Turns out Bush may be right... [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

Boomer_Sooner_sax

6/22/2006, 12:21 PM

Found this on foxnews.com. Wonder why it is not front page news:rolleyes:

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

slickdawg

6/22/2006, 12:22 PM

Found this on foxnews.com. Wonder why it is not front page news:rolleyes:

If they don't find about 500 times that much, it won't count in the eyes of the media.

Boomer_Sooner_sax

6/22/2006, 12:31 PM

If they don't find about 500 times that much, it won't count in the eyes of the media.

That is very true, but that is still a lot of nerve agents that he had.

swardboy

6/22/2006, 12:41 PM

Anti-Bush talking points: Those aren't the wmd's we went to war for!

I'm so glad the dems haven't figured out yet that every argument they marshall against the war in Iraq makes them come off as pro-Saddamists in Joe Public's eyes.......

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 12:46 PM

Anti-Bush talking points: Those aren't the wmd's we went to war for!

*COUGH*

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."

swardboy

6/22/2006, 12:48 PM

*COUGH*

See.....

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 12:49 PM

See.....

You actually read what I posted, right? In particular the bolded portions of the text from Fox News?

jk the sooner fan

6/22/2006, 12:51 PM

the liberals want us to find an actual working atom bomb buried in the desert with the words "F*** YOU GEORGE BUSH" written on it in chalk

;)

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 12:51 PM

C'mon klatt. Give it a ****ing rest. So, they find a bunch of WMDs - old ones, unusable ones, but WMD none-the-less. And what's the administration to do? Go "yup, those old rusty bombs are the ones we went to war over."??

Everyone, including your beloved Clinton et. al. believed there were USABLE WMDs over there. It's just pathetic that you idiots continue to act like the cowardly fence-riders you are.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 12:53 PM

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."

..

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 12:55 PM

Pricetag

6/22/2006, 12:56 PM

You guys are kidding yourselves if you think some kind of liberal media conspiracy could keep this administration from executing a righteous "in your face" of epic proportions if they ever did find serious WMDs.

The fact of the matter is that these aren't them, and it shouldn't matter anyway. It's about much more than that anyway, isn't it?

Mongo

6/22/2006, 12:57 PM

Hey Klatt, for once why dont you give the military a pat on the back? The WMD's are in Iraq, currently unusable, but probably could have been brought back to operational status. There is no chance of this stuff getting in the hands of terrorists. You need to cheer up and quit being a negative nancy.

hurricane'bone

6/22/2006, 12:57 PM

i don't know why we are yelling!!!!

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 12:58 PM

:rolleyes:

You obviously have no idea what my position on the war is. I was just pointing out the irony of this:

Anti-Bush talking points: Those aren't the wmd's we went to war for!

Juxtaposed with this:

not the WMDs for which this country went to war

But thanks for pointing out that we shouldn't take everything the government tells us at face value.

jk the sooner fan

6/22/2006, 12:58 PM

i think its funny that all of the sudden, an official administration comment is taken at its word, without question

if they had said "these are the weapons we went to war over".......mklatt and his buddies would be screaming 'LIE LIE LIE"

but since the message suits their purpose, 'yeah see what they said? thats right"

incredible

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:01 PM

Okay, I admit it, the government is full of ****.

swardboy

6/22/2006, 01:02 PM

Dare anyone to take a sniff in one of those "degraded" sarin shells....

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 01:05 PM

Okay, I admit it, I am full of ****.

Won't get any argument from me.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:08 PM

I love how "mdklatt doesn't hate fags" is automatically equivalent to "mdklatt is an anti-war liberal", despite ample evidence to the contrary.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:08 PM

If that were an offical whitehouse spokesman MD, there would be a name.

Sounds to me like its the normal **** from reuters or the AP that many of us called liberal media bias.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:10 PM

I LOVE LAMP!!!!!

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:10 PM

p.s. if this is relevant....why hasn't Bush called a press conference and announced it to the sky to prove justification?

kind of makes you wonder why fox is the only one reporting it.....

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:11 PM

If that were an offical whitehouse spokesman MD, there would be a name.

I thought that was weird, but that's straight from Fox News.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:12 PM

BTW, one major newspaper actually reported this, but burried it on page A10...

Lawmakers Cite Weapons Found in Iraq
Thursday, June 22, 2006; Page A10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:12 PM

p.s. if this is relevant....why hasn't Bush called a press conference and announced it to the sky to prove justification?

kind of makes you wonder why fox is the only one reporting it.....

They're not: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=http://www.qando.net/details.aspx%3FEntry%3D4117

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:12 PM

If that were an offical whitehouse spokesman MD, there would be a name.

Sounds to me like its the normal **** from reuters or the AP that many of us called liberal media bias.
I disagree. It makes no sense that the media would say something is the "official administration response" if it wasn't, because it could be easily refuted and they'd look stupid. Not only that, it sounds like exactly the correct official response from the administration: a bunch of old, non-working weapons are NOT the WMD we went to war over. If the administration said they WERE, they'd look foolish. I don't see how the official response could be anything else.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:14 PM

p.s. if this is relevant....why hasn't Bush called a press conference and announced it to the sky to prove justification?

The reason is releasing this information would automatically tip off AQ and friends that the WMD is still in Iraq, which could be found and used against our troops and the Iraqi people they so love to kill.

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 01:14 PM

I love how "mdklatt doesn't hate fags" is automatically equivalent to "mdklatt is an anti-war liberal", despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Ample? Hardly. And Dean doesn't hate fags either.

Ike

6/22/2006, 01:15 PM

If that were an offical whitehouse spokesman MD, there would be a name.

Sounds to me like its the normal **** from reuters or the AP that many of us called liberal media bias.

so what, is Fox news making stuff up to appear like its got insider info then?

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:15 PM

BTW, one major newspaper actually reported this, but burried it on page A10...

Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The real story isn't the weapons themselves, but why isn't the administration pimping this story left and right? Even if the the weapons are obsolete leftovers from 1991, shouldn't they have been found by the UN weapons inspectors at some point?

FaninAma

6/22/2006, 01:16 PM

..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."

The above referenced defense department spokesman as of this moment remains unidentified. I wonder if he/she will ever be identified and if they are whether they are a Clinton era holdover like the nimrod in one of the intelligence agencies that waas found leaking information to try and discredit Bush.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:16 PM

I disagree. It makes no sense that the media would say something is the "official administration response" if it wasn't, because it could be easily refuted and they'd look stupid. Not only that, it sounds like exactly the correct official response from the administration: a bunch of old, non-working weapons are NOT the WMD we went to war over. If the administration said they WERE, they'd look foolish. I don't see how the official response could be anything else.

I've seen way too many "offical" responses picked up by the media (fox or otherwise) that have been complete BS.

Until there is a name attributed to it, you can assume its at best 50% correct.

lefty

6/22/2006, 01:17 PM

Why does Fox New hate the troops?

SCOUT

6/22/2006, 01:17 PM

So are these the weapons that Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors tried to convince us were destroyed after the first Gulf War?

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:17 PM

The reason is releasing this information would automatically tip off AQ and friends that the WMD is still in Iraq, which could be found and used against our troops and the Iraqi people they so love to kill.

You really think amidst the slumping polls and eroding support if we find justification for the war he is going to sit on it?? I don't because politically it doesn't make sense...and it doesn't jive with how he has handled things in the past.

jk the sooner fan

6/22/2006, 01:18 PM

the administration has already publicly said the intelligence was wrong on the wmd's......i hardly think they're going to do an about face on that and gloat over 500 chemical weapons, i think they'll let the press handle that and let people make up their minds

most reasonable people can deduce from the evidence that the entire civilized world thought they had them.....clinton believed they had them, so its not a partisan issue, even though everybody wants to make it one

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:19 PM

So are these the weapons that Saddam and the UN weapons inspectors tried to convince us were destroyed after the first Gulf War?

i would say a more accurate way to put that is that these are the weapons that saddam said didn't exist and the UN weapons folks couldn't find...I don't konw that they ever tried to convince us they were destroyed.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:19 PM

The real story isn't the weapons themselves, but why isn't the administration pimping this story left and right?Because, as noted, these are not the WMD we went to war over. If the administration made a big deal over this, they'd look ridiculous.

Even if the the weapons are obsolete leftovers from 1991, shouldn't they have been found by the UN weapons inspectors at some point?Not necessarily. Weapons inspectors never had free reign to go wherever they wanted and look around. Their access was severely limited, which was one of the main issues that led up to the war.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:19 PM

The real story isn't the weapons themselves, but why isn't the administration pimping this story left and right? Even if the the weapons are obsolete leftovers from 1991, shouldn't they have been found by the UN weapons inspectors at some point?

The UN weapons inspectors were a JOKE! Just like the rest of the UN is.

Why do they need to pimp this anymore? It draws attention to something they don't want attention drawn to for what ever reason.

I think many things are/have happened with this Iraq thing that we won't know for years to come.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:19 PM

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:20 PM

I've seen way too many "offical" responses picked up by the media (fox or otherwise) that have been complete BS.

Until there is a name attributed to it, you can assume its at best 50% correct.what other possible response could they give?

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:21 PM

You really think amidst the slumping polls and eroding support if we find justification for the war he is going to sit on it?? I don't because politically it doesn't make sense...and it doesn't jive with how he has handled things in the past.

Exactly. Right after the invasion, we were getting constant reports of chemical weapon stashes that turned out to be fertilizer residue or something. Now that there are actual weapons to point to, why the denial? It doesn't make any political sense. This administration is just as politically driven as any previous administration.

FaninAma

6/22/2006, 01:22 PM

what other possible response could they give?

The editorial nature of the comments by this "senior defense department official" makes me very suspicious of his/her political leanings and whether or not they had administration authority to comment. Sounds more like a politically motivated preemptive attempt to try and lessen the importance of the discovery.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:22 PM

If they were to find the actual WMD that they thought were there, the ones we went to war over, you can bet your arse they'd be pimping it. They know that's not what they have here.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:23 PM

The editorial comment by this supposedly senior defense department official makes me very suspicious of his/her political leanings and whether or not they had administration authority to comment.That didn't answer the question you were responding to. Whether this source was authorized to comment or not, what other response could there be? These clearly were NOT the weapons we went to war over, and the statement says as much. What else is there to say about it?

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:25 PM

If the administration made a big deal over this, they'd look ridiculous.

As you've pointed out, the sensible response is to downplay this story. But how many sensible politicians do you know?

Sooners78

6/22/2006, 01:25 PM

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the 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," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

Seriously, Kennedy, Feinstein, and all the other democrats would look better if they would just admit they were wrong. It would be better for the country.

FaninAma

6/22/2006, 01:27 PM

That didn't answer the question you were responding to. Whether this source was authorized to comment or not, what other response could there be? These clearly were NOT the weapons we went to war over, and the statement says as much. What else is there to say about it?

How do you or the offical who commented know that? Have they tested all of the weapons to see if they're functionable? Personally I'd like to see a name attributed to the "spokesman". If the administration has no problem with what he/she is saying then they should trot him/her out for a public statement like nearly all of the other spokesmen are.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:27 PM

The UN weapons inspectors were a JOKE! Just like the rest of the UN is.

Why do they need to pimp this anymore? It draws attention to something they don't want attention drawn to for what ever reason.

I think many things are/have happened with this Iraq thing that we won't know for years to come.

This may be the first time I've agreed with you completely. :eek:

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:29 PM

You really think amidst the slumping polls and eroding support if we find justification for the war he is going to sit on it?? I don't because politically it doesn't make sense...and it doesn't jive with how he has handled things in the past.

Doesn't jive, like sitting on the fact that 11 major AQ attacks in the US had been prevented before the 2004 election?

:rolleyes:

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 01:30 PM

If the administration has no problem with what he/she is saying then they should trot him/her out for a public statement like nearly all of the other spokesmen are.

This is from the Washington Post:

Neither the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Last night, intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

The military, the White House, the CIA, "intelligence officials"--sounds like more than one renegade Clinton holdover.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:31 PM

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/negropontepdf.jpg

Read the last line. That is why the whitehouse isn't going to make a huge *** deal about this. Whats worse politically, saying we found 500 WMD's or getting hundreds of dead soliders killed by those WMDs?

And an interesting quote:

Please point out to your readers that Negroponte only declassified a few fragments of a much bigger document. Read the press conference and you will see that Santorum and Hoekstra were furious at the meager declassification. They will push for more, and we all must do that. I am told that there is a lot more in the full document, which CIA is desperate to protect, since it shows the miserable job they did looking for WMDs in Iraq.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:31 PM

How do you or the offical who commented know that? Have they tested all of the weapons to see if they're functionable? Personally I'd like to see a name attributed to the "spokesman". If the administration has no problem with what he/she is saying then they should trot him/her out for a public statement like nearly all of the other spokesmen are.Why would they "trot someone out" for what is essentially a non-story? If they "trot him out" it looks like they're pimping the story. They're not saying anything because there's nothing significant to say about it. They're handling it exactly as they should. If these WERE the WMD we were looking for, there's no way they'd keep it quiet. Nor could they keep congressional supporters of the war quiet about it, with an election coming up.

rebmus

6/22/2006, 01:34 PM

Not necessarily. Weapons inspectors never had free reign to go wherever they wanted and look around. Their access was severely limited, which was one of the main issues that led up to the war.
eggzackry.

whether or not working WMDs are found... SH wanted us to believe they were there. we called his bluff and here we are.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:37 PM

eggzackry.

whether or not working WMDs are found... SH wanted us to believe they were there.that gets overlooked entirely too much. whether he had the WMD or not, he went out of his way to make everyone think he did, up to the point of severely hindering inspections. if he had no weapons and wanted everyone to know it, why didn't he stand aside and let the inspectors go wherever the hell they wanted?

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:40 PM

They're handling it exactly as they should. If these WERE the WMD we were looking for, there's no way they'd keep it quiet. Nor could they keep congressional supporters of the war quiet about it, with an election coming up.

I think this whole "its not the right weapons" argument is bogus.

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

It really doesn't matter. We had more reason to go to war with Iraq than we did to go into World War 1, Korea and Vietnam COMBINED.

rebmus

6/22/2006, 01:42 PM

if he had no weapons and wanted everyone to know it, why didn't he stand aside and let the inspectors go wherever the hell they wanted?
it was a "power" thing to SH. if everyone knew he had no WMDs... he'd be no threat to anyone (hence "powerless").

for all we know he did/didn't have WMDs. either way, SH set us up to a point where we couldn't take the chance after 9/11.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 01:44 PM

SCOUT

6/22/2006, 01:46 PM

i would say a more accurate way to put that is that these are the weapons that saddam said didn't exist and the UN weapons folks couldn't find...I don't konw that they ever tried to convince us they were destroyed.
From whitehouse.gov

Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people.

He used WMD's prior to that war. There is no ambiguity about that. The UN resolutions required him to destroy the weapons stocks he had and to not develop anything further.

rebmus

6/22/2006, 01:50 PM

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 01:50 PM

so you're suggesting that we have, in fact, found the weapons we went to war over, and the administration has just quite inexplicably chosen not to say anything about it, despite the fact that it would help Bush's approval ratings and give a huge boost to their congressional candidates, not to mention putting egg all over the faces of a lot of their harshest, most annoyingly shrill critics?

These same halfwits that say Bush lied also are fond of saying Bush has done nothing to keep the nation safe. Even Kerry used that running against him.

So, why was it 2005 until Bush released this info?

WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush offered new information on Thursday about what he said was a foiled plot by Al Qaeda in 2002 to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building west of the Mississippi, the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, as he sought to make the case for his record on national security.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10bush.html?ex=1297227600&en=8bea0a75dd5e347b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The reasons are probably the same.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:58 PM

Some counter-terrorism experts have expressed doubt that the plot was ever fully developed or likely to occur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Tower

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 01:59 PM

and do you really not see the difference between not divulging a "foiled" plot and not divulging THE SMOKING GUN behind why we went there in the first place?

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:01 PM

so you're suggesting that we have, in fact, found the weapons we went to war over

It wouldn't matter. The Bush administration is not above grasping at straws at this point (see also: the doomed-to-fail gay marriage ammendment). We're talking about politicians trying to get elected and/or get others in their party elected, not rational people.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 02:03 PM

Some counter-terrorism experts have expressed doubt that the plot was ever fully developed or likely to occur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Bank_Tower

Heh, "some".

I guess if it was anyone credible, they would have used a name on it.

Nevertheless, this is a card that Bush SHOULD have played against Kerry in 2004, and didn't, as the intelligence/security reason outweighed the political reasons.

Again, I think the WMD in Iraq is another example of this.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 02:04 PM

and do you really not see the difference between not divulging a "foiled" plot and not divulging THE SMOKING GUN behind why we went there in the first place?

Whats the difference? Both were classified peices of information.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:05 PM

It wouldn't matter. The Bush administration is not above grasping at straws at this point (see also: the doomed-to-fail gay marriage ammendment). We're talking about politicians trying to get elected and/or get others in their party elected, not rational people.Um, if that's the case, why aren't they out there in full force pimping the story? They're handling this EXACTLY the right way and NOT grasping at straws. They're not saying much, just having unnamed officials say "yeah we found some weapons but they're not the ones we went to war over". It's a truthful statement with exactly the right level of fanfare: none. So I'm not sure where your grasping at straws/not rational people argument fits into this particular scenario.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:08 PM

Um, if that's the case, why aren't they out there in full force pimping the story?

That's exactly what I want to know.

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 02:09 PM

Um, if that's the case, why aren't they out there in full force pimping the story? They're handling this EXACTLY the right way and NOT grasping at straws. They're not saying much, just having unnamed officials say "yeah we found some weapons but they're not the ones we went to war over". It's a truthful statement with exactly the right level of fanfare: none. So I'm not sure where your grasping at straws/not rational people argument fits into this particular scenario.

Heh, its obvious MD is grasping at straws.
This is usually the case for people who hate Bush so much it clouds their ability to use common sense.

If Bush was grasping at straws politically, he wouldn't be ****ing off conservatives so much.

1stTimeCaller

6/22/2006, 02:09 PM

angry dragon

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:11 PM

This is usually the case for people who hate Bush so much it clouds their ability to use common sense.

I guess that's why I voted for him 2000.

If Bush was grasping at straws politically, he wouldn't be ****ing off conservatives so much.

I just said the Bush administration was politically motivated, I didn't say they were any good at it. ;)

SoonerInKCMO

6/22/2006, 02:16 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10bush.html?ex=1297227600&en=8bea0a75dd5e347b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The reasons are probably the same.

You expect us to believe something you post from a leftist liberal rag like the NY Times?!?!?!

;)

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:18 PM

Heh, "some".

I guess if it was anyone credible, they would have used a name on it.

Nevertheless, this is a card that Bush SHOULD have played against Kerry in 2004, and didn't, as the intelligence/security reason outweighed the political reasons.

Again, I think the WMD in Iraq is another example of this.

that is one explanation....another being that he didn't bring it out since maybe it would have backfired when it was shown that maybe he didn't "foil" anything.

who knows....

1stTimeCaller

6/22/2006, 02:19 PM

angry dragon

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:19 PM

funky monkey

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:19 PM

that is one explanation....another being that he didn't bring it out since maybe it would have backfired when it was shown that maybe he didn't "foil" anything.

When has that ever stopped a politician from trying to toot their own horn, no matter how short-lived?

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:20 PM

snowball

1stTimeCaller

6/22/2006, 02:22 PM

snowball

I **** you not. I dated a girl that swears up and down that she did that to a guy once.

I never called her back.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:23 PM

that may be grounds to hit a woman.....

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:24 PM

I **** you not. I dated a girl that swears up and down that she did that to a guy once.

I never called her back.

Good move. Who wants to be number 37?

1stTimeCaller

6/22/2006, 02:25 PM

and in a great way

1stTimeCaller

6/22/2006, 02:26 PM

Good move. Who wants to be number 37?

hunh? BJs fine, the snowball portion thereof is what made me run for the hills(not Tulsa).

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:33 PM

i heard the hills have eyes

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 02:34 PM

Am I the only one around here who's never heard of a "snow ball?"

I'm thinking 1TC is a walking mound of viral infection.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:36 PM

dean be thankful you have never heard of it.....

seriously.

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 02:37 PM

dean be thankful you have never heard of it.....

seriously.

Oh trust me, I am.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:39 PM

Am I the only one around here who's never heard of a "snow ball?"

Or seen the movie Clerks, apparently.

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 02:40 PM

Or seen the movie Clerks, apparently.

Apparently.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:40 PM

Oh trust me, I am.

I can't decide if a snowball sounds more disgusting than a hot carl.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:43 PM

i'd say they're equally foul.

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:44 PM

i'd say they're equally foul.

Your own ***** versus somebody else's ****. Tomayto, tomahto.

rebmus

6/22/2006, 02:45 PM

ewwwwwww. i just had to go look and see what "snowball" was.

C&CDean

6/22/2006, 02:45 PM

And I'd say this thread has completed the normal SO oval.

Bush sucks.

rebmus

6/22/2006, 02:46 PM

Bush sucks.
but does he snowball?

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:46 PM

Bush sucks.Yeah. Wimmings need ta shave them thangs.

BeetDigger

6/22/2006, 02:48 PM

I've never heard of a snowball or seen the movie Clerks.

Wait a minute, are we still yelling in this thread?

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:49 PM

you've heard of one now

rebmus

6/22/2006, 02:53 PM

how bout a good ole "sun n' fud"?

slickdawg

6/22/2006, 02:53 PM

I've never heard of a snowball or seen the movie Clerks.

Wait a minute, are we still yelling in this thread?

:les: HOW ABOUT A TOSSED SALAD?

Rhino

6/22/2006, 02:54 PM

BeetDigger

6/22/2006, 02:55 PM

:les: HOW ABOUT A TOSSED SALAD?

YES, I have heard of tossing the salad

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:55 PM

So, there's reports.
From someone not important enough to be named.
And nothing coming from the WH.

in that sense, the "grasping at straws" thing mentioned earlier applies. it's a non-story, the WH is treating it as a non-story, and people are all p1ss3d that they're not making it a story. :confused:

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 02:56 PM

You know who makes a good tossed salad? Spagehetti Warehouse. I love their house dressing.

slickdawg

6/22/2006, 02:56 PM

YES, I have heard of tossing the salad

WHAT ABOUT FELCHING?

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 02:56 PM

LOUD NOISES

OklahomaTuba

6/22/2006, 02:57 PM

So, there's reports.
From someone not important enough to be named.
And nothing coming from the WH.

And, still people are blaming the liberal media for not reporting it?

What a wild and fascinating world some of you people live in.

The CIA isn't important?

And I guess you missed the Washington Post article that was on page 10 of todays newspaper.

etouffee

6/22/2006, 02:58 PM

You know who makes a good tossed salad? Spagehetti Warehouse. I love their house dressing.Is it called Snowball Ranch, or Hot Karl's Bleu Cheese?:eek:

mdklatt

6/22/2006, 03:05 PM

Is it called Snowball Ranch, or Hot Karl's Bleu Cheese?:eek:

Italian Chandalier

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/22/2006, 04:06 PM

p.s. if this is relevant....why hasn't Bush called a press conference and announced it to the sky to prove justification?

kind of makes you wonder why fox is the only one reporting it.....I hope that comment is tongue-in-cheek. Otherwise, it doesn't reflect too well on you.

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 04:08 PM

russian roundtable

p.s. william care to explain? feel free to read the rest of my posts if you are unable to understand what i was saying in that post....then add it all up and you should be able to understand what i was saying. (and if any of it was tongue in cheek it would be the last sentence)

Hatfield

6/22/2006, 04:11 PM

p.p.s.
i have no idea what a russian roundtable is...

Tear Down This Wall

6/22/2006, 05:14 PM

So, to sum up the day's discussion - those who like Bush, still like Bush; and those who don't like Bush are...gay? :D

slickdawg

6/22/2006, 07:05 PM

Speaking of bush, where's brat?

walkoffsooner

6/22/2006, 08:17 PM

I agree with Bush on the war.But if they have found any wmd worth a damn it would of been all over the news.

Condescending Sooner

6/23/2006, 09:16 AM

I guess that's why I voted for him 2000.

I just said the Bush administration was politically motivated, I didn't say they were any good at it. ;)

Did you vote for him in 2004?

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 09:19 AM

Speaking of bush, where's brat?Trimming her bush? :eddie:

Tear Down This Wall

6/23/2006, 09:22 AM

Imagine...a politician being "politically motivated" in his or her actions. Stunning.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

6/23/2006, 10:11 AM

Hatfield

6/23/2006, 10:17 AM

but where do you stand on russian roundtables?

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 11:14 AM

Did you vote for him in 2004?

No.

C&CDean

6/23/2006, 11:15 AM

No.

You voted for the other guy?
BWAAAHAHHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 11:20 AM

You voted for the other guy?
BWAAAHAHHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!!

No.

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 11:21 AM

No.:confused:

usmc-sooner

6/23/2006, 11:22 AM

No.

here's your sign

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 11:24 AM

here's your sign

:confused:

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 11:24 AM

:confused:

:confused:

C&CDean

6/23/2006, 11:27 AM

If you didn't vote, then kwitcherbitchin.

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 11:28 AM

If you didn't vote, then kwitcherbitchin.

So I'm supposed to vote for somebody I think is incompetent?

(Technically I voted for Kerry as protest vote knowing there was no way hell he would win Oklahoma.)

C&CDean

6/23/2006, 11:30 AM

So I'm supposed to vote for somebody I think is incompetent?

ding. ding. ding. We finally have a winner folks.

Your one sentence response simply says it all. And the answer is "yes" since they're ALL ****ing incompetent. Haven't you figured that out yet?

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 11:31 AM

So I'm supposed to vote for somebody I think is incompetent?Well...yeah. OR you can continue to be a bystander and b!tch about everything...cuz you don't have a dog in any fight. Since you didn't exercise your rights, you should also NOT exercise your right to whine.

Pricetag

6/23/2006, 12:16 PM

Well...yeah. OR you can continue to be a bystander and b!tch about everything...cuz you don't have a dog in any fight. Since you didn't exercise your rights, you should also NOT exercise your right to whine.
I believe his "dog in the fight" is his personal beliefs rather than a particular party or candidate.

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 12:29 PM

I believe his "dog in the fight" is his personal beliefs rather than a particular party or candidate.That is a matter of perception. I tire of folks that are constantly complaining...yet they don't vote. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain or to bash politicians for the job they are doing. But what are you doing about it???

Cast a damn vote. And don't give me this crap that neither one of them are worthy. You pick one that you agree with the most, you are not going to find a politican/candidate that does everything you want...unless your a$$ runs for office.

Pricetag

6/23/2006, 12:41 PM

That is a matter of perception. I tire of folks that are constantly complaining...yet they don't vote. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain or to bash politicians for the job they are doing. But what are you doing about it???
I tire of folks who will admit that our policitical system is jacked up and that politicians are nearly all worthless, but continue to go out and vote R or D anyway. They allow the idea of "throwing their vote away" to justify implicitly endorsing the status quo.

I'll agree with you that voting is critical, but settling for the lesser of two evils cheapens it a great deal. People end up voting on ideals of the party, which in both cases don't seem to be adhered to unless it's convenient for them.

There were no independent presidential candidates on the ballot in Oklahoma in 2004, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not voting for either.

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 12:48 PM

I tire of folks who will admit that our policitical system is jacked up and that politicians are nearly all worthless, but continue to go out and vote R or D anyway. They allow the idea of "throwing their vote away" to justify implicitly endorsing the status quo.

I'll agree with you that voting is critical, but settling for the lesser of two evils cheapens it a great deal. People end up voting on ideals of the party, which in both cases don't seem to be adhered to unless it's convenient for them.

There were no independent presidential candidates on the ballot in Oklahoma in 2004, and I wouldn't blame anyone for not voting for either.I will agree with you that anybody that votes for someone JUST because they are R or D. I believe that we each need to get smart on what each candidate has to offer. There are people out there who vote strictly along party lines, and they are doing the entire process a disservice.

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 01:11 PM

I tire of folks that are constantly complaining...yet they don't vote. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and complain or to bash politicians for the job they are doing. But what are you doing about it???

I voted against Bush. Can I keep complaining?

usmc-sooner

6/23/2006, 01:22 PM

I just get tired of people bitching and whining about stuff they don't know about. Bitching day after day after day. Wah America aint perfect... wah America was perfect but one man named George Bush ruined. Wah before Bush America was a great places where gays get married, we've never been to war, wah wah wah.

BTW md the guy you voted for (Kerry) pulled out the ol if you aint been to war you shouldn't be talking about it a few days ago.

Vaevictis

6/23/2006, 01:34 PM

The real story isn't the weapons themselves, but why isn't the administration pimping this story left and right? Even if the the weapons are obsolete leftovers from 1991, shouldn't they have been found by the UN weapons inspectors at some point?

Because the administration wants to forget the whole Saddam-had-WMD accusation. Every time someone brings that up, they take a PR hit, and will continue to do so until such a time as they find the WMDs that they claimed were there.

Until that point, we're *really* there (according to the politicos) because we want to "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" and because, essentially, "Saddam is a bad man."

(really, I think both of those are good enough reasons to be there, I just would have preferred that those were the reasons we used to go in -- it cost us much more political/diplomatic capital to have used WMD as a pretext and not have found them than it would have to have used the two reasons above in the first place)

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 01:37 PM

BTW md the guy you voted for (Kerry) pulled out the ol if you aint been to war you shouldn't be talking about it a few days ago.

I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush.

OklahomaTuba

6/23/2006, 01:41 PM

Every time someone brings that up, they take a PR hit, and will continue to do so until such a time as they find the WMDs that they claimed were there.
Actually, these WMD are some of the WMD that they thought Saddam had, and which Saddam wasn't supposed to have.

So to say that newly discovered WMD isn't the "right WMD" is basically a lie.

OklahomaTuba

6/23/2006, 01:43 PM

I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush.

So you voted against Bush before you voted for him?

How Kerryesque.

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 01:53 PM

So you voted against Bush before you voted for him?

No, I voted for Bush in 2000, thought he kinda ****ed things up, and voted against him in 2004. I had hoped that when Bush won by a nose again he would have embraced the middle more during this term, but instead he's still cruising along in the far right lane. Except for handing out money to old people like a liberal.

How Kerryesque.

Unlike the "stay the course"/"can't switch horses midstream" voters who apparently think a car without a steering wheel or a brake pedal would be a good idea.

Vaevictis

6/23/2006, 02:11 PM

Actually, these WMD are some of the WMD that they thought Saddam had, and which Saddam wasn't supposed to have.

Politically and diplomatically, there is no redemption or justification to be found here. If you thought Bush rocked before seeing this, you think he rocks afterword. If you didn't, you scratch your head and say, "Uh, so what? I'm still waiting for the functional WMD you promised me?"

And that's what I'm talking about. It's not going to convince anyone who didn't already agree with you, so why remind them of the disagreement in the first place?

etouffee

6/23/2006, 02:20 PM

I had hoped that when Bush won by a nose again he would have embraced the middle more during this term, but instead he's still cruising along in the far right lane. Yeah... that whole border thing he's got goin' is about as far right as it gets. :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba

6/23/2006, 04:21 PM

Politically and diplomatically, there is no redemption or justification to be found here.

Well, except for that fact that this proves, yet again, that we had no choice but to go to war with Iraq.

As if the 500+ tons of enriched uranium, hundreds of thousands of mass murdered iraqis and active terrorist groups being supported by Saddam wasn't enough.

Vaevictis

6/23/2006, 04:37 PM

Well, except for that fact that this proves, yet again, that we had no choice but to go to war with Iraq.

... only if you already agreed with Bush to begin with. I doubt this is actually going to change anyone's mind on it; the keyword here is "non-functional." Non-functional weaponry is a threat to nobody, and is *not* what we claimed we were going to war for.

It's like going to the judge and applying for a search warrant claiming that there's a kid being held hostage in the building, getting it, and finding nothing but a small meth lab. Sure, there was funny business going on in there, but you still lose credibility with the judge 'cause what you sold him and what he got were two wildly different things.

As if the 500+ tons of enriched uranium

We found 500+ tons of uranium that was weapons grade, or on the way to being weapons grade, in Iraq? I must have missed that. If that's true, that might be something. Got some reporting or evidence that comes from an obviously unbiased source?

hundreds of thousands of mass murdered iraqis

Bull****. It takes more than a dictator brutalizing his own people to get us to move our fat asses. Way more. You'll notice doing everything we can to ignore the situation in Darfur, for example.

and active terrorist groups being supported by Saddam wasn't enough.

See above wrt "losing credit with the judge." It's not about having valid reasons after the fact, it's about stating your reasons before the fact and being correct about those specific reasons.

Yeah, Saddam was a bad dude, and he needed to go. I agree. I've been arguing that for well on 15 years now. But when you claim to have specific intelligence and use that as the basis for invading another country, you had better back that specific intelligence up after the fact or you lose credibility.

Sooner in Tampa

6/23/2006, 05:43 PM

I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted against Bush.Well, I guess you had your own f*&king ballot...huh...wiseguy:mad:

Hatfield

6/23/2006, 05:46 PM

Well, I guess you had your own f*&king ballot...huh...wiseguy:mad:

can you really not understand what he is saying? Thanks to the 2 party system we are basically shackled to you can either vote for one guy or the other.....or vote for nobody.

What would your suggestion be? Rather than voting for Not your guy to not vote at all? As this thread shows then people would tell him to quit his bitchin since he didn't vote.

mdklatt

6/23/2006, 05:55 PM

can you really not understand what he is saying? Thanks to the 2 party system we are basically shackled to you can either vote for one guy or the other.....or vote for nobody.

In overwhelmingly red or blue states your options are vote for one guy, period. Not only did I not have the option to choose somebody other than Bush or Kerry, but that choice itself was meaningless because Bush was going to win this state regardless of how I voted. The only thing I could do was send the Republicans a message via the popular vote count, and I wasn't alone. The message didn't take, however. Second verse, same as the first. Actually, maybe Bush really is a uniter and not a divider--he's managed to turn the majority of the country against him for various reasons.