelligence agency were giving. Even Colin Powell bought into it. And raw materials didn't factor into it. Most of the concern was for chemical warheads. And it is still not proven the WMD's were not shipped into Syria. Of course when Obama backed away from his red line, we missed the chance to eliminate Assad and see if Iraq's wmd'd are in Syria.
Of course Powell bought it. He was SOLD on it by the Bush Administration.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d-iraq-war

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:50 pm
by callmeslick
oh, and if anyone wonders about that Philly law firm that is setting up the trusts:

Image


Law Firm of the Year. In Russian business circles.

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:04 pm
by Top Gun
woodchip wrote:Of course when Obama backed away from his red line, we missed the chance to eliminate Assad and see if Iraq's wmd'd are in Syria.
Every time I think you can't possibly be more delusional...

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:59 pm
by Tunnelcat
callmeslick wrote:oh, and if anyone wonders about that Philly law firm that is setting up the trusts:

Image


Law Firm of the Year. In Russian business circles.
Can you just imagine if Obama had those types of connections when he was elected? Even the normal Republicans would be throwing kitten fits.

Re: seriously, let's hear a defense of this gameplan

Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:23 pm
by callmeslick
tunnelcat wrote: Can you just imagine if Obama had those types of connections when he was elected? Even the normal Republicans would be throwing kitten fits.
good gawd, yes! If Obama or his people had come REMOTELY close to even being seen in public with a known mob associate on New Years Eve, let alone about 50 other things of more significant nature, they would have literally demanded his instant resignation.