or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Bush admin is still lying to start a war - Page 12  

post #441 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Allow me to throw this on the fire. I was worried less about Iraq being stupid enough to use any WMDs than about Iraq making and selling WMDs to the highest bidder. If they can't find the weapons, and they can't find the means of maiking the weapons (though the trucks seem to be fairly credible if circumstantial evidence), could they at least find the paper work or find intelligence anywhere else to suggest they uloaded any of this stuff.



http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002879.html

Quote:
The Bush admin screwed up by barking about the wrong reasons to oust Hussein. Blair picked up on the real reason, but no one listened or believed him. Problem is of course is that there are many like Hussein that deserve to be ousted, so I guess they had to find a more pressing reason for this guy in particular.

The Bush Admin was changing its reasons with every shift in the political wind. Regime change, WMD, liberation of Iraqis, connection with al Qaida, terrorism,..etc etc. The real reasons (oil wealth, control in the region, big US corporate contracts, security for Israel, the PNAC agenda, etc etc... probably wouldn't have sat very well, even for conservative Americans, given any (Clear Channel etc) media publicity of course.

I can still hear the faithful poodle Blair's mantra, parroting every sentence uttered by his master in the White House: "we will disarm Saddam: this is all about disarming Saddam". Since he was such a horror story, then just what the hell were we doing, funding, arming and generally supporting his regime for four successive administrations: Carter, Reagan 1 and 2 and Bush Sr.??????
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #442 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo

So, the inspectors asked for "more time". Bush rolled his eyes and said "no". Now guess what: the US military, under the gun and desperate to find these fictitious WMD are now askign for...yes..."more time".

This was my point. I can't even fathom the idea that conservatives would ask for more time to inspect for weapons.

When the UN was in there, they were hindered by the Iraqis. That would be reason to need more time to search. Now that the US has free reign to search high and low, they can't find squat. There's absolutely no reason they can't find a scrap, other than it was all a big lie.

If anyone here was for an attack, but is now for more time to search, you're a hypocrite. At least have the decency to admit that.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #443 of 631
Careful guys, it aint over till it's over. The question still remains why SH would go to all the trouble of sanctions, bombing, etc.
post #444 of 631
From The Guardian, June 2, 2003

Quote:
...Mr Blair predicted that the next US-UK intelligence dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal would make sceptical voters "very well satisfied" that he was right.

Expressing frustration about what he sees as his critics' attempt to refight the war by other means, Mr Blair insisted for the third time in as many days that intelligence reports had not been doctored under political pressure and would be vindicated.

Appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."

The new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams which are now fanning out over Iraq while colleagues work on humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

"...will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams"??????????? Anyone who fails to see the problem with this is a gullible stooge.

What a complete and utter joke. Instead of this farce, send in independant inspectors and let us see if there actually were any WMD.
tribalfusion?
tribalfusion?
post #445 of 631
Quote:
appealing for voters to be patient, he declared: "I have said throughout that when this is put together, the evidence of the scientists and witnesses, the investigations from the sites, people will be very well satisfied."

What's Blair waiting for...and how come he's so certain that "WMD will be found", specially considering that first inspectors, now the US and UK miltary have been combing Iraq and found precisely nothing.

Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments. Who's going to notice that a few dozen barrels of anthrax, botulinum, ricin or sarin have mysteriously gone AWOL...and who's going to care?

I can see this scenario happening in the near future with all the news media suddenly blaring this story: "Huge stashes of chemical and boilogical weapons found at xxxxxxxx in Iraq: President Bush and Prime Minister Blair vindicated". Right now, the US military is refusing the presence of independent parties, namely UN inspectors, to help with the search. I wonder why?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #446 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo


Who's monitoring the inventory at the literally hundreds of chemical and biological weapons plants and repositories in both the US and the UK??? Yes, you got it...the US and UK Governments and military establishments.


I guess they could get some unemployed Kmart employees to monitor those inventories.

Besides, after the alien invasion force uses all as hood ornaments and slave labor on military spacecraft, it won't matter.


I have to go to my bunker and listen to Drudge.
post #447 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Careful guys, it aint over till it's over. The question still remains why SH would go to all the trouble of sanctions, bombing, etc.

It gave him more control in Iraq and turned the muslim world against the US and in favor of Iraq.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #448 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by ena

I have to go to my bunker and listen to Drudge.

If you're trying to imply that it is an impossibility that Blair and/or Bush would plan WMD in Iraq in order to 'save face' in the international community, just come out and say it. If you do, probably no one here will agree with you.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #449 of 631
bunge:

Quote:
Of course there's a 'connection', and that is a credible threat. It's a credible threat if we act on that threat or not.

There's a connection between Bush's push to war and the lack of WMD? Please explain that, the world is waiting to hear this ground-breaker.

Quote:
That means the threat, prior to the war, was enough to force compliance. That means the war was unnecessary.

If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?

Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?

But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?

You can't pick and choose which way the knife cuts.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #450 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If the weapons were destroyed in 1991 as claimed above, how the hell did Dubya's push to war mean anything either way?

Either the lack of WMD takes both of us down or it neither of us. You said we could get him to disarm without war, and if he doesn't have anything to disarm it's kind of tough to disarm him, eh?

I think, although you don't realize it or wouldn't admit it, you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him. I don't think you'll get anyone to agree with you.

If this situation is true, that he disarmed in 1991, then my point is and was 100% correct. Conversely you were 100% incorrect.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
But how would we ever have known that he didn't have anything? Do we even know now?

No, we don't know for certain. We're talking about hypotheticals.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #451 of 631
I knew it was coming to this.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #452 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I knew it was coming to this.

Sorry if I spoiled your Sunday evening.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #453 of 631
Another lie, by guess who:
Quote:
''We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,'' Bush said in an interview conducted Thursday. ''They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.

''And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.''

Here.
So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.
post #454 of 631
One thing I'll have to hand to Groverat, is his consistency. Unfortunately, he never really goes out and says what is plain to see - he agrees 100% with the topic of this thread: Bush is [was] lying to start a war.

But afterward, that's where we differ.

Groverat says, "He lied to start a war - so what. It was a good war with good results."

I say, "He lied and ended up spending billions of our American tax dollars that as truthfully informed voters we might have chosen to put to better use, and his actions caused major harm to our international reputation, both diplomatically, and culturally."
post #455 of 631
This is an excellent article in the UK's Sunday Herald. Echoing the row between the Pentagon/White House and the US intelligence community is a similar fracas brewing between Downing St. and MI6.

re. Planting WMD Evidence. Both Bush and Blair stand to lose face in a huge way: they cited WMD as the reason to go to war. Both men have very large egos and they will never admit either to being wrong re. WMD in Iraq, or lying about it.

Political careers are at stake for both men. So...what is it to be? Planting the "evidence", then beating their chests and yelling to the world: "TOLD YOU SO", or recognizing that getting caught doing that is too big a risk, and hoping the American and British people (and the rest of the world) have a short enough attention span.

Then...there always the chance that *genuine* WMDs may be found in Iraq. But these two have lied about so much in such a short period of time...will anyone believe it?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #456 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
But these two have lied about so much in such a short period of time...will anyone believe it?

There are some people who would. The same people who believe that a tax cut on dividends will help the economy. The same people who believe that Bush won the election "fair and square". They'll believe anything, while Bush's aides giggle behind closed doors, "those gullible, manipulable fools, we just love them".
post #457 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
They'll believe anything....

Well hopefully they'll believe this too.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #458 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Another lie, by guess who:
Here.
So, Bush says "we found the weapons of mass destruction." Uh, no we haven't, Mr. President sir. We've found two RVs that could be biological weapons laboratories, but we didn't find any evidence of weapons in them.

What is also interesting is that everyone that has any expertise is saying that it is FAR from clear. From UN inspectors to the CIA, folks are finding it much easier to point out the flaws in that assessment:

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002879.html

the link to the UN staff assessment is earlier in the thread.
post #459 of 631
post #460 of 631
Quote:
...you're saying that even if Saddam disarmed in 1991 we still needed to go to war in 2003 to disarm him.

If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.

So you remove Hussein; simple.

Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.

For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.

Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #461 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by burningwheel
here's a n interesting article

Do people not think through anything? Hey guy, if the goal is to save the most innocent lives, there are much more pressing situations than the one in Iraq. If the goal is to make life as pleasant as possible for the most people, or for the people that are suffering the most, there are many places that are MUCH more in need of our help than Iraq. Like...oh, maybe...Afghanistan. Or have you forgotten along with everyone else? Or have you just not noticed that Afghanistan is getting little substantial help from the US, and certainly nothing close to the scale of Iraq. Maybe you are unaware of what going on in Congo. Hell, we could go down a whole list of regions that make Iraq seem like disneyland.

Oh, and as far as prisoners go, did you forget that Saddam released just about all of them last year, including all of the murderers and rapists? Isn't it ironic that perhaps one of the biggest human rights offenses the regime committed in the last year was to release the prisoners?!?!

And how is it that someone in one of the last developed countries to execute prisoners is condemning another nation for doing the same thing?


PS: I should also remind you that those large mass graves in the south were very much our fault, too, since we prompted the uprising and basically handed them to the Iraqis. Also those deaths happened in the context of a civil war, of which there are many that we never get involved in.
post #462 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.

So you remove Hussein; simple.

Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.

If you want to talk about the UN, it did not support the war. The UN does not support your position, plain and simple.
post #463 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Well hopefully they'll believe this too.

Here's a guardian article on it, too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968581,00.html
post #464 of 631
Quote:
If you want to talk about the UN, it did not support the war.

Thanks for the newsflash, Mr. Hearst.

Quote:
The UN does not support your position, plain and simple.

What position? That Iraq was required to disarm fully by answering the question in the document I linked?

Because that's what I said in my post.

Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #465 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Here's a guardian article on it, too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...968581,00.html

If what Powell said in the SC is to be considered "real evidence" I am dying for the questionable evidence
post #466 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


What position? That Iraq was required to disarm fully by answering the question in the document I linked?

Because that's what I said in my post.

This is what you said in your post:
Quote:
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.

And the UN does not agree.



Quote:
Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?

Don't worry. I don't want your job.
post #467 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
If you consider disarmament to inclue answering these questions (and that's what the UN considers disarmament), then there was absolutely no way to get Hussein to disarm; with weak threats, credible threats or outright war. Hussein was not going to cooperate.

So you remove Hussein; simple.

Whether or not weapons are there does not encompass disarmament, it is more than that.

For you to be right disarmament would have had to occur, and that hasn't happened. And if it does now then I will be proven right because someone besides Hussein will have done the disarmament.

Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.

I wouldn't be so verbal yourself. There's a growing feeling about being duped by Bush over this ( no WOMD found ). What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out. It doesn't matter what you think about this as jutification. This is why Bush said we should be there. This has a large potential to come back and bite George in the butt. Couple that with the money spent on this war and ummm, well let's just say election time should be interesting.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #468 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Or are you moving goalposts to start an argument?

Moving the goal posts?

If you look at some of the posts prior to the war from the supporters* of the war they said "We need this war to disarm Saddam and when WoMDs are found after the war the anti-war people will try and move the goal posts and say "well that ain´t real evidence" or try to take the focus away from the WoMDs"

When people in support of the war NOW talk about the reasons for going to war its "Well the WoMDs wasn´t importent. There was other more compellign reasons"

Moving the goal post?

*(not you personally Grovy. Been there. discussed that)
post #469 of 631
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
What kills me is that it took them so long to figure this out.

The reason it took so long is that no one really bothers to go over the UN reports and see what was there. Everyone just keeps saying 'WMD, WMD, WMD' ignoring the fact that we are talking about something in particular. What was the important things that were unaccounted for?

. maybe 500 tons of Mustard Gas, though this number only comes from a discrepancy in ONE document of bombs dropped and previous stock during the war with Iran. Mustard gas alone is not enough of a threat since many nations have it,it has been used since WWI and is difficult to deliver in non-military environments. It is also something that would not (not even in a fantasy world) have been deployed against the US.

Beyond that, what do we have?

. Chemical agent that would have degraded by now and would be useless.
. Biological weapons that would likely be useless at this point, though they always were since bio weapons are not very practical (which is the main reason the US doesn't have a large bio weapons program anymore).

Every piece of information on nuclear weapons, from the non-existant IAEA reports cited by Bush to the forged Nigerian docs, were pure BS. The claims that large chem facilities were being rebuilt is NOW KNOWN TO BE FALSE.

And this is what is so important, and why we don't need more time. The facilities were not rebuilt. Iraq did not produce new large stocks of these weapons. Period. That's why we don't have to wait and see.

This is exactly why anyone that repeats the 'Saddam has/had WMD' mantra is so backward! None of them have bothered to look into what they are really talking about.

These are the same folks that ignore that the 'bio-lab trailers' not only make no sense, but are a claim that sits on little (if any) evidence.

This is also why these same folks will eat up anything that is planted, which is not without precident and becoming increasingly more likely as the political situation gets tougher. When and if it happens, those that have actually studied what is possible will speak out about it, but the american public, whose depth of thought hasn't gone far past the phrase 'WMD' will eat up the marketing.
post #470 of 631
Thread Starter 
A little bit more on the trailers from Federation of American Scientists:

Quote:
"Mobile pilot plant fermentation facilities are not uncommon,"
observed chemist George C. Smith. In fact, they have a
sufficient number of conventional applications, he noted, that
they are commercially marketed. One such mobile fermentor is
described here:


http://www.johnmorris.com.au/html/Ne...ioflow5000.htm


The CIA report said the Iraqi plant design could be specifically
identified as a banned weapons system because of its device for
capturing exhaust gases: "The capability of the system to
capture and compress exhaust gases produced during fermentation
is not required for legitimate biological processes and
strongly indicates attempts to conceal production activity."


But that's not necessarily so either, said Smith, a senior
fellow at GlobalSecurity.org.


Thus, a design for a mobile bioreactor that is used to
decontaminate soil at the U.S. Department of Energy Savannah
River site features an optional "noxious gas adsorber" that has
nothing to do with biological weapons production. See the
schematic diagram on this page:


http://www.wpi.org/Initiatives/2002/20020603.asp


"Perhaps the CIA analysts are correct when they claim the
fermentors in Iraq are part of a biological weapons program,"
Dr. Smith said. But "a vapor trap is no smoking gun indicating
the labs must be for bioweapons production."


Furthermore, "it is not that difficult to think of legitimate
reasons for the generation and uses of microbial products in
Iraq." He cited the production of Bacillus thuringiensis for
pest control as one illustrative hypothesis.


In short, the CIA report does not conclusively prove the case
that it asserts.


Nevertheless, President Bush said last week that the mobile
production facilities were unambiguously intended for
biological weapons.


"For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them," Bush
said May 30, referring of the trailers.

So not only is Bush still flat out lying (or at the extreme least, he's misrepresenting the facts in a dramatic way), we also have a good example of a situation where the American public, including people here in AO, eat up claims without being aware of the particulars of each case. Hell, they aren't even aware of the fact that there are particulars.

I think the reason Americans are so unquestioning is that they fall victim to belief in, as one intel expert called it, "Hollywood rinky-dink." Some of you guys think that, like in the movies, details don't matter and terrorists are all good looking and drive speedboats. Well, here in the real world, details matter much more than the phrase 'WMD.'

What ever crazier, however, is the number of people that are too dense to realize that they politicians rely on this same ignorance to sell their policies, like Bush has been all along with this war.
post #471 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat

Sorry, bunge, you're just going to have to start being more quiet.

Link didn't work. And until it does, you're condescension just looks like poor taste.

I still don't think you'll convince anyone that war was necessary, even if someone lost on Jeopardy.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #472 of 631
double post...apologies
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #473 of 631
Ok, this is partially off-topic, but Just what the Hell does the Pentagon think it's playing at? Their plans are to hire a terrorist organization to carry out military operations in Iran. Lying to the world to "justify" an illegal war is bad enough....but funding terrorist organizations on the we-the-taxpayers?

Take note: For those not familiar with The Daily Telegraph, it is Britain's most Conservative broadsheet daily newspaper[/b].

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
post #474 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ok, this is partially off-topic, but Just what the Hell does the Pentagon think it's playing at? Their plans are to hire a terrorist organization to carry out military operations in Iran. Lying to the world to "justify" an illegal war is bad enough....but funding terrorist organizations on the we-the-taxpayers?

They are not terrorists. They are patriots.
post #475 of 631
giant:

Quote:
And the UN does not agree.

What *does* the UN think about it, giant. Please inform me.

And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?

--

bunge:

Quote:
Link didn't work. And until it does, you're condescension just looks like poor taste.

click
click "cluster document"
click "available here"

Quote:
I still don't think you'll convince anyone that war was necessary, even if someone lost on Jeopardy.

I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #476 of 631
6 months...no WMD's....which were supposedly 45minutes away from being deployed.....
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
post #477 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now.

This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.
post #478 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.

My sentiments exactly. \
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #479 of 631
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
giant:



What *does* the UN think about it, giant. Please inform me.

And past that, how does one deduce what the UN thinks?

--

bunge:



click
click "cluster document"
click "available here"



I'm not going to convince anyone of anything, but I'm having fun beating people over the head with the Cluestick for now. When it ceases to amuse me I'll stop.

You're only beating yourself up over this! This was supposed to be a big threat to the united states when we started talking about this many months ago. This is why many conservatives said we should go. This is why the Bush administration said we should go. This is why Tony Blair said we should go. Give it up groverat. No one believes your spin doctoring anymore.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #480 of 631
BRussell:

Quote:
This coming from the guy who claimed that Bush didn't use WMD as the justification for war.

That coming from the guy who claimed that babies tasted good.


It's not my fault you guys can't see this without your partisan tunnel-vision. You have this stupid belief that "not anti-war" = "OMG TERRAR WMD BUSH SI TEH BESTEST!" and it really hurts your ability to actually read the things that are written because you want to fit it in your little categories that you're comfortable with.

I never said Bush didn't use the WMD threat to advocate war. I never said that Saddam *had* WMD. I never said that Iraq was a "big threat" to the US. Never. Never did I say any of that, but since your collective arguments rely on those beliefs so heavily you'll just plow ignorantly forward as if I had.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Bush admin is still lying to start a war