First of all. this thread is total bullshit. Why? Because there is no evindence Bush lied about anything at all. None.
IAEA reports. You fail.
Quote:
We've found bioweapons trailers.
At least your aren't afraid to look stupid. Here we have a big example, since there is actually more evidence that they are not bio weapons trailers than that they are. But you haven't really looked into the particulars, have you?
But while Bush may not take the fall for the apparent reasons we went to war in Iraq, someone will. Its either going to be Rummey, the CIA chief, or some other spooks. I dont think you can silent people forever though... well there is one way.
Feith is already being publicly chastised for being too wild, so we might be seeing the beginning. As far as silencing people, the Admin doesn't really need to. The press and dimwit americans eat up everything the president says, and, as we can see, even when the admin consistently makes claims that don't stand up to even the smallest scrutiny, they are still able to get away with just about anything.
When did this happen? Can you cite a source? I remember a mobile lab that could have been used to manufacture chemical weapons being found...but no traces of chemical or biological weapons.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated.
That is a possibility, but it would appear that the reality of the situation is that the intelligence reports from last year accurately stated that there were no WMD and the exaggeration was all on the part of the Bush administration.
It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
Here's a thought...how about if they are proven right...how about if it comes out that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush lied to start a war for their own profit and the profit of their friends. How bad would things be for them then?
resident Bush, paying his first visit to US troops in the Persian Gulf region to thank them for their service in Iraq, declared yesterday that coalition forces are ''on the look'' for weapons of mass destruction and will find them.
The bioweapons trailers were NOT for bioweaposn . . . that has been shown repeatedly . . .hese kinds of portable labs are common for testing agricu;ture and factory work . . .
First of all. this thread is total bullshit. Why? Because there is no evindence Bush lied about anything at all. None. We've found bioweapons trailers. We've found banned delivery systems. We've found traces of WMD in the Euphrates. And, I think we'll see more.
There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated. In addition, many here seem to be under the impression that said intelligence is "cut and dry". From what I hear, there is a lot of guesswork involved, possibilities ranging from "extremely high" to "significant" to "low". It's not the exact science people think it is. The administration has said itself it focused on WMD as a justification for war because, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz "it was the one thing everyone could agree on. He went on to talk about the human situation in Iraq, the threat to Israel, etc. There were a multitude of reasons, including the fact that Iraq had targeted and fired on our aircraft thousands of times. The justification for war was overwhelming. From Saddam's complete violation of the 1991 ceasefire, to his lack of cooperation witht he toothless UN, to his violation of the oil for food program....the evidence for it was staggering.
What Bush and Blair may have done wrong is focus on the WMD a bit too much. In fact, going to the UN may have been a mistake. Rumor has it Powell convinced him to go....perhaps Bush was right in his instincts to go it alone after all. Perhaps they should have focused on our planes being targeted, Saddam's open praise of 9/11, Al-Queda, etc.
In any case there is absolutely ZERO evidence Bush lied at this point. I don't believe he and Blair would be that incredibly stupid to think no one would ever find out. Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had.
My question is: Since many of the Dems are jumping on the "we haven't found the WMD/Bush may have lied" bandwagon, what will happen to them politically if and when we find this stuff? It would be worse for them to be wrong than if Bush turned out to wrong. He could always show the intelligence he had, and simply say he was acting on what he felt was a threat to the American people and American interests abroad. Let's also not forget that members of Congress saw this intelliegence as well, and that Bush subsequently acted under the added authority of a joint Congressional resolution. It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
Don't you wish. Well we'll see. I'm thinking he's not any more organized than anyone else in government. There's almost always the forgotten loose thread. If there is something out there to find they'll find it.
PS." Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had. "
Please, not unless they plant them. The idea that Bush being there means they will find them now when the experts couldn't is pretty far fetched.
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
hmmm?
Having an affair I can forgive. That's really the married couple's business. He just shouldn't have lied when confronted. However lying for an agenda or personal gain when death is involved I can't forgive.
As a side note I just thought of something. When Clinton bombed Iraq he gave them a bloody nose to get them to comply. He wasn't out to destroy the government or kill Saddam. He never said Iraq was a direct threat to us. He just wanted them to comply. Bush was out for blood and did claim Iraq was a direct threat. He went there with a license to kill. A totally different situation.
The bioweapons trailers were NOT for bioweaposn . . . that has been shown repeatedly . . .hese kinds of portable labs are common for testing agricu;ture and factory work . . .
Report problems to moderators via e-mail, PM, or use the little bolt icon at the bottom right corner of each post. Let's not play moderator within the thread.
At least your aren't afraid to look stupid. Here we have a big example, since there is actually more evidence that they are not bio weapons trailers than that they are. But you haven't really looked into the particulars, have you?
The conlcusion was that they could not have been for any other purpose than for bioweapons production. They did not find any actual chemicals.
kneelbeforezod:
Quote:
Here's a thought...how about if they are proven right...how about if it comes out that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush lied to start a war for their own profit and the profit of their friends. How bad would things be for them then?
Lied for their own profit? Please. Let me ask you a question then: What was Blair's motivation? The war was hugely unpopular. Why would he have done it? But if that was proven, It would be bad. But, it won't be. It's an adsurd notion.
giant:
Quote:
But we already know that Bush did lie, and the most blatant of them was the fabricated IAEA reports. You fail.
Bush fabricated reports? Whatever. He made a few speeches a year or so ago and verbally referenced some things. Suddenly this becomes "fabricating reports"? Please
pfflam:
Quote:
The bioweapons trailers were NOT for bioweaposn . . . that has been shown repeatedly . . .hese kinds of portable labs are common for testing agricu;ture and factory work . . .
more . .
That is 100% wrong. 100%.
jimmac:
Quote:
Please, not unless they plant them. The idea that Bush being there means they will find them now when the experts couldn't is pretty far fetched.
Not unless they plant them? Really! Experts!?!?! You mean Hans "I'm the 23rd choice for this job" Blix who was working with Iraqi minders 100% of the time after five years of no inspectors being present in Iraq? Are those the experts you mean???
pfflam:
Quote:
Jusdt a side note:
Anybody notice this cyclical pattern:
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
hmmm?
Stop! My sides are splitting! Yes, pfflam, it all boils down to that: Republicans lie about global scandal and democrats lie about BJ. Congratulations, Sherlock. [pfflam filter engaged]
jimmac:
Quote:
As a side note I just thought of something. When Clinton bombed Iraq he gave them a bloody nose to get them to comply. He wasn't out to destroy the government or kill Saddam. He never said Iraq was a direct threat to us. He just wanted them to comply. Bush was out for blood and did claim Iraq was a direct threat. He went there with a license to kill. A totally different situation.
It keeps getting better!!! This is great stuff! Nevermind that Clinton bombed without ANY U.N. approval. Nevermind that he made virutally the EXACT same arguments Bush did. Where were the charges of unilateralism in 1998? Where were they in Kosovo? Hmmm.
SDW, how about you just not participate in my threads? You whine and moan about how everyone else has wronged you but you add absolutely nothing to the conversation here other than a "no it's not" or "liar liar" to any number of "i believe this and here's why and here's evidence as to why" statements. Shit man, you've even topped me in the derisive laughter category. That's ****in hard to do. Just keep this shit to your own wacky threads, ok?
The conlcusion was that they could not have been for any other purpose than for bioweapons production. They did not find any actual chemicals.
Um, no. The only person in the world who has made that claim has been Bush, while every expert, intel analyst or inspector says otherwise. In fact, every single pice of evidence points away from bio weapons, and Iraq was known to have trailers like these and they were inspected before the war. Trailers of this kind are common and even produced in the US as I pointed out above. Deal with it.
Quote:
Bush fabricated reports? Whatever. He made a few speeches a year or so ago and verbally referenced some things. Suddenly this becomes "fabricating reports"? Please
He cited a non-existant IAEA report to pretend Iraq had a nuke program, saying, and I quote, "What more justification do you need?"
You really need to come back to reality some time, chief.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
First of all. this thread is total bullshit. Why? Because there is no evindence Bush lied about anything at all. None.
IAEA reports. You fail.
We've found bioweapons trailers.
At least your aren't afraid to look stupid. Here we have a big example, since there is actually more evidence that they are not bio weapons trailers than that they are. But you haven't really looked into the particulars, have you?
Originally posted by billybobsky
But while Bush may not take the fall for the apparent reasons we went to war in Iraq, someone will. Its either going to be Rummey, the CIA chief, or some other spooks. I dont think you can silent people forever though... well there is one way.
Feith is already being publicly chastised for being too wild, so we might be seeing the beginning. As far as silencing people, the Admin doesn't really need to. The press and dimwit americans eat up everything the president says, and, as we can see, even when the admin consistently makes claims that don't stand up to even the smallest scrutiny, they are still able to get away with just about anything.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We've found bioweapons trailers.
When did this happen? Can you cite a source? I remember a mobile lab that could have been used to manufacture chemical weapons being found...but no traces of chemical or biological weapons.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated.
That is a possibility, but it would appear that the reality of the situation is that the intelligence reports from last year accurately stated that there were no WMD and the exaggeration was all on the part of the Bush administration.
See: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...RS398&refer=us
Originally posted by SDW2001
It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
Here's a thought...how about if they are proven right...how about if it comes out that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush lied to start a war for their own profit and the profit of their friends. How bad would things be for them then?
Originally posted by jwri004
If SDW was any closer to Bush he would have his dick up his arse.
The shit that comes out of this boys mouth is unbelievable, the untruth intolerable
This is an inappropriate post. Moderator?
I stick by my orginal post.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I stick by my orginal post.
But we already know that Bush did lie, and the most blatant of them was the fabricated IAEA reports. You fail.
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is an inappropriate post. Moderator?
This may be the first time ever I agree with SDW.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/15...goes_on+.shtml
resident Bush, paying his first visit to US troops in the Persian Gulf region to thank them for their service in Iraq, declared yesterday that coalition forces are ''on the look'' for weapons of mass destruction and will find them.
Not "...if they are there".
Why do he do this?
more . .
Originally posted by SDW2001
First of all. this thread is total bullshit. Why? Because there is no evindence Bush lied about anything at all. None. We've found bioweapons trailers. We've found banned delivery systems. We've found traces of WMD in the Euphrates. And, I think we'll see more.
There is also the possibility that the intelligence given to him was flawed or exaggerated. In addition, many here seem to be under the impression that said intelligence is "cut and dry". From what I hear, there is a lot of guesswork involved, possibilities ranging from "extremely high" to "significant" to "low". It's not the exact science people think it is. The administration has said itself it focused on WMD as a justification for war because, in the words of Paul Wolfowitz "it was the one thing everyone could agree on. He went on to talk about the human situation in Iraq, the threat to Israel, etc. There were a multitude of reasons, including the fact that Iraq had targeted and fired on our aircraft thousands of times. The justification for war was overwhelming. From Saddam's complete violation of the 1991 ceasefire, to his lack of cooperation witht he toothless UN, to his violation of the oil for food program....the evidence for it was staggering.
What Bush and Blair may have done wrong is focus on the WMD a bit too much. In fact, going to the UN may have been a mistake. Rumor has it Powell convinced him to go....perhaps Bush was right in his instincts to go it alone after all. Perhaps they should have focused on our planes being targeted, Saddam's open praise of 9/11, Al-Queda, etc.
In any case there is absolutely ZERO evidence Bush lied at this point. I don't believe he and Blair would be that incredibly stupid to think no one would ever find out. Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had.
My question is: Since many of the Dems are jumping on the "we haven't found the WMD/Bush may have lied" bandwagon, what will happen to them politically if and when we find this stuff? It would be worse for them to be wrong than if Bush turned out to wrong. He could always show the intelligence he had, and simply say he was acting on what he felt was a threat to the American people and American interests abroad. Let's also not forget that members of Congress saw this intelliegence as well, and that Bush subsequently acted under the added authority of a joint Congressional resolution. It's going to be very bad politically if they criticize him and are proven wrong. VERY bad.
Don't you wish. Well we'll see. I'm thinking he's not any more organized than anyone else in government. There's almost always the forgotten loose thread. If there is something out there to find they'll find it.
PS." Really now...I think they're going to find a shitload of banned weapons and/or present much of the intelligence they had. "
Please, not unless they plant them. The idea that Bush being there means they will find them now when the experts couldn't is pretty far fetched.
Anybody notice this cyclical pattern:
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
hmmm?
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is an inappropriate post. Moderator?
I stick by my orginal post.
this thread is total bullshit.
Originally posted by pfflam
Jusdt a side note:
Anybody notice this cyclical pattern:
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
hmmm?
Having an affair I can forgive. That's really the married couple's business. He just shouldn't have lied when confronted. However lying for an agenda or personal gain when death is involved I can't forgive.
As a side note I just thought of something. When Clinton bombed Iraq he gave them a bloody nose to get them to comply. He wasn't out to destroy the government or kill Saddam. He never said Iraq was a direct threat to us. He just wanted them to comply. Bush was out for blood and did claim Iraq was a direct threat. He went there with a license to kill. A totally different situation.
Originally posted by pfflam
The bioweapons trailers were NOT for bioweaposn . . . that has been shown repeatedly . . .hese kinds of portable labs are common for testing agricu;ture and factory work . . .
more . .
More chemical-processing trailers found!
http://www.mobileprocess.com/INDUS_Chemical.html
Originally posted by giant
IAEA reports. You fail.
At least your aren't afraid to look stupid. Here we have a big example, since there is actually more evidence that they are not bio weapons trailers than that they are. But you haven't really looked into the particulars, have you?
The conlcusion was that they could not have been for any other purpose than for bioweapons production. They did not find any actual chemicals.
kneelbeforezod:
Here's a thought...how about if they are proven right...how about if it comes out that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush lied to start a war for their own profit and the profit of their friends. How bad would things be for them then?
Lied for their own profit? Please. Let me ask you a question then: What was Blair's motivation? The war was hugely unpopular. Why would he have done it? But if that was proven, It would be bad. But, it won't be. It's an adsurd notion.
giant:
But we already know that Bush did lie, and the most blatant of them was the fabricated IAEA reports. You fail.
Bush fabricated reports? Whatever. He made a few speeches a year or so ago and verbally referenced some things. Suddenly this becomes "fabricating reports"? Please
pfflam:
The bioweapons trailers were NOT for bioweaposn . . . that has been shown repeatedly . . .hese kinds of portable labs are common for testing agricu;ture and factory work . . .
more . .
That is 100% wrong. 100%.
jimmac:
Please, not unless they plant them. The idea that Bush being there means they will find them now when the experts couldn't is pretty far fetched.
Not unless they plant them? Really! Experts!?!?!
pfflam:
Jusdt a side note:
Anybody notice this cyclical pattern:
Republicans take office and set up witch hunts to find out Dems lie about stuff . . . they find lies about romance.
Repubs take office and the Dems don't even need to try: the Criminal large scale global lying reveals itself:
Nixon and Watergate
Reagan and Bush Sr with Guns to Evil Axis member Iran for money for Contras and hostages
Bush Jr: lying to push an agenda, Pax Americana, and/or to get contracts and oil for his buddies . .
A BJ or global scale lies? . . . which is really more important?
personal life (which should have remained personal,) or sending our young men into combat and reversing our notion of pre-emption and INVADING a soveriegn nation?
hmmm?
jimmac:
As a side note I just thought of something. When Clinton bombed Iraq he gave them a bloody nose to get them to comply. He wasn't out to destroy the government or kill Saddam. He never said Iraq was a direct threat to us. He just wanted them to comply. Bush was out for blood and did claim Iraq was a direct threat. He went there with a license to kill. A totally different situation.
It keeps getting better!!! This is great stuff! Nevermind that Clinton bombed without ANY U.N. approval. Nevermind that he made virutally the EXACT same arguments Bush did. Where were the charges of unilateralism in 1998? Where were they in Kosovo? Hmmm.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...1514&ncid=1478
Originally posted by SDW2001
The conlcusion was that they could not have been for any other purpose than for bioweapons production. They did not find any actual chemicals.
Um, no. The only person in the world who has made that claim has been Bush, while every expert, intel analyst or inspector says otherwise. In fact, every single pice of evidence points away from bio weapons, and Iraq was known to have trailers like these and they were inspected before the war. Trailers of this kind are common and even produced in the US as I pointed out above. Deal with it.
Bush fabricated reports? Whatever. He made a few speeches a year or so ago and verbally referenced some things. Suddenly this becomes "fabricating reports"? Please
He cited a non-existant IAEA report to pretend Iraq had a nuke program, saying, and I quote, "What more justification do you need?"
You really need to come back to reality some time, chief.
....don't tell those looters with radiation poisoning.