# Flip flopping



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I have long felt that Bush misrepresented himself in the elections, and has misrepresented his goals along the line. Though this clip is a day late, I do not feel that it is a dollar short.

The source is hardly credible, but one cannot dispute the clips.

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/m ... emId=12814

Although one could argue that 9/11 changed the world, and that everyone believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, this is no longer the argument. Once it was realized that the weapons did not exist, the purpose of the mission became to liberate Iraq and show them freedom. Because of this, Bush's statements are contradictory.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MT SPINING! :lol: AGAIN!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

MT you cant be for real. Saddam was destin to be taken down. Bush just finished what Clinton couldnt. He was harboring terrorist. I know the media puts a twist on everything and you need to read between the lines. For every bomb that goes of over there stays out of our country. It may not be weapons of mass destruction but bombs are bombs and if we can keep them over there and not here we are winning the fight. I mean look at these idoits the are killing them selves over there they have no regard for life. For every one terrorist are military cuts down over there its one less we have to fight over here. You cant give an arguement that will hold up about this war not being worth it. If Bush flipped anything it was to shut up the liberals. Because we all know how the liberals like to run their mouths.

While your flipping through those CC clips look at the from the Colbert report were some idiot reporter wanted to cut funding to our military and put it towards fighting aids in africa. You would probably like that too. Thats the problem with liberals they are worried about every one else. They need to learn to focus on the greatest country in the world the USA.


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

Mt ,you think Bush is a flip flopper, at least John"the master flip flopper"Kerry ain't in office,then you might have something to talk about.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Sorry to burst your juicy fruit bubble again MT but.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... id=1625051

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48827


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Here's a good flip flop.



> Quote:
> I suspect that some of you may be expecting me to deride said Marine, and state that the harshest punishment should be inflicted upon said person for breaking internation laws of war. I will not state this however, I feel quite the opposite. It is my belief that under said conditions the Marine did what he saw as necissary to protect himself and his comrades. Being that unconventional tactics of war are being used, there will be such casualties, rightly or wrongly. I am disgusted that this man is even being put up for a trial. He did what was necissary, if anything he should get a pat on the back and a weeks rest.
> 
> Quote:
> He probably made the wrong decision and probably didn't fear for his life at all. Odds are he saw one of his buddies get shot and wanted to take revenge. Considering the circumstances though it would be hard to charge him with anything higher than manslaughter


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> He was harboring terrorist.


That is unproven. One cannot make up facts.



> For every bomb that goes of over there stays out of our country.


The Iraqis did not attack us on 9/11. It was not their bombs we were afraid of.



> For every one terrorist are military cuts down over there its one less we have to fight over here.


I see it as one more fight that we will have over there, as their family will wish to avenge their deaths.



> You cant give an arguement that will hold up about this war not being worth it.


There was no actual reason to go. Simple as that. You may make up facts to support your claim, but that doesn't make the war any more justified.



> If Bush flipped anything it was to shut up the liberals. Because we all know how the liberals like to run their mouths.


That is a double standard. The claim was that John Kerry flip flopped, but if Bush does the same how is he any better? You cannot have it both ways.



> Thats the problem with liberals they are worried about every one else. They need to learn to focus on the greatest country in the world the USA.


I think you are right. It is time we focused on America as opposed to attempting to nation build in other countries.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Read the WHOLE article MT, saddams general just shot you outa the water again.

Saddam general: WMDs in Syria 
Another former confidant of ex-dictator makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Saddam Hussein 
A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.

Discussing Saddam's support of terrorism, al-Tikriti said the dictator's regime sponsored Palestinian groups with logistical and material support.

For a time, support for al-Qaida was limited, the former general said, mainly because al-Qaida's aim was to create an Islamic empire while Saddam wanted a secular Arab nationalist empire.

"They only really came to terms in the mid '90s due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short-term enemy," the general said. "Once they came to terms on this, Saddam provided al-Qaida with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide."

Al-Tikriti said Saddam "had very long-standing contacts in the black market as well as with Moscow and would provide whatever munitions he could through these contacts."

The secular Baathists and radical Islamists certainly are able to put aside their differences to cooperate against the U.S., he insisted.

"If you look in Iraq today, you are witnessing Arab nationalist terrorist organizations and Islamist terrorist organizations working together to fight the United States."

Al-Tikriti dismissed the commonly heard claim that the U.S. helped bring Saddam to power, calling it "absolutely ludicrous."

The Baathist revolution, he said, was backed by the Soviet Union because of the shared socialist ideology.

"I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occasions with Soviet KGB officials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan," he said. "The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these 'ingredients' could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons."

Al-Tikriti says he knows Saddam's weapons are in Syria because of contingency plans established as far back as the late 1980s, in the event either Damascus or Baghdad were taken over.

"Not to mention, I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew," he said.

Saddam, after lying for so many years, knew the U.S. eventually would come for the weapons, he said, and wanted to maintain legitimacy with pan-Arab nationalists.

Also, he had "wanted since he took power to embarrass the West, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so," al-Tikriti said.

"After Saddam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found?" he said. "That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against."

*What we are witnessing now, he said, "is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted." *

Al-Tikriti said he turned against the Baath Party after his wife stood up to him and questioned his brutal tactics.

"This really made me think, because no one has ever even considered to question the tactics of myself or any others and lived to tell about it," he said. "This courageous move made me think deep and hard."

Al-Tikriti said he still maintains good sources inside and outside of Iraq.

"Some of Saddam's key scientists are personal friends of mine, as well as other key leaders in the former Iraqi military," he said. "I have helped draw information since my defecting to the United States government voluntarily and with the permission of these contacts. The only difference between many of them and I, is that I had the opportunity to defect and they didn't."


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Read the WHOLE article MT, saddams general just shot you outa the water again.


Since when are you willing to trust the word of an Iraqi general? There is no proof of this. Just because the man says so doesn't make it true.

That brings to mind the supposed transfer of goods and people over the Iran Iraq border. When asked if there was any proof of such a thing, Marine Corps General Peter Pace turned to Donald Rumsfeld, who said nothing, and replied "No." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01083.html

I will not take heresay as gospel.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Read the WHOLE article MT, saddams general just shot you outa the water again.
> 
> 
> Since when are you willing to trust the word of an Iraqi general? There is no proof of this. Just because the man says so doesn't make it true.
> ...


So do you take this article as gospel then MT? I ask because I went out to read the link you provided. You said Rumsfeld says nothing. How come the article gives 2 quotes from him?

In it Rumsfeld says:

"As to equipment, unless you physically see it coming in in a government-sponsored vehicle, or with government-sponsored troops, you can't know it" comes from Iran's government, Rumsfeld said. "All you know is that you find equipment -- weapons, explosives, whatever -- in a country that came from the neighboring country.

"With respect to people, it's very difficult to tie a thread precisely to the government of Iran. As we all know, there are pilgrimages where Shi'a come from Iran and around the world to go to holy places in Iraq, and they come by the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands. And so, that is also a difficult" to prove.

Read the entire article and keep it in context MT. Don't just cherry pick certain sentences to assert your claim. Bad journalists constantly take things out of context to give an article a certain "slant".

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The simple fact is that there is no evidence to prove it, whatsoever.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Something that is mirrored by the fact that there is no evidence to disprove it either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

WMD argument is moot anyways, always has been. Everyone believed the WMD to be a threat, and everyone who voted for the war was privy to the same intel as GW.

Do we need to requote the list of Dems that believed there were WMD's?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Something that is mirrored by the fact that there is no evidence to disprove it either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


With that logic I suppose we can believe anything we choose. Life is not that simple.



> WMD argument is moot anyways, always has been. Everyone believed the WMD to be a threat, and everyone who voted for the war was privy to the same intel as GW.


Congress as a whole was not shown the same evidence as the president. It is not your place to suppose the intent of those who voted for the resolution to give the president the power to use force.



> Do we need to requote the list of Dems that believed there were WMD's?


Don't bother. The intelligence was poor, evidence was taken from untrustworthy sources, including well known drunks. The evidence was certainly poor, but it seems rather evident that this administration had it in mind to go after Iraq from the get go.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

You can deny the facts all you want, your outgunned and outnumbered, you liberals just keep digging your grave deeper and deeper making you look like that much more of a schmuck. You embolden the enemy, humiliate the troops, what is worse is you need for us to lose this war and secretly that is your wish, we all know it. The liberals are clinging to the hope we lose this thing for their own political gain. What a sad state they are in, and I am personally ashamed of them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Racer your views are vile and untrue. I am sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

racer66

I for one think that your dead on correct. Where's the proof MT? you can't deny anything racer said with CREDITABLE proof to the contrairy


----------

