my premise is this, what if nothing happens and the white house continues to make gaffs, (remember they haven't had to face too many challenges from the press, they now seem to be stumbling in the face of adversity, not to mention some upcoming changes in personnel) and the vice president is looking to be in trouble with his energy notes.
what happens if there is a republican challenge?
don't think for one minute mccain wouldn't like to even the score and pounce on a wounded administration. what is it six or seven months to the first primary? that's how long they have to right the ship.
My premise is that the voting public have the attention span of a fruit fly, and years from now, when energy scandals are linked to the current (2003) administration, it will be page 3 news. My other premise is that myopic followers of the Bush Admin gospel (read: the majority of Americans, at least ones who are polled) actually believe that invading Iraq and colonizing and running the country under US military rule is the best thing to ever happen to Iraq. That to do so is the right thing?, because it's America that is doing the colonizing and the military occupation. That this was a humanitarian mission, and that WMDs was just a cover story for freeing them (as was 'Ties to Al-Quaeda').
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
I'll leave your proposal. I'd prefer that sane Americans stay and fight to keep our freedoms intact when fear mongering would have them removed.
Quote:
Those that would trade a little freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
AL SHARPTON iz da next prezident uv da united states ov america
no weponz of mazdetrucshun, no piece!
i know you're joking, but when they were all here in chicago reverend sharpton actually made the best points on domestic issues, and the clearest case for getting my vote. but then i remembered he's a crazy mofo and came to my senses.
i mean if there was ever another 9-11 or threat of 9-11 he'd probably surround himself with babies or something.
My premise is that the voting public have the attention span of a fruit fly, and years from now, when energy scandals are linked to the current (2003) administration, it will be page 3 news. My other premise is that myopic followers of the Bush Admin gospel (read: the majority of Americans, at least ones who are polled) actually believe that invading Iraq and colonizing and running the country under US military rule is the best thing to ever happen to Iraq. That to do so is the right thing?, because it's America that is doing the colonizing and the military occupation. That this was a humanitarian mission, and that WMDs was just a cover story for freeing them (as was 'Ties to Al-Quaeda').
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
But that's just my premise. Take it or leave it.
I agree with part one...in...err..part. There isn't much of an attention span out there. I'll reference Clinton's first term on that one. He was very unpopular for awhile there. But people forgot the Healthcare disaster, the larest increase in income taxes in history, etc. Oh, and part two is insane. I haven't lost a single freedom at the hand of the Bush administration. I don't know anyone who has, do you? Pardon me if I don't give a **** if a non-US citizen and well known terrorist gets a damn jury trial. I'll you who limits MY freedom: The ACLU. But, that's another story. I think I'll stay though, thanks.
As far as "military occupation and colonization", that's a bit off-base. We'll be out of there in 2-3 years. That point may be debatable, but "colonization"? That word is just totally inappropriate and ridiculous. The very last thing we are going is "colonize" Iraq. My God....are you suggesting we rename Baghdad "Jamestown"? Or, do you mean "Colonialization"? Two different words, not to be an ass about it. Either way I disagree.
Randycat99 is right BTW. Bunge, I have to take issue with your somewhat leading post:
Originally posted by bunge:
Quote:
This would be easy to set up. Just pay off one scientist to show up with a cabinet full of documents and said program is found. It's just the reality of the situation.
I know it's what you're hoping for, because it would 'clean the slate' so to speak, but wouldn't it bother your morals if it were the case? Or is 'winning' all you would care about in this scenario? Just curious.
Two aspects of this current situation that favors the Dems. One is that a seed of doubt has already been planted. The next few months will decide if that spreads to more areas or is limited and dies on its own. If the doubt spreads across multiple accounts and areas, magically finding something still might not be enough to sway the swing voters. They're too cynical.
The other is the Brits. Any investigation over there is going to shed light on certain situations that Bush might otherwise have kept quite. They might poke holes in his ship if there was any wrongdoing.
1. Why assume the evidence will be planted? Is this the only way you cansee it happening or will be able to accept it happening?
2. I am hoping we find WMD. I agree it damages our credibiliy of we don't. I think we will, and perhaps already have found more than we hear about. Now, if I was giant, I'd get into semantical games about "what" WMD are or that if I was as well-informed as he was (from reading the New Yorker, apparently) I'd already know if we found them because "we know everything the government knows". Anyway, I certainly do hope we find them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
3. Winning: I support Bush. That doesn't mean I will if I see some serious evdience of delibrate deception. I know you think we have, but we're not even close as far as I'm concerned. If we don't find weapons, it damages out international credbility a bit, but that doesn't mean Bush lied either. I support Buish for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see him do anything to win. I
4. On point #3: If this IS a political trap, that doesn't bother me. It's politics. If you honestly think the Dems haven't done things about 100 times worse than using an issue like thsi for political gain, think again. In other words, I find it amusing that a Republican President being poltically savvy and cunning is somehow horrendus, while with a Democratic President those qualities are something to cheer about.
5. Seeds of Doubt: Possibly. But so far, there is the Niger issue, which it appears the CIA is going to take (and has taken) the fall for. The other issue is the WMD one. Politically speaking, I don't think either is going to amount to much. Wasn't there a thread here that said "33% of Americans think we have found WMD"?. This was before the Nuclear Centrifuge thing. The election is also awhile off. If this was 2004, things might be different.
6. The Brits: They're standing by the Niger claim. Let me say that again...they're standing by it. In any case, I don't think the Brits will affect this situation very much...at least not in the US.
7. I find it interesting that when I post a hypothetical thread, I am accused in a passive-agressive way of "only wanting to win no matter what Bush did". "Have you no decency, sir?
One more thing: These issues won't amount to what liberals want them to. One, Congress is controlled by Republicans. Two, the Presidential Election is too far away; a lot can happen between now and then. Three, it amazes me that people just don't understand that all Bush has to say at this point is exactly what he did the other day:
POTUS:
Quote:
"...And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction and that our country made the right decision."
Imus had McCain on the radio this morning, and he was very undecisive about the whole State of the Union debacle. On one hand, he was flying the party flag but on the other hand, he was saying that investigations were needed to find out what went wrong. He said that the war was still justified based on the evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Imus asked him why they hadn't found any weapons yet and McCain's response was that if they didn't find weapons of mass destruction, that's where there would be problems.
This is just a joke intended to make you laugh. I apologize in advance if you don't get it or don't find it funny.
Seriously though, no Republican will challenge Bush for the Presidency, it is already too late. My state is being totally covered by the Democratic hopefuls already and they have been here for months. It's getting more difficult to go to any kind of organized event without seeing Howard Dean. John Kerry supporters stood on highway overpasses holding signs on my way to work. Yes, it seems like there is plenty of time before the primary in January, but they are already all out in force.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraq war is starting to go very badly. Every day, we hear of more of our troops killed or wounded in defending this country, and so far, we haven't found any of the weapons we were sent over there to take out. I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to really mess up politically this time (although they would be the ones to do it....)
Oh for the days of the tax and spend democrats!! Maybe the democrats should change their party color from blue to GREEN. The republicans on the other hand DO NOT need to change their party color from RED.
Best quote:
Quote:
But the White House sought to put the best possible face on the bleak budget news.
At more than $450 billion, the new deficit would eclipse the previous record of $290 billion in 1992 when Bush's father was president.
Like father, like son.
P.S. SDW, i know Reuters are a bunch of gay marriage endorsing, commie, pinko, liberal, having lunch with susan sarrandon types so you will not put any crediblity into the source but if you look closely the stats are from the OMB. (not that junior's people are trying to sway THAT institution.)
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
Personally, I think the Dems set Bush up for a whopper. In the days leading up to the war, the Dems were crying loudly for "evidence", "proof", "Mr. President, make your case to the American people!" They banged this drum for weeks. And Bush fell into the trap, trumped up the evidence and tried to connect the Al Qaeda dots.
When the war started, many Dems made a simple statement, "if we don't find WoMD, Bush will have a lot of egg on his face." Now Bush is pissed that he's removing said egg.
The dems threw a pitch that Bush couldn't resist swinging at. After all, what did he have to fear? He was the president that would "restore honor and integrity to the White House."
Conclusion: All the spy satelites that are able to detect the residue created by the processing of such materials must be thrown out as they are no good.
Premise: we find chemical or biological weapons of some sort in underground bunkers:
conclusion: Then they musty have been delivered right before the Gulf War started because the the chemicals that were supposed ot be found have short shelf lives half of which would be no good, Ie non-weapons grade.
conclusion2: The claim that Saddam could have them depoloyed in 45 minutes is shown to be a sham since if it took this long to find them in those mysterious underground bunkers that no-one has found in the past 5 months.
Over all given that no one has found sqaut in the 5 months since the start of the war, I don't see why sdw finds it necessary to hypothesis about finding weapons. He should spend more time trying to figure out why he supports a murderous liar.
Conclusion: All the spy satelites that are able to detect the residue created by the processing of such materials must be thrown out as they are no good.
Is it really as simple as that? Just press a button labeled "scan Iraq", right? I think you have to choose a location to "detect" before you can do a scan for residuals. That would require you have a suspected location in mind. Otherwise you are faced with scanning "Iraq" line by line until you find something. How long do you think that would take to complete, honestly?
Quote:
conclusion: Then they musty have been delivered right before the Gulf War started because the the chemicals that were supposed ot be found have short shelf lives half of which would be no good, Ie non-weapons grade.
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
Quote:
Over all given that no one has found sqaut in the 5 months since the start of the war, I don't see why sdw finds it necessary to hypothesis about finding weapons.
It's just a discussion, or are you in favor of squashing free speech/thought which do not appease you?
Quote:
He should spend more time trying to figure out why he supports a murderous liar.
[B]Is it really as simple as that? Just press a button labeled "scan Iraq", right? I think you have to choose a location to "detect" before you can do a scan for residuals. That would require you have a suspected location in mind. Otherwise you are faced with scanning "Iraq" line by line until you find something. How long do you think that would take to complete, honestly?
[B]
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
[B]
It's just a discussion, or are you in favor of squashing free speech/thought which do not appease you?
Why bring Chirac into this?
since I got a laugh out of the Chirac joke....
A) I don't pretend to know how the satelites work but believe me they do work. Did you see the primitive remote control airplanes that Iraw had? When India first tried to make their nuke Washington confronted them with all manner of photos and other evidence to show them that they knew the deal. Similarly woith N. Korea we have had reports about how the US is taking pictures of all kinds of facilities and have been trying to sniff out the "tell tale" signs of plutonium enrichment. Sine Iraq is supposed to be the size of what Texas, methinks it's not al that hard to scan the country. After all they have had many many years to do this.
b) Yes they cease to be WMD in the "Immediate use" sense of the term. we knew from '91 that Saddam HAD Chemical and Biological weapons This war was about present tense weapons. That little "45 minutes" remark implies immediately usefull weapons. If there are "Weapons" found that are all "expired" and can be determined to have been expired prior to the war or even worse before the new inspections, then that particular justification falls flat. Remember THIS war was about present threat not about stuff he had or did back in the 80's.
c) Hey I don't control this board. Pesonally if I did I would lock and "disappear" any thread about WMD until such weapons are determined to have been found. But that's why I don't run a board.
When India first tried to make their nuke Washington confronted them with all manner of photos and other evidence to show them that they knew the deal. Similarly woith N. Korea we have had reports about how the US is taking pictures of all kinds of facilities and have been trying to sniff out the "tell tale" signs of plutonium enrichment.
The manner and avenue in which this information was acquired makes all the difference. It's not as simple as just floating a satellite over a territory, and BINGO, it detects a waft of incriminating smoke. It does work, when you have a tip-off to look at a specific block of land.
Quote:
Sine Iraq is supposed to be the size of what Texas, methinks it's not al that hard to scan the country. After all they have had many many years to do this.
I believe "California" is the popular term. Bush is the one from Texas. Scan a country block-by-block? Are you nuts?! Not only would that be extremely inefficient use of the associated equipment, but it also mandates that you happen to be looking in the right place at the right time (or you could miss out on the action altogether).
Quote:
b) Yes they cease to be WMD in the "Immediate use" sense of the term. we knew from '91 that Saddam HAD Chemical and Biological weapons This war was about present tense weapons.
Was it? I think Saddam would be in violation for possession at any time, as long as the security resolutions were in effect. If it were simply a matter of ancient possessions, he certainly had plenty of time to document the whereabouts of the stuff. Any good ruler should keep track of something like that, shouldn't they? Should they?
Quote:
c) Hey I don't control this board. Pesonally if I did I would lock and "disappear" any thread about WMD until such weapons are determined to have been found. But that's why I don't run a board.
You questioned SDW's justification for posting this topic. Why post it? Why not? It's just a discussion.
[B]The manner and avenue in which this information was acquired makes all the difference. It's not as simple as just floating a satellite over a territory, and BINGO, it detects a waft of incriminating smoke. It does work, when you have a tip-off to look at a specific block of land.
[B]
I believe "California" is the popular term. Bush is the one from Texas. Scan a country block-by-block? Are you nuts?! Not only would that be extremely inefficient use of the associated equipment, but it also mandates that you happen to be looking in the right place at the right time (or you could miss out on the action altogether).
[B]
Was it? I think Saddam would be in violation for possession at any time, as long as the security resolutions were in effect. If it were simply a matter of ancient possessions, he certainly had plenty of time to document the whereabouts of the stuff. Any good ruler should keep track of something like that, shouldn't they? Should they?
You questioned SDW's justification for posting this topic. Why post it? Why not? It's just a discussion.
a) Hey! Years. Months.. if it's that important you spend the time. Patience Grasshopper.
b)And the inspectors would have found the materials had they been left to do their jobs. But they were not left to do their jobs. Of course Saddam had whatever he had after the first gulf war and years of inspections managed to destroy much of it ( I won't say most cause I can't prove that). So that proves that inspections work and that war was not he issue. Furthermore the whole "UN Sanctions" as justification for war falls flat when there are plenty of other countries in violations of UN demands and have known WMD. So that argument to me has been and remains rediculous. I mean the entire war was in voilation of international Law. I don't see you saying that the US aught to be sanctioned and invaded due to it's vagrant violation of international law.
c) Are you kidding about keeping track in the wake of the UraniumGate? The most "respected" intelligence community on the planet could not "verify" the sale of Uranium from some little country in Africa? Give me a break man.
Stay on topic, please. I asked nicely. Altering the premise, mocking it or me personally, etc. is not acceptable. If it continues I will personally ask for the thread to be locked.
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD. That's all, folks. Get some perspective or post in one of the other "Bush lied" threads. Thank you!
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD.
No reprecussions for the Democrats, and there will still be open hearings about the faulty intelligence reports concerning the State of the Union in September.
Comments
Originally posted by Argento
Will somebody please shut him up?
DIY
However it does screw up the formatting a bit. Admins?
why U gotta hate???
dat's da problem wit dis planet TOOOOO much hate!!!
I don front!
Irritating, yet refreshingly humourous.
I think someone has an alt ego for comic relief.
i actually hope that Bush loses, so McCain can run against any of these crackerjack canidates that would be in office then.
my premise is this, what if nothing happens and the white house continues to make gaffs, (remember they haven't had to face too many challenges from the press, they now seem to be stumbling in the face of adversity, not to mention some upcoming changes in personnel) and the vice president is looking to be in trouble with his energy notes.
what happens if there is a republican challenge?
don't think for one minute mccain wouldn't like to even the score and pounce on a wounded administration. what is it six or seven months to the first primary? that's how long they have to right the ship.
My premise is that the voting public have the attention span of a fruit fly, and years from now, when energy scandals are linked to the current (2003) administration, it will be page 3 news. My other premise is that myopic followers of the Bush Admin gospel (read: the majority of Americans, at least ones who are polled) actually believe that invading Iraq and colonizing and running the country under US military rule is the best thing to ever happen to Iraq. That to do so is the right thing?, because it's America that is doing the colonizing and the military occupation. That this was a humanitarian mission, and that WMDs was just a cover story for freeing them (as was 'Ties to Al-Quaeda').
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
But that's just my premise. Take it or leave it.
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
I'll leave your proposal. I'd prefer that sane Americans stay and fight to keep our freedoms intact when fear mongering would have them removed.
Those that would trade a little freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security.
Benjamin Franklin
Originally posted by FUBUiMacIZbACK
BULLLSHEEEEAT! NO MCcain!
AL SHARPTON iz da next prezident uv da united states ov america
no weponz of mazdetrucshun, no piece!
i know you're joking, but when they were all here in chicago reverend sharpton actually made the best points on domestic issues, and the clearest case for getting my vote. but then i remembered he's a crazy mofo and came to my senses.
i mean if there was ever another 9-11 or threat of 9-11 he'd probably surround himself with babies or something.
My premise is that the voting public have the attention span of a fruit fly, and years from now, when energy scandals are linked to the current (2003) administration, it will be page 3 news. My other premise is that myopic followers of the Bush Admin gospel (read: the majority of Americans, at least ones who are polled) actually believe that invading Iraq and colonizing and running the country under US military rule is the best thing to ever happen to Iraq. That to do so is the right thing?, because it's America that is doing the colonizing and the military occupation. That this was a humanitarian mission, and that WMDs was just a cover story for freeing them (as was 'Ties to Al-Quaeda').
My premise is that it's time for sane Americans to emigrate to Canada or Europe where there are no 'Terror Alert: Severe' warnings on the bottom right corner of the TV, where SAM launchers are not pointing at the sky in the nation's capital, where personal freedoms are not increasingly stripped away in the name of 'security', and where gov't reps do not fear monger and advise their citizens to report suspicious (ie: non-white) activities and purchase duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal their homes off from that scary, scary world outside.
But that's just my premise. Take it or leave it.
I agree with part one...in...err..part. There isn't much of an attention span out there. I'll reference Clinton's first term on that one. He was very unpopular for awhile there. But people forgot the Healthcare disaster, the larest increase in income taxes in history, etc. Oh, and part two is insane. I haven't lost a single freedom at the hand of the Bush administration. I don't know anyone who has, do you? Pardon me if I don't give a **** if a non-US citizen and well known terrorist gets a damn jury trial. I'll you who limits MY freedom: The ACLU. But, that's another story. I think I'll stay though, thanks.
As far as "military occupation and colonization", that's a bit off-base. We'll be out of there in 2-3 years. That point may be debatable, but "colonization"? That word is just totally inappropriate and ridiculous. The very last thing we are going is "colonize" Iraq. My God....are you suggesting we rename Baghdad "Jamestown"? Or, do you mean "Colonialization"? Two different words, not to be an ass about it. Either way I disagree.
Randycat99 is right BTW. Bunge, I have to take issue with your somewhat leading post:
Originally posted by bunge:
This would be easy to set up. Just pay off one scientist to show up with a cabinet full of documents and said program is found. It's just the reality of the situation.
I know it's what you're hoping for, because it would 'clean the slate' so to speak, but wouldn't it bother your morals if it were the case? Or is 'winning' all you would care about in this scenario? Just curious.
Two aspects of this current situation that favors the Dems. One is that a seed of doubt has already been planted. The next few months will decide if that spreads to more areas or is limited and dies on its own. If the doubt spreads across multiple accounts and areas, magically finding something still might not be enough to sway the swing voters. They're too cynical.
The other is the Brits. Any investigation over there is going to shed light on certain situations that Bush might otherwise have kept quite. They might poke holes in his ship if there was any wrongdoing.
1. Why assume the evidence will be planted? Is this the only way you cansee it happening or will be able to accept it happening?
2. I am hoping we find WMD. I agree it damages our credibiliy of we don't. I think we will, and perhaps already have found more than we hear about. Now, if I was giant, I'd get into semantical games about "what" WMD are or that if I was as well-informed as he was (from reading the New Yorker, apparently) I'd already know if we found them because "we know everything the government knows". Anyway, I certainly do hope we find them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
3. Winning: I support Bush. That doesn't mean I will if I see some serious evdience of delibrate deception. I know you think we have, but we're not even close as far as I'm concerned. If we don't find weapons, it damages out international credbility a bit, but that doesn't mean Bush lied either. I support Buish for a lot of reasons, but that doesn't mean I'd like to see him do anything to win. I
4. On point #3: If this IS a political trap, that doesn't bother me. It's politics. If you honestly think the Dems haven't done things about 100 times worse than using an issue like thsi for political gain, think again. In other words, I find it amusing that a Republican President being poltically savvy and cunning is somehow horrendus, while with a Democratic President those qualities are something to cheer about.
5. Seeds of Doubt: Possibly. But so far, there is the Niger issue, which it appears the CIA is going to take (and has taken) the fall for. The other issue is the WMD one. Politically speaking, I don't think either is going to amount to much. Wasn't there a thread here that said "33% of Americans think we have found WMD"?. This was before the Nuclear Centrifuge thing. The election is also awhile off. If this was 2004, things might be different.
6. The Brits: They're standing by the Niger claim. Let me say that again...they're standing by it. In any case, I don't think the Brits will affect this situation very much...at least not in the US.
7. I find it interesting that when I post a hypothetical thread, I am accused in a passive-agressive way of "only wanting to win no matter what Bush did". "Have you no decency, sir?
One more thing: These issues won't amount to what liberals want them to. One, Congress is controlled by Republicans. Two, the Presidential Election is too far away; a lot can happen between now and then. Three, it amazes me that people just don't understand that all Bush has to say at this point is exactly what he did the other day:
POTUS:
"...And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction and that our country made the right decision."
Thankfully, I found the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Look here to see them! http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
This is just a joke intended to make you laugh. I apologize in advance if you don't get it or don't find it funny.
Seriously though, no Republican will challenge Bush for the Presidency, it is already too late. My state is being totally covered by the Democratic hopefuls already and they have been here for months. It's getting more difficult to go to any kind of organized event without seeing Howard Dean. John Kerry supporters stood on highway overpasses holding signs on my way to work. Yes, it seems like there is plenty of time before the primary in January, but they are already all out in force.
The fact of the matter is that the Iraq war is starting to go very badly. Every day, we hear of more of our troops killed or wounded in defending this country, and so far, we haven't found any of the weapons we were sent over there to take out. I think it will be difficult for the Democrats to really mess up politically this time (although they would be the ones to do it....)
Your premise?
Find out who's lying or stretching the truth!
It won't happen so now your trying to imagine it happening?
from here:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3093128
Oh for the days of the tax and spend democrats!! Maybe the democrats should change their party color from blue to GREEN. The republicans on the other hand DO NOT need to change their party color from RED.
Best quote:
But the White House sought to put the best possible face on the bleak budget news.
At more than $450 billion, the new deficit would eclipse the previous record of $290 billion in 1992 when Bush's father was president.
Like father, like son.
P.S. SDW, i know Reuters are a bunch of gay marriage endorsing, commie, pinko, liberal, having lunch with susan sarrandon types so you will not put any crediblity into the source but if you look closely the stats are from the OMB. (not that junior's people are trying to sway THAT institution.)
P.S. P.S. Let me guess. We need more tax cuts.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I've been asking this for awhile and wondering about it as well. I haven't heard much feedback on it.
With all the recent Democratic criticism and the "Where are the Weapons" echo chamber, what happens if we find large quantities of Chemcial or Biological Weapons? Or say, an underground biowweapons plant? Or something worse...like weapons grade plutonium?
Almost all of the Democratic Presidential candidates have attacked Bush on this issue. The front runner, Kerry (joined by Gephardt) is now attacking Bush as well, essentially calling him a liar. Dean has said the thing is starting to look like Watergate. It's not going away, as jimmac says. But, that might not be a good thing for the Democratic Party.
So, it occurs to me that if Bush is proven right as he says he will be, things are going to be very, very bad for the Democratic candidate. It has also occurred to me, as I'm sure it has to many here, that the entire WMD thing may just indeed be a politcal trap of sorts set by the President. If he is called a liar enough, and then is poven right, it will be devastating to the opposition. More importantly, it will affect the 2004 Congressional elections as well. Bush will look invincible if WMD is found at this point...perhaps even more so than he would have if it became public within days of the war.
Don't forget that Bush, by his own statement, understands "political capital". He is far more cunning and savy than his opposition gives him credit for. If WMD are found in substantial quantity...he'll use it at the right time.
Thoughts? And please, let's ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
Personally, I think the Dems set Bush up for a whopper. In the days leading up to the war, the Dems were crying loudly for "evidence", "proof", "Mr. President, make your case to the American people!" They banged this drum for weeks. And Bush fell into the trap, trumped up the evidence and tried to connect the Al Qaeda dots.
When the war started, many Dems made a simple statement, "if we don't find WoMD, Bush will have a lot of egg on his face." Now Bush is pissed that he's removing said egg.
The dems threw a pitch that Bush couldn't resist swinging at. After all, what did he have to fear? He was the president that would "restore honor and integrity to the White House."
but they're not.
these guys couldn't keep that the status quo in a midterm election with a crapola economy.
until hill runs in '08, the dems will be rudderless.
Conclusion: All the spy satelites that are able to detect the residue created by the processing of such materials must be thrown out as they are no good.
Premise: we find chemical or biological weapons of some sort in underground bunkers:
conclusion: Then they musty have been delivered right before the Gulf War started because the the chemicals that were supposed ot be found have short shelf lives half of which would be no good, Ie non-weapons grade.
conclusion2: The claim that Saddam could have them depoloyed in 45 minutes is shown to be a sham since if it took this long to find them in those mysterious underground bunkers that no-one has found in the past 5 months.
Over all given that no one has found sqaut in the 5 months since the start of the war, I don't see why sdw finds it necessary to hypothesis about finding weapons. He should spend more time trying to figure out why he supports a murderous liar.
Originally posted by Sondjata
Conclusion: All the spy satelites that are able to detect the residue created by the processing of such materials must be thrown out as they are no good.
Is it really as simple as that? Just press a button labeled "scan Iraq", right? I think you have to choose a location to "detect" before you can do a scan for residuals. That would require you have a suspected location in mind. Otherwise you are faced with scanning "Iraq" line by line until you find something. How long do you think that would take to complete, honestly?
Quote:
conclusion: Then they musty have been delivered right before the Gulf War started because the the chemicals that were supposed ot be found have short shelf lives half of which would be no good, Ie non-weapons grade.
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
Quote:
Over all given that no one has found sqaut in the 5 months since the start of the war, I don't see why sdw finds it necessary to hypothesis about finding weapons.
It's just a discussion, or are you in favor of squashing free speech/thought which do not appease you?
Quote:
He should spend more time trying to figure out why he supports a murderous liar.
Why bring Chirac into this?
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]Is it really as simple as that? Just press a button labeled "scan Iraq", right? I think you have to choose a location to "detect" before you can do a scan for residuals. That would require you have a suspected location in mind. Otherwise you are faced with scanning "Iraq" line by line until you find something. How long do you think that would take to complete, honestly?
[B]
So if chemicals are found on a shelf past their "expiration date", do they cease to be evidence of WMD? Why is there a requirement that they still be "viable" when they are found to be deemed as evidence? The real factor is did he have them at any time when he explicitly was banned from having them.
[B]
It's just a discussion, or are you in favor of squashing free speech/thought which do not appease you?
Why bring Chirac into this?
since I got a laugh out of the Chirac joke....
A) I don't pretend to know how the satelites work but believe me they do work. Did you see the primitive remote control airplanes that Iraw had? When India first tried to make their nuke Washington confronted them with all manner of photos and other evidence to show them that they knew the deal. Similarly woith N. Korea we have had reports about how the US is taking pictures of all kinds of facilities and have been trying to sniff out the "tell tale" signs of plutonium enrichment. Sine Iraq is supposed to be the size of what Texas, methinks it's not al that hard to scan the country. After all they have had many many years to do this.
b) Yes they cease to be WMD in the "Immediate use" sense of the term. we knew from '91 that Saddam HAD Chemical and Biological weapons This war was about present tense weapons. That little "45 minutes" remark implies immediately usefull weapons. If there are "Weapons" found that are all "expired" and can be determined to have been expired prior to the war or even worse before the new inspections, then that particular justification falls flat. Remember THIS war was about present threat not about stuff he had or did back in the 80's.
c) Hey I don't control this board. Pesonally if I did I would lock and "disappear" any thread about WMD until such weapons are determined to have been found. But that's why I don't run a board.
Originally posted by Sondjata
When India first tried to make their nuke Washington confronted them with all manner of photos and other evidence to show them that they knew the deal. Similarly woith N. Korea we have had reports about how the US is taking pictures of all kinds of facilities and have been trying to sniff out the "tell tale" signs of plutonium enrichment.
The manner and avenue in which this information was acquired makes all the difference. It's not as simple as just floating a satellite over a territory, and BINGO, it detects a waft of incriminating smoke. It does work, when you have a tip-off to look at a specific block of land.
Quote:
Sine Iraq is supposed to be the size of what Texas, methinks it's not al that hard to scan the country. After all they have had many many years to do this.
I believe "California" is the popular term. Bush is the one from Texas. Scan a country block-by-block? Are you nuts?! Not only would that be extremely inefficient use of the associated equipment, but it also mandates that you happen to be looking in the right place at the right time (or you could miss out on the action altogether).
Quote:
b) Yes they cease to be WMD in the "Immediate use" sense of the term. we knew from '91 that Saddam HAD Chemical and Biological weapons This war was about present tense weapons.
Was it? I think Saddam would be in violation for possession at any time, as long as the security resolutions were in effect. If it were simply a matter of ancient possessions, he certainly had plenty of time to document the whereabouts of the stuff. Any good ruler should keep track of something like that, shouldn't they? Should they?
Quote:
c) Hey I don't control this board. Pesonally if I did I would lock and "disappear" any thread about WMD until such weapons are determined to have been found. But that's why I don't run a board.
You questioned SDW's justification for posting this topic. Why post it? Why not? It's just a discussion.
Originally posted by Randycat99
[B]The manner and avenue in which this information was acquired makes all the difference. It's not as simple as just floating a satellite over a territory, and BINGO, it detects a waft of incriminating smoke. It does work, when you have a tip-off to look at a specific block of land.
[B]
I believe "California" is the popular term. Bush is the one from Texas. Scan a country block-by-block? Are you nuts?! Not only would that be extremely inefficient use of the associated equipment, but it also mandates that you happen to be looking in the right place at the right time (or you could miss out on the action altogether).
[B]
Was it? I think Saddam would be in violation for possession at any time, as long as the security resolutions were in effect. If it were simply a matter of ancient possessions, he certainly had plenty of time to document the whereabouts of the stuff. Any good ruler should keep track of something like that, shouldn't they? Should they?
You questioned SDW's justification for posting this topic. Why post it? Why not? It's just a discussion.
a) Hey! Years. Months.. if it's that important you spend the time. Patience Grasshopper.
b)And the inspectors would have found the materials had they been left to do their jobs. But they were not left to do their jobs. Of course Saddam had whatever he had after the first gulf war and years of inspections managed to destroy much of it ( I won't say most cause I can't prove that). So that proves that inspections work and that war was not he issue. Furthermore the whole "UN Sanctions" as justification for war falls flat when there are plenty of other countries in violations of UN demands and have known WMD. So that argument to me has been and remains rediculous. I mean the entire war was in voilation of international Law. I don't see you saying that the US aught to be sanctioned and invaded due to it's vagrant violation of international law.
c) Are you kidding about keeping track in the wake of the UraniumGate? The most "respected" intelligence community on the planet could not "verify" the sale of Uranium from some little country in Africa? Give me a break man.
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD. That's all, folks. Get some perspective or post in one of the other "Bush lied" threads. Thank you!
This is a thread about the political consequences for the Democrats (and Republicans too) given the hypothetical fact we find substantial WMD.
No reprecussions for the Democrats, and there will still be open hearings about the faulty intelligence reports concerning the State of the Union in September.