I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid.
I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Quote:
Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.
Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.?
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used.
Quote:
I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.
Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.
It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.
?Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.?
?Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.?
So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
hort of the culprit stepping forward, there's little likelihood of ascertaining who did write this politically convenient baloney, but we know it wasn't Shakespeare and we can be reasonably sure it wasn't Julius Caesar. It does, however, bear all the markings of a "classic" Internet hoax.
I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.?
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used. Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.
It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors,
<random musings>Yeah, I can't believe we didn't roll back in there and take him out when he first started doing those things after the first gulf war. You know how those evil dictators can be. If you don't smack 'em back down right away, they get all insolent and start demanding things. Like cheesy poofs. I'll bet Saddam ate tons of those things.</random musings>
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
it *was* pretty much the only reason to goto war. At least, it was the rallying call, the justification, and the motivation.
there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)
But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"
The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"
now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.
Wrong Robot: thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
SDW:
Quote:
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
Nice back peddaling there. Most biological agents do have a very short shelf life,months, while some nerve agents may last a few years. I recall an inspector saying that Iraq's botulism and anthrax(when they had them)were of such poor quality that they would only kill you if they landed on your head.
Just like your hero Bush: March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
it *was* pretty much the only reason to goto war. At least, it was the rallying call, the justification, and the motivation.
there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)
But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"
The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"
now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?
Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently:
"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002
"The issue is straightforward: We must choose between a world of fear, or a world of progress. We must stand up for our security and for the demands of human dignity. By heritage and choice, the United States will make that stand. The world community must do so, as well." - GWB radio address September 14, 2002
"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state." - GWB address to the UN September 12, 2002
"The United States is committed to helping make the world more peaceful and more just. We are committed to freedom for all. We're also committed to protecting human dignity, and today's vote is an important step toward fulfilling those great American commitments." GWB to the press secy. October 10, 2002
"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." - GWB Cincinnati Address October 7, 2002
From the same speech as an aside:
"Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear."
"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002
"We also know the nature of Iraq's dictator. On his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes. Women have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation. Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured. The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family. We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man." - GWB rose garden October 2, 2002
"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.
"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them." - GWB Washington Hilton Hotel February 26, 2003
"Saddam Hussein has a long history of brutal crimes, especially in time of war -- even against his own citizens. If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction." - GWB radio address March 1, 2003
"We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence." - GWB Radio address March 15, 2003
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger" - GWB oval office March 19, 2003
this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?
Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?
Comments
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2003/07/04/treason/
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have to point out that if Bush did knowingly lie, then he is, in fact, stupid.
I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Think about it: It would take about three seconds to figure out that if one lied about WMD and then of course didn't find them, there would political hell to pay.
Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.?
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used.
I think they really believed they were there and could at least find enough to justify war.
Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.
It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.
? Julius Caesar
Originally posted by Gilsch
?Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.?
? Julius Caesar
While that quote speaks words of wisdom...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...esar-quote.htm
It's not really from caesar.
Originally posted by Gilsch
So Naples, will you finally tell us what you are, if as you claim, you're neither a Dem or a Rep, or will you just keep avoiding the question? This is the fourth time I've asked.
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
Originally posted by NaplesX
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
Works for me, I'm in the same boat.
Originally posted by Harald
Welcome aboard!
No, seriously, there's enough blinkered maniacs who swallow any old shit out there; they wouldn't believe he was lying no matter what he said.
I don't think that's true.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
McCarthy was also a HUGE drunk.
Well that's fair.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
While that quote speaks words of wisdom...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/librar...esar-quote.htm
It's not really from caesar.
hort of the culprit stepping forward, there's little likelihood of ascertaining who did write this politically convenient baloney, but we know it wasn't Shakespeare and we can be reasonably sure it wasn't Julius Caesar. It does, however, bear all the markings of a "classic" Internet hoax.
whoops.
Originally posted by Gilsch
I don't think stupid is the right word here. Maybe he just had an agenda to follow. An agenda pushed by the extreme conservatists of PNAC around him? I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here. Considering the majority are busy watching reality shows and the choice in news is "limited", I don't think the administration is worried too much about that. The country is very polarized, and under the veil of patriotism, very gullible.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.?
I'll let you figure out whose quote I just used. Who cares if they "really" believed it? (I "really" believe I'm very handsome but maybe I'm not.) How about some CONCRETE proof before taking the nation to war?? How about some CONCRETE proof that we needed to act right then because the country was in danger and we didn't want to have to see a "mushroom cloud over NY"? We were told that without a doubt Iraq had WMDs.
It's not like the world didn't have inspectors on the ground in Iraq. It's not like we didn't have a crapload of spy satellites. It's not like we didn't control more than half of the country already (no fly zones).
The best "proof " we got was what Powell presented to the UN and the world:
-a couple of satellite pictures of a "chemical bunker" (that the inspectors had already visited many times).
-a couple of ARTIST RENDITIONS of the "mobile" labs. How about some actual pics?? hmmm.
-the assertion, based on a document that was such a bad forgery it was ridiculous, that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger...(numerous mispelled french words, dates that didn't match the days, signatures of people years removed from office. etc).
-they told us Iraq had x amount of tons of biological and chemical weapons produced x amount of years ago. Biological and chemical agents have a very short shelf life of a few months at best.
Call it whatever you want if not lies. At the very least, all we were told about WMDs was a gross or extreme exaggeration to get us to go to war.
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors,
<random musings>Yeah, I can't believe we didn't roll back in there and take him out when he first started doing those things after the first gulf war. You know how those evil dictators can be. If you don't smack 'em back down right away, they get all insolent and start demanding things. Like cheesy poofs. I'll bet Saddam ate tons of those things.</random musings>
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
You know, I know, and Bush knows that this was the only reason this war got off the ground.
Nice back peddling however.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)
But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"
The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"
now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?
Originally posted by NaplesX
A human being. I am not affiliated with any party does that answer your question?
Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.
Wrong Robot: thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
SDW:
I don't think it's accurate to say that all WMD have shelf life of a few months at best. In any case, WMD was not the only reason to go to war. Not by far. Where I think the Bush Adminstration went wrong was to focus too heavily on this aspect. Saddam had fired on our aircraft, refused to cooperate with inspectors, funded terrorists, etc. We had quite few reasons.
Just like your hero Bush: March 2003: Weapons of mass destruction.
June 2003: Weapons of mass destruction programs.
October 2003: Weapons of mass destruction-related programs.
January 2004: Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.
Hook line and sinker eh SDW? lmao
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
there may have been anterior motives, but they certainly weren't talked about nearly as much(or at all)
But, once we got there and realized that there were no WMDs, the justification became "we gotta take out saddam"
The truly lame part is how the whole switcheroo felt kind of like "sorry we misled you, but hey! this guy's bad, no harm no foul right? ends justify the means eh?"
now, I agree that saddam was pretty heinous of a dude, no one that kills so people should be left to their devices to kill more. But, maybe if we had been told that from the start things'd be different eh?
Well you were but you only heard WMD apparently:
"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002
"The issue is straightforward: We must choose between a world of fear, or a world of progress. We must stand up for our security and for the demands of human dignity. By heritage and choice, the United States will make that stand. The world community must do so, as well." - GWB radio address September 14, 2002
"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state." - GWB address to the UN September 12, 2002
"The United States is committed to helping make the world more peaceful and more just. We are committed to freedom for all. We're also committed to protecting human dignity, and today's vote is an important step toward fulfilling those great American commitments." GWB to the press secy. October 10, 2002
"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." - GWB Cincinnati Address October 7, 2002
From the same speech as an aside:
"Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear."
"And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents." - GWB radio address October 5, 2002
"We also know the nature of Iraq's dictator. On his orders, opponents have been decapitated and their heads displayed outside their homes. Women have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation. Political prisoners are made to watch their own children being tortured. The dictator is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, within his own army, even within his own family. We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man." - GWB rose garden October 2, 2002
"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.
"Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them." - GWB Washington Hilton Hotel February 26, 2003
"Saddam Hussein has a long history of brutal crimes, especially in time of war -- even against his own citizens. If conflict comes, he could target civilians or place them inside military facilities. He could encourage ethnic violence. He could destroy natural resources. Or, worst of all, he could use his weapons of mass destruction." - GWB radio address March 1, 2003
"We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off; their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their presence." - GWB Radio address March 15, 2003
"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger" - GWB oval office March 19, 2003
this was a fairly quick search, I know I can find hundreds more, if you like?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Kinda lame answer, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you from anything other than your very strongly anti-liberal paranoia laded Bush-forever posts.
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty. I will comment if the other side is doing the same thing. However, there is really not a shortage of people criticizing Bush here, is there?
Originally posted by NaplesX
If you will look back you will see that I am only railing against intellectually dishonesty.
Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from you?!
Originally posted by pfflam
Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from you?!
Is that supposed to make me mad or something? This is really what your tactics boil down to?
I see you have attended Giant's "when all else fails insult 101" class.
Originally posted by pfflam
Why don't you reail against intellectual incompetence . . . . or would that be oxymoronic coming from you?!