LOL, and I served it right up to him! ;)
The point I keep trying to impress upon Fint (yea, I know) in the Canadian piece and others is what most Cons fail to recognize. The article was an opinion piece and nothing more. The PM is a politician, and as such is selling opinion, agenda, platform etc.. You Cons. guys are ALL so willing to shoot down printed fact from such sources as:
Diplomats
UN Officials
WMD Inspectors
Bureaucrats
Key Administration Insiders


You know, people in positions to actually state facts. None of them are good enough. Time after time they attack such sources as biased and not credible, they all have agendas. Yet they are always more than happy to swallow and regurgitate as gospel anything their politician says. Such inherint backward thinking boggles my mind. To think that people can be so easily manipulated on such a scale and not realize it, well, now I understand what the stupid perma-grins Cheney and Rove wear are all about. And best of all, it’s the best kind of PR there is…Free. Keep on pimpin’ guys.

Facts vs. Opinions. That’s all I’m saying. Think about it.
Facts speak for themselves. One opinion is no more valid than the next.

I am aware that he did not present any proof, but as a national leader, I would bet he has as much info or more than the folks who say there were no WMDs. What do you think his purpose was to make this statement since he is really a bit liberal and not exactly a big partner of ours in the Iraq War?

Again, the point is you are using the opined statement of a politician to make your case as fact.
If in fact he has more info than the credible folks who say there were no WMDs, then I suggest he present it so that we can actually find said WMD's and settle the issue for good.
I won't hold my breath on that though.....:rolleyes:

Please show me where I did that. I only posted that he made the statement. Even our government does not go so far. One can only wonder why he did so now.

"Please show me where I did that. I only posted that he made the statement. Even our government does not go so far. One can only wonder why he did so now."

Because Canada sent troops to the mideast. And he doesn't want to look stupid.

"I am aware that he did not present any proof, but as a national leader, I would bet he has as much info or more than the folks who say there were no WMDs"

You don't appear to care about proof, as long as the statements support your own prejudice, otherwise, why would the Canadian Prime Minister have more credibility than a head U.N. Wepons Inspector who spent 7 years in Iraq?

I'm delighted. I'm gonna save this thread as I can now quote the Canadian PM as a suitable source of information...

Staylo's correct - if the Canadian PM had said something you didn't like, you'd be rubbishing him left, right and centre. Or is that left, centre left, and centre?

Well, when someone who normally would oppose you ideologically agrees with you on something you can assume they are being honest as they have no motive to lie, rather the contrary. For instance if W said"hey, we knew there were no WMD's" I would not chastise you for citing him as a credible source:)

Oh, you mean like:

"McCain Wants WMD Inquiry

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30, 2004

" … we need to not only know what happened, but know what steps are necessary to prevent the United States from ever being misinformed again."
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.


Former top weapons inspector David Kay prepares to testify on Capitol Hill._(Photo: AP)

(CBS/AP)_Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Sen. John McCain said Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.

The White House has dismissed the proposal, saying the CIA is committed to reviewing the intelligence behind claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction..."

works for me

McCain is not exaclty diametrically opposed to you guys:) But not bad. I never claimed Republicans are infailible, you only think I did:)

"McCain is not exaclty diametrically opposed to you guys But not bad. I never claimed Republicans are infailible, you only think I did"

...just trying to play within your rules...

Maybe, unlike the inspector.. he has actual recent intelligence and has not been paid off? Maybe he doesn't look like a fool for not being able to find the WMD in 7 years when it was right under his nose? Maybe I would find the PM of Canada to have more credibility than some flunky inspector... Heck, even I outranked Scott Ritter! Maybe I was just reporting that he said it.....Like I said. I never claimed it as fact or proof. Funny how you argue every argument that I didn't make.

Doc?

it's so refreshing to see that there are those who just refuse to lose their sense of humor. you guys leave me in stitches :)

Again, refuting facts with opinions make for a weak argument.
What WMD's were under his nose? The ones 150,000 troops still haven't found after a whole year of occupation?
Geez, you mean all of money and lives wasted in the past year could have been avoided if we had just asked the Canadian PM first? Hmmm, now I'm really pissed at my Government. :rolleyes:

Don't worry boys, Paul Martin will be gone soon and we'll be back to our normal "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" policies...

As for our Navy...

http://www.skalar.org/canadanavy.jpg

... it's the thought that counts! :rolleyes:

Fintstone: "Maybe, unlike the inspector.. he has actual recent intelligence and has not been paid off?"

Oh, yes, the Canadians are famous for their Iraqi intelligence capabilities.

LOL!

And you keep talking about a Ritter payoff. I guess you didn't (again) read the link I posted about how much money it costs to shoot a documentary. Ritter couldn't have made significant money with the $400K, since the average documentary costs about $290K an hour. But that's just another inconvenient fact, isn't it?

BTW, who paid off all the other weapons inspectors?

We share a great deal of intelligence with Canada...The PM just met with GW. Perhaps they had a show and tell. Who knows, maybe an October surprise" is in the works.

Of course this was not one of those "expensive documentaries." The expensive documentaries you cite that were filmed in Australia (not Iraq) would be of commercial quality for public release...and would incur costs of professionals filmakers....not a washed-up ex marine. I made a 2 hr documentary once...it only cost me about $1k including purchasing a dvd burner...That would leave about a $399K profit.