Also, Kerry called Bush out on during the third debate:

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, “Where is Osama bin Laden? ” He said, “I don’t know. I don’t really think about him very much. I’m not that concerned.”

Bush replied:

Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. It’s kind of one of those exaggerations.

White House transcript, with video, showing that Kerry quoted Bush accurately.

I think we have beaten this horse quite dead. I gave you circumstancial evidence pointing to the likelihood that Iran desired acquiring nuclear weapons and were using their nuclear energy program as a facade.

The “evidence” you presented was nothing of the sort.

You did your best to poke holes in the circumstancial evidence as it is indeed, circumstantial.

There’s no need to “poke holes” in what doesn’t exist.

I refuted you, you refuted me, everyone else got bored, I suggested neither of us could PROVE our position unless we had perfect knowledge of what was going on in Iran, which we can’t have…ta-da.

And there you go again.

The difference between our two positions is tha tI am not the one who claimed that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. You, however, are the one who claimed that they were. See the difference?

I see no point in an Epistemological pissing match on the issue. I will retract my statement to this point – Iran MAY be seeking nukes.

So, you call the difference between the statements “Iran IS seeking nukes” and “Iran MAY be seeking nukes” an “Epistemological pissing match”??? Given this inability to distinguish between possibility and fact, it’s no wonder you’re such a cheerleader for the ongoing occupation of Iraq, and the upcoming invasion of Iran. Disappointing. Truly disappointing.

Well, at least I was able to wring a retraction from you, however grudging.

Can you make the same statement?

I’ve never stated otherwise. I’ve merely stated (correctly) that there is zero evidence for the development of nuclear weapons in Iran, and given the equipment they possess, it would be fantastically difficult for them to come up with the fissile material required for even one nuclear weapon in any reasonable time frame.

If you have evidence to dispute the above statement, please present it.

Pssst….Annie! I never suggested we nuke Iran…..

And for this, we are going to nuke them first…?

Yeah, that makes sense.

NOT.

Wayne, are your crickets asleep?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070927120236.oda23s3q&show_article=1

**crickets chirping**
Comment by Wayne — September 27, 2007 @ 1:56 pm

Sorry, work raised its ugly head….

Hey Trip,

I think we have beaten this horse quite dead. I gave you circumstancial evidence pointing to the likelihood that Iran desired acquiring nuclear weapons and were using their nuclear energy program as a facade. You did your best to poke holes in the circumstancial evidence as it is indeed, circumstantial. I refuted you, you refuted me, everyone else got bored, I suggested neither of us could PROVE our position unless we had perfect knowledge of what was going on in Iran, which we can’t have…ta-da.

I see no point in an Epistemological pissing match on the issue. I will retract my statement to this point – Iran MAY be seeking nukes. Can you make the same statement?

**crickets chirping**

lmao

In case you have forgotten (again):

You asserted in an earlier post that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. I subsequently challenged you to back up that assertion. You’ve been ducking the question ever since.

Either substantiate your claim, or retract your statement. Your choice.

Where the hell have I heard that term before??

Was it Iraq? or Afghanistan in 2002?

Hmmm.

I am guessing here, but my guess would be that if they ever capture him they have no intention of putting him on trial in civilian court. He would likely face a military tribunal, similar to what Khalid Sheik Muhammad is looking at. Obviously, a long stay at Gitmo would be part of it.

Is KSM mentioned in connection to 9-11, or is he likely off the list since we have him? And what is the statute of limitations on adding charges? It is likely academic since I really doubt we will ever take him alive.

“USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.”

How odd that the #1 enemy that has been portrayed by this adminstration as the one behind 9/11 isn’t accused of this crime.

Any suggestions why Keltoi?, Jake D.? Exely? anyone?

Must be a new catch and release program for “endagered terrorists”.