I noticed that too. It went from "We are 100% certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" to "We are 100% certain they had weapons programs." What's next? "We are 100% sure they were thinking about having weapons programs?"
The Bush administration has never, ever played by the rules. Why would they start now? Moving the goal posts is dishonest, but it's not the most blatantly dishonest thing they've done.
i read an article the other day (maureen dowd in the nyt) that donald rumsfeld calling for an investigation of the united states intelligence community's blunders, is like o.j. looking for nicole's killers.
i wonder if the citizenry's lack of outrage on this issue is caused by guilt.
If you know that Iraq destroyed items in the Cluster document please contact UNMOVIC.
Quote:
If Iraq can't/won't answer the questions in the Cluster document, what do you do?
How long do you give them?
You really need to stop citing the document until you can point to something that constitutes the threat to the US.
Quote:
Why did Blair go against the will of his citizens?
1) Opinion polls are bullshit ploys used by a particular side only when it suits them.
2) No leader should run his nation on opinion polls. We'll see if he gets re-elected. That's the indication.
Again, giant, why be so melodramatic with garbage like "coerced" when you have absolutely no backing?
I was talking about spain (hence the word 'spain') and 90%+ is not a number you can fudge.
So you are wrong again.
Quote:
And as I told bunge at the time, disarmament and threat status aren't linked. Someone can be a threat but meet all UN arms requirements (see: US), another can lack threat but not be disarmed (see: Iraq).
So the only "WMD propaganda" I bought into was the UN's.
The UN did not support the war. Stop citing it. No matter which way you look at it, the majority of nations in the UN did not support the war, and even in the countries that did support us, their citizens did not. It was a massive blow against the core idea of democracy.
As for your repeated references to this cluster document, since you, unlike anyone but the Bush admin, seem to think there is something in there that justifies a US war to 'preempt' a 'threat'.
Man I'm glad you guys don't make chairs ( the legs to stand on ).
How hard is it for these people to deal with the fact that they can't point to anything in Saddam's arsenal that constitutes a threat to the US?
Or the fact that the US has searched every site the cited as 'proof' and found NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. None of the sites has any evidence whatsoever that they were used for a CBN weapons program. EARTH TO THE CRAZIES: this means not only that the Bush Admin was FLAT OUT WRONG in the 'evidence' they presented, but it also demonstrates that there was NO LARGE SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM, a fact substantiated by UN documentation IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT INSTEAD OF CITING IT BLINDLY.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
That's odd, because you've found it funny when, at least in your opinion, other people were doing it.
Because I'm talking to the people here. And I don't make it as a joke, it's an accusation when I say it.
If Bush were talking to me on this internet message board and did that I would definitely call him out on it. As it stands now, what am I going to do, walk up to the goddam white house and say "HA! Busted!"?
If Bush were talking to me on this internet message board and did that I would definitely call him out on it. As it stands now, what am I going to do, walk up to the goddam white house and say "HA! Busted!"?
Giant, there's no point in argunig with Groverat, more than rejecting his 100% Morals-Free? "lying is AOK" premise.
I stopped taking them seriously a long time ago. Funny though at best I thought when this started to come to light they'd be back under a rock somewhere and not show their face. But to continue to argue the point in the face of hard, cold, facts is one I would have never guessed. Desparate would be my guess.
Anyway that's why I've been using the humour so much. Laughing about it is really all you can do.
Ps. One good thing is once the string on something like this starts to unravel it usually doesn't stop until you reach the end.
How hard is it for these people to deal with the fact that they can't point to anything in Saddam's arsenal that constitutes a threat to the US?
Or the fact that the US has searched every site the cited as 'proof' and found NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. None of the sites has any evidence whatsoever that they were used for a CBN weapons program. EARTH TO THE CRAZIES: this means not only that the Bush Admin was FLAT OUT WRONG in the 'evidence' they presented, but it also demonstrates that there was NO LARGE SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM, a fact substantiated by UN documentation IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT INSTEAD OF CITING IT BLINDLY.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
You know what giant? You are right! Really. None of us can cite evidence of a large scale weapons program. They haven't found the weapons. Correct! See, no one is arguing that. Not at all.
Incredibly though, you have still missed the point: The justification for war argument was never about the burden of proof being on the US, spain and the UK. Never. The burden was ALWAYS on Saddam Hussein. He was obligated, I repeat OBLIGATED to SHOW EVIDENCE that he DESTROYED his WMD. That's what the resolutions called for. You may not like that, but that's the way it was. I beg of YOU, giant.....show US how Saddam did that.
Now, after three months we haven't found WMD: Just because we haven't found it yet (that's arguable...but I'll agree we haven't for now), that doesn't mean there isn't or wasn't a program. What if it is in some bunker we don't know about? What if he found a way to move most of the program to Syria? Are none of these possibilites? Isn't also possible that we HAVE found such weapons but are not ready to disclose it yet?
You are essentially arguing that because you can't see it, it isn't there. If there was no historical context here, I might agree. But there IS historical context! We KNOW they were there before! I say again...WE KNOW IT!!! So then, where are they? We haven't seen him destroy them, yet their existence was proven previously. From this, you conlcude that they are not there? Your position on this issue is ludicrous!!! It's as if you are four years old!!! giant, when something is proven conclusively, it takes an awful lot to disprove it.
You keep running around the board, acting as if we are starting from a new spot on the historical timeline. You are acting as if Saddam was randomly accused of having WMD...and now we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't "Law and Order"!!! Saddam wasn't and shouldn't be presumed inncocent until proven guilty. He was GUILTY until HE proved otherwise.
Look, in a year to 18 months without any find, I'll be asking questions too. Unlike you though, I'll be more concerned that our intelligence was really flawed than that the President and Prime Ministers of Britain and Spain blatantly lied in oder to go to war for any of the aformentioned (and supposed) "super secret American dominance plan". Unless I see otherwise, I'd be inclined to think that the intelligence given to the President and administration was inaccurate or overstated.
I'll say this: If Bush knowingly lied or greatly exagerated the threat posed by Iraq, then I have a problem with that. But don't forget, the Bush administration was not the only goup to see the intel. Many members of Congress saw it. Bush would truly have to be an absolute moron to delibrately make it seem like there were WMD when there wasn't any. It is certainly possible though, that groups within the intel community delibrately painted picture for him that was inaccurate (again...I'm not sure what they thought would happen when no weapons were found).
Some of this argument we are having is a simple difference in philosophy. I believe Bush considered Iraq a part of the overall War on Terror because of the possibility Iraq could give WMD to terrorist organizations like Al-Queda. He therefore considered preemption completely valid, as did the admin. Given Saddam's open hatred of the United States, I'd have to agree. In other words, I AGREE with preemption in this post 9/11 world....you obviously do not.
Guess what, sdw, we went to war in Iraq to 'preempt' a 'threat' to the 'american people.' Bush said this, not me. If an accusation is being made, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If there's no substance to the accusation that Saddam was a threat to the US, then a 'defensive' war to 'preempt' a threat to the 'american people' was not justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Any discussions otherwise are simply revisionist attempts to contort the issue.
You know what giant? You are right! Really. None of us can cite evidence of a large scale weapons program. They haven't found the weapons. Correct! See, no one is arguing that. Not at all.
Incredibly though, you have still missed the point: The justification for war argument was never about the burden of proof being on the US, spain and the UK. Never. The burden was ALWAYS on Saddam Hussein. He was obligated, I repeat OBLIGATED to SHOW EVIDENCE that he DESTROYED his WMD. That's what the resolutions called for. You may not like that, but that's the way it was. I beg of YOU, giant.....show US how Saddam did that.
Now, after three months we haven't found WMD: Just because we haven't found it yet (that's arguable...but I'll agree we haven't for now), that doesn't mean there isn't or wasn't a program. What if it is in some bunker we don't know about? What if he found a way to move most of the program to Syria? Are none of these possibilites? Isn't also possible that we HAVE found such weapons but are not ready to disclose it yet?
You are essentially arguing that because you can't see it, it isn't there. If there was no historical context here, I might agree. But there IS historical context! We KNOW they were there before! I say again...WE KNOW IT!!! So then, where are they? We haven't seen him destroy them, yet their existence was proven previously. From this, you conlcude that they are not there? Your position on this issue is ludicrous!!! It's as if you are four years old!!! giant, when something is proven conclusively, it takes an awful lot to disprove it.
You keep running around the board, acting as if we are starting from a new spot on the historical timeline. You are acting as if Saddam was randomly accused of having WMD...and now we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't "Law and Order"!!! Saddam wasn't and shouldn't be presumed inncocent until proven guilty. He was GUILTY until HE proved otherwise.
Look, in a year to 18 months without any find, I'll be asking questions too. Unlike you though, I'll be more concerned that our intelligence was really flawed than that the President and Prime Ministers of Britain and Spain blatantly lied in oder to go to war for any of the aformentioned (and supposed) "super secret American dominance plan". Unless I see otherwise, I'd be inclined to think that the intelligence given to the President and administration was inaccurate or overstated.
I'll say this: If Bush knowingly lied or greatly exagerated the threat posed by Iraq, then I have a problem with that. But don't forget, the Bush administration was not the only goup to see the intel. Many members of Congress saw it. Bush would truly have to be an absolute moron to delibrately make it seem like there were WMD when there wasn't any. It is certainly possible though, that groups within the intel community delibrately painted picture for him that was inaccurate (again...I'm not sure what they thought would happen when no weapons were found).
Some of this argument we are having is a simple difference in philosophy. I believe Bush considered Iraq a part of the overall War on Terror because of the possibility Iraq could give WMD to terrorist organizations like Al-Queda. He therefore considered preemption completely valid, as did the admin. Given Saddam's open hatred of the United States, I'd have to agree. In other words, I AGREE with preemption in this post 9/11 world....you obviously do not.
Nope! It's you that has missed the point ( were you even aiming at the broad side of the barn ? ).
We went to war for a very specific set of reasons stated by our president. Now it turns out this wasn't true.
Yes it's good Saddam's outta the way. Yes this will mean no more abuse ( at his hands ) for his subjects. It might even be stabilizing for the area.
The problem is that the premise wasn't true. That means :
A. Bush and his support group are really stupid.
B. He lied to accomplish this for whatever reason.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it this is bad and not acceptable in any form.
We went to war for a very specific set of reasons stated by our president. Now it turns out this wasn't true.
Who says? Is there a time limit on us finding the WMD, but not for the inspectors? I believe that just about everyone here agaisnt war argued that we should give the inspectors more time....now, you're ready to call the game in the 3rd inning!!! The case isn't closed.
Quote:
he problem is that the premise wasn't true. That means :
A. Bush and his support group are really stupid.
B. He lied to accomplish this for whatever reason.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it this is bad and not acceptable in any form
A. Bush and his support group are anything but stupid.
B. There is no evidence Bush lied.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it, there's no proof Saddam ever got rid of his WMD.
giant:
Quote:
You sure write a lot, but say nothing.
Guess what, sdw, we went to war in Iraq to 'preempt' a 'threat' to the 'american people.' Bush said this, not me. If an accusation is being made, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If there's no substance to the accusation that Saddam was a threat to the US, then a 'defensive' war to 'preempt' a threat to the 'american people' was not justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Any discussions otherwise are simply revisionist attempts to contort the issue.
And what is your basis for that statement? Who are you to determine what was and wasn't a threat? Your implied contention is that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore Iraq was not a threat. But, how do you know this? How do you know there were no weapons? The only thing you have going for you is that they haven't found large stockpiles of WMD in 90 days. Once again, you are saying that "because I can't see them, they aren't there". This is the most childish and misguided logic I have ever seen. Have you ever seen a Russian nuclear missile silo? No. But, they are still there....aren't they?
Bush never came out and said they he worried about a chemical weapon being launched by say, ICBM at us. What he focused on was the possibility that Saddam could give chemical, biological or eventually nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. THAT'S what the threat was. Are you denying this possibility? Of course you are.....because according to you Saddam didn't have any WMD!!! According to you, he just magically made them disappear....in a manner that was not consistent with what the UN wanted. According to you, we should just take Saddam's word for it that he destroyed his WMD. According to you, we don't need any evidence that he destroyed the weapons we already knew he had.
Looks like you're there, giant! You have now fully arrived at the thought that not only will we have a hard time finding weapons, but that there were no weaponsat all!
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
I noticed that too. It went from "We are 100% certain Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" to "We are 100% certain they had weapons programs." What's next? "We are 100% sure they were thinking about having weapons programs?"
The Bush administration has never, ever played by the rules. Why would they start now? Moving the goal posts is dishonest, but it's not the most blatantly dishonest thing they've done.
Originally posted by jimmac
Oh where, oh where, can the WOMDs have gone. Oh where, oh where can they be?
With their existence cut short, and their tales cut long. Oh where, oh where can they be?
For a good time click on this.
http://www.gwbush.com/home.shtml
That sight pretty much says it all about you.
i wonder if the citizenry's lack of outrage on this issue is caused by guilt.
Since I don't find that particularly funny, no I won't make fun of it. I can't think of a good joke to go with it.
Strategerie is much better stuff. I'll make jokes about things that are funny.
Will I acknowledge that the Bush administration moves, twists, streches and even lies? Yes, like I have one million and one ****ing times now.
Originally posted by groverat
If you know that Iraq destroyed items in the Cluster document please contact UNMOVIC.
If Iraq can't/won't answer the questions in the Cluster document, what do you do?
How long do you give them?
You really need to stop citing the document until you can point to something that constitutes the threat to the US.
Why did Blair go against the will of his citizens?
1) Opinion polls are bullshit ploys used by a particular side only when it suits them.
2) No leader should run his nation on opinion polls. We'll see if he gets re-elected. That's the indication.
Again, giant, why be so melodramatic with garbage like "coerced" when you have absolutely no backing?
I was talking about spain (hence the word 'spain') and 90%+ is not a number you can fudge.
So you are wrong again.
And as I told bunge at the time, disarmament and threat status aren't linked. Someone can be a threat but meet all UN arms requirements (see: US), another can lack threat but not be disarmed (see: Iraq).
So the only "WMD propaganda" I bought into was the UN's.
The UN did not support the war. Stop citing it. No matter which way you look at it, the majority of nations in the UN did not support the war, and even in the countries that did support us, their citizens did not. It was a massive blow against the core idea of democracy.
As for your repeated references to this cluster document, since you, unlike anyone but the Bush admin, seem to think there is something in there that justifies a US war to 'preempt' a 'threat'.
Originally posted by jimmac
Man I'm glad you guys don't make chairs ( the legs to stand on ).
How hard is it for these people to deal with the fact that they can't point to anything in Saddam's arsenal that constitutes a threat to the US?
Or the fact that the US has searched every site the cited as 'proof' and found NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. None of the sites has any evidence whatsoever that they were used for a CBN weapons program. EARTH TO THE CRAZIES: this means not only that the Bush Admin was FLAT OUT WRONG in the 'evidence' they presented, but it also demonstrates that there was NO LARGE SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM, a fact substantiated by UN documentation IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT INSTEAD OF CITING IT BLINDLY.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
Originally posted by groverat
Since I don't find that particularly funny, no I won't make fun of it.
That's odd, because you've found it funny when, at least in your opinion, other people were doing it.
Originally posted by tonton
Giant, there's no point in argunig with Groverat, more than rejecting his 100% Morals-Free? "lying is AOK" premise.
Good point
That's odd, because you've found it funny when, at least in your opinion, other people were doing it.
Because I'm talking to the people here. And I don't make it as a joke, it's an accusation when I say it.
If Bush were talking to me on this internet message board and did that I would definitely call him out on it. As it stands now, what am I going to do, walk up to the goddam white house and say "HA! Busted!"?
--
giant:
Can I get a copy of that thread, please?
Originally posted by groverat
If Bush were talking to me on this internet message board and did that I would definitely call him out on it. As it stands now, what am I going to do, walk up to the goddam white house and say "HA! Busted!"?
Good.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That sight pretty much says it all about you.
Yup! ( As Maxwell Smart would say ) And loving it!
Originally posted by tonton
Giant, there's no point in argunig with Groverat, more than rejecting his 100% Morals-Free? "lying is AOK" premise.
I stopped taking them seriously a long time ago. Funny though at best I thought when this started to come to light they'd be back under a rock somewhere and not show their face. But to continue to argue the point in the face of hard, cold, facts is one I would have never guessed. Desparate would be my guess.
Anyway that's why I've been using the humour so much. Laughing about it is really all you can do.
Ps. One good thing is once the string on something like this starts to unravel it usually doesn't stop until you reach the end.
Originally posted by giant
How hard is it for these people to deal with the fact that they can't point to anything in Saddam's arsenal that constitutes a threat to the US?
Or the fact that the US has searched every site the cited as 'proof' and found NOTHING. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. None of the sites has any evidence whatsoever that they were used for a CBN weapons program. EARTH TO THE CRAZIES: this means not only that the Bush Admin was FLAT OUT WRONG in the 'evidence' they presented, but it also demonstrates that there was NO LARGE SCALE WEAPONS PROGRAM, a fact substantiated by UN documentation IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT INSTEAD OF CITING IT BLINDLY.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
That's why I call it a blind spot.
Originally posted by groverat
bunge:
Since I don't find that particularly funny, no I won't make fun of it. I can't think of a good joke to go with it.
Strategerie is much better stuff. I'll make jokes about things that are funny.
Will I acknowledge that the Bush administration moves, twists, streches and even lies? Yes, like I have one million and one ****ing times now.
Ok, now you will have to acknowlege that people aren't going to like or take it very well and that it's not morally right.
Please, I beg any of you (SDW, groverat, ena, trumptman) to give me SPECIFIC evidence that demonstrates Iraq has weapons that threaten the US, since that is why we went to war in the words of GW.
You know what giant? You are right! Really. None of us can cite evidence of a large scale weapons program. They haven't found the weapons. Correct! See, no one is arguing that. Not at all.
Incredibly though, you have still missed the point: The justification for war argument was never about the burden of proof being on the US, spain and the UK. Never. The burden was ALWAYS on Saddam Hussein. He was obligated, I repeat OBLIGATED to SHOW EVIDENCE that he DESTROYED his WMD. That's what the resolutions called for. You may not like that, but that's the way it was. I beg of YOU, giant.....show US how Saddam did that.
Now, after three months we haven't found WMD: Just because we haven't found it yet (that's arguable...but I'll agree we haven't for now), that doesn't mean there isn't or wasn't a program. What if it is in some bunker we don't know about? What if he found a way to move most of the program to Syria? Are none of these possibilites? Isn't also possible that we HAVE found such weapons but are not ready to disclose it yet?
You are essentially arguing that because you can't see it, it isn't there. If there was no historical context here, I might agree. But there IS historical context! We KNOW they were there before! I say again...WE KNOW IT!!! So then, where are they? We haven't seen him destroy them, yet their existence was proven previously. From this, you conlcude that they are not there? Your position on this issue is ludicrous!!! It's as if you are four years old!!! giant, when something is proven conclusively, it takes an awful lot to disprove it.
You keep running around the board, acting as if we are starting from a new spot on the historical timeline. You are acting as if Saddam was randomly accused of having WMD...and now we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't "Law and Order"!!! Saddam wasn't and shouldn't be presumed inncocent until proven guilty. He was GUILTY until HE proved otherwise.
Look, in a year to 18 months without any find, I'll be asking questions too. Unlike you though, I'll be more concerned that our intelligence was really flawed than that the President and Prime Ministers of Britain and Spain blatantly lied in oder to go to war for any of the aformentioned (and supposed) "super secret American dominance plan". Unless I see otherwise, I'd be inclined to think that the intelligence given to the President and administration was inaccurate or overstated.
I'll say this: If Bush knowingly lied or greatly exagerated the threat posed by Iraq, then I have a problem with that. But don't forget, the Bush administration was not the only goup to see the intel. Many members of Congress saw it. Bush would truly have to be an absolute moron to delibrately make it seem like there were WMD when there wasn't any. It is certainly possible though, that groups within the intel community delibrately painted picture for him that was inaccurate (again...I'm not sure what they thought would happen when no weapons were found).
Some of this argument we are having is a simple difference in philosophy. I believe Bush considered Iraq a part of the overall War on Terror because of the possibility Iraq could give WMD to terrorist organizations like Al-Queda. He therefore considered preemption completely valid, as did the admin. Given Saddam's open hatred of the United States, I'd have to agree. In other words, I AGREE with preemption in this post 9/11 world....you obviously do not.
Guess what, sdw, we went to war in Iraq to 'preempt' a 'threat' to the 'american people.' Bush said this, not me. If an accusation is being made, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If there's no substance to the accusation that Saddam was a threat to the US, then a 'defensive' war to 'preempt' a threat to the 'american people' was not justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Any discussions otherwise are simply revisionist attempts to contort the issue.
Originally posted by SDW2001
giant:
You know what giant? You are right! Really. None of us can cite evidence of a large scale weapons program. They haven't found the weapons. Correct! See, no one is arguing that. Not at all.
Incredibly though, you have still missed the point: The justification for war argument was never about the burden of proof being on the US, spain and the UK. Never. The burden was ALWAYS on Saddam Hussein. He was obligated, I repeat OBLIGATED to SHOW EVIDENCE that he DESTROYED his WMD. That's what the resolutions called for. You may not like that, but that's the way it was. I beg of YOU, giant.....show US how Saddam did that.
Now, after three months we haven't found WMD: Just because we haven't found it yet (that's arguable...but I'll agree we haven't for now), that doesn't mean there isn't or wasn't a program. What if it is in some bunker we don't know about? What if he found a way to move most of the program to Syria? Are none of these possibilites? Isn't also possible that we HAVE found such weapons but are not ready to disclose it yet?
You are essentially arguing that because you can't see it, it isn't there. If there was no historical context here, I might agree. But there IS historical context! We KNOW they were there before! I say again...WE KNOW IT!!! So then, where are they? We haven't seen him destroy them, yet their existence was proven previously. From this, you conlcude that they are not there? Your position on this issue is ludicrous!!! It's as if you are four years old!!! giant, when something is proven conclusively, it takes an awful lot to disprove it.
You keep running around the board, acting as if we are starting from a new spot on the historical timeline. You are acting as if Saddam was randomly accused of having WMD...and now we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't "Law and Order"!!! Saddam wasn't and shouldn't be presumed inncocent until proven guilty. He was GUILTY until HE proved otherwise.
Look, in a year to 18 months without any find, I'll be asking questions too. Unlike you though, I'll be more concerned that our intelligence was really flawed than that the President and Prime Ministers of Britain and Spain blatantly lied in oder to go to war for any of the aformentioned (and supposed) "super secret American dominance plan". Unless I see otherwise, I'd be inclined to think that the intelligence given to the President and administration was inaccurate or overstated.
I'll say this: If Bush knowingly lied or greatly exagerated the threat posed by Iraq, then I have a problem with that. But don't forget, the Bush administration was not the only goup to see the intel. Many members of Congress saw it. Bush would truly have to be an absolute moron to delibrately make it seem like there were WMD when there wasn't any. It is certainly possible though, that groups within the intel community delibrately painted picture for him that was inaccurate (again...I'm not sure what they thought would happen when no weapons were found).
Some of this argument we are having is a simple difference in philosophy. I believe Bush considered Iraq a part of the overall War on Terror because of the possibility Iraq could give WMD to terrorist organizations like Al-Queda. He therefore considered preemption completely valid, as did the admin. Given Saddam's open hatred of the United States, I'd have to agree. In other words, I AGREE with preemption in this post 9/11 world....you obviously do not.
Nope! It's you that has missed the point ( were you even aiming at the broad side of the barn ? ).
We went to war for a very specific set of reasons stated by our president. Now it turns out this wasn't true.
Yes it's good Saddam's outta the way. Yes this will mean no more abuse ( at his hands ) for his subjects. It might even be stabilizing for the area.
The problem is that the premise wasn't true. That means :
A. Bush and his support group are really stupid.
B. He lied to accomplish this for whatever reason.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it this is bad and not acceptable in any form.
Originally posted by jimmac
For a good time click on this.
http://www.gwbush.com/home.shtml
I don´t like hate sites like that. But it had a few good quotes.
Ok, now you will have to acknowlege that people aren't going to like or take it very well and that it's not morally right.
Obviously people don't like it.
What the hell does morality have to do with it?
We went to war for a very specific set of reasons stated by our president. Now it turns out this wasn't true.
Who says? Is there a time limit on us finding the WMD, but not for the inspectors? I believe that just about everyone here agaisnt war argued that we should give the inspectors more time....now, you're ready to call the game in the 3rd inning!!! The case isn't closed.
he problem is that the premise wasn't true. That means :
A. Bush and his support group are really stupid.
B. He lied to accomplish this for whatever reason.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it this is bad and not acceptable in any form
A. Bush and his support group are anything but stupid.
B. There is no evidence Bush lied.
C. All of the above.
However you slice it, there's no proof Saddam ever got rid of his WMD.
giant:
You sure write a lot, but say nothing.
Guess what, sdw, we went to war in Iraq to 'preempt' a 'threat' to the 'american people.' Bush said this, not me. If an accusation is being made, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If there's no substance to the accusation that Saddam was a threat to the US, then a 'defensive' war to 'preempt' a threat to the 'american people' was not justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Any discussions otherwise are simply revisionist attempts to contort the issue.
And what is your basis for that statement? Who are you to determine what was and wasn't a threat? Your implied contention is that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore Iraq was not a threat. But, how do you know this? How do you know there were no weapons? The only thing you have going for you is that they haven't found large stockpiles of WMD in 90 days. Once again, you are saying that "because I can't see them, they aren't there". This is the most childish and misguided logic I have ever seen. Have you ever seen a Russian nuclear missile silo? No. But, they are still there....aren't they?
Bush never came out and said they he worried about a chemical weapon being launched by say, ICBM at us. What he focused on was the possibility that Saddam could give chemical, biological or eventually nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. THAT'S what the threat was. Are you denying this possibility? Of course you are.....because according to you Saddam didn't have any WMD!!! According to you, he just magically made them disappear....in a manner that was not consistent with what the UN wanted. According to you, we should just take Saddam's word for it that he destroyed his WMD. According to you, we don't need any evidence that he destroyed the weapons we already knew he had.
Looks like you're there, giant! You have now fully arrived at the thought that not only will we have a hard time finding weapons, but that there were no weaponsat all!