Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
The shifting context.
|
No. The EXISTING context.
You quote Obama talking about enemies, referencing Cuba.
And from there, you try to misrepresent things to pretend he referencing ANY enemy...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
"There's definitely been an adjustment in what was initially a pretty categorical position," said Ross Baker, a political scientist a Rutgers University. "As (Obama) has gone around the country campaigning, he has realized he's had to fine-tune his position."
|
"a pretty categorical position".
Quote me anywhere where he said he would talk to terrorists.
The only "fine tuning" was in his failure to recognize that wing-nut pundits would take what he ACTUALLY said, and ACTUALLY intended, and twist it into discussing with anybody somebody else could define as an "enemy".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
As I have already cited, they found no incidence where the collaborated in a terrorist attack.
|
My statement went well beyond that statement to specify "no 'collaborative relationship' between Iraq and al Qaeda".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
And SINCE then as I cited from the most recently discovered evidence, they DID have a relationship as the Bush administration, and the rest of the intelligence community, had stated. In fact it was more complex and more developed than we had thought.
|
Wrong.
I have quoted NUMEROUS sources demonstrating there WAS no relationship.
There IS no relationship.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
That he pocessed the WMD that UNSCOM had confirmed he had and were never found.
|
So you are a historical revisionist then...
Ignore the actual evidence at hand, and just continue to proclaim the claims that are repeatedly disproven...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
the 2008 reports states
|
Name me the "recent" evidence which justifies this claim...
"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations.[/quote]
If you actually READ that quote, it doesn't say there is a collaborative link.
It refers to it as a "de facto" link, because there IS NO REAL LINK.
It CLAIMS a link just because the two organizations were claimed to have "overlapping" goals.
One could say Fred Phelpls and the RNC have "overlapping goals" as well.
Doesn't mean that they actually COLLABORATE together. (And THAT is the issue at hand...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
"At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."
|
And not one word of an ACTUAL LINK between al Qaeda and Saddam.
HOW would they supposedly "work together"?
Furthermore, it should be noted that what you quote does NOT come from the CIA, or any other government Central Intelligence organization of another country.
It comes from a "military think tank".
It comes from a non-profit CORPORATION.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
The door was already open to them to move into Iraq under a friendly government...
|
Quote any evidence which shows they had a PRESENCE in Iraq.
You can't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Hey I'm right here to continue to refute your claim the man has some how shown he has courage.............still waiting.
|
Already been done in pointing out his willingness to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan.
You condemned him for that courage and dedication.
But I'm betting dollars to donuts that any similar Bush action is praised by you, "sovreign nation" be damned under the "if you're not for us, you're against us" mentality...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Well first off are you supporting a preemptive strike against Pakistan...
|
Quit lying.
The attack is against AL QAEDA.
Are you saying that if AL QAEDA is found in Pakistan, we should leave them alone?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
... and someone needs to tell Obama we are already fighting alQaeda there so he is proposing something we are already doing...yeah that takes LOTS of courage.
|
You are amazing.
You have previously criticized Obama for talking about something you NOW describe as "something we are already doing".
Any other contradictory stances you want to reveal?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
So pre-empitve strikes are sudden OK? And hint: we are already using special forces to strike them there.
|
I never made any comment on "pre-emptive strikes".
Quit trying to change the subject.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stinger
Directed at me trying to refute my statement that I am an independent.
Remember "SC has a point. If (emphasis foundit66) you claim "independent", but only support Republicans, you're just assuming a title you don't deserve. "
So your evidence that I only vote for Republicans is?
|
Again, the whole statement was predicated on an IF...
... for a scenario you still haven't found the cajones to confirm or deny.
Answer the question.
Assuming you are eligible, have you ever voted Democrat in a presidential election?