might have WMD,
A little different from "we know he has them , we know where they are , and thats a..a...a..er..fact" . ~;)
Printable View
might have WMD,
A little different from "we know he has them , we know where they are , and thats a..a...a..er..fact" . ~;)
Bill didnt say might have them he said he did have them on number of occassions.Quote:
might have WMD,
A little different from "we know he has them , we know where they are , and thats a..a...a..er..fact" .
What was this?
I guess good old Bill destroyed them all in the attack.Quote:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
But then of course you cant believe a word out of good old BJ Clinton anyway.Quote:
Clinton Claimed Last Year Saddam Had WMD
NewsMax ^ | 1/9/04 | Limbacher
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
Clinton, a Democrat who left office in 2001, met with Durao Barroso on October 21 when he travelled to Lisbon to give a speech on globalisation.
Quote:
On June 24, "Today" show co-host Katie Couric, not known for her tenacity of questioning regarding Democrats and liberals, interviewed Clinton and asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?"
Clinton, of course, didn't know. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."
I thought there were no ties and that Saddam was not a threat to the US? Bush made it all up right?Quote:
Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:
"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Thoroughly agreed; I may completely disagree with many of the things neocons stand for, but at least they actually stand for something. The Democrats seem incapable of presenting anything resembling a solid view, the only consistent policy they've got revolves around bashing the Republicans for political credit. No wonder they weren't voted for if that's all they've got to offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
You are far off the mark. I wouldn't have problems with it if it was successful in its long term aims. Right now, that doesn't look likely, and the damage it has caused to our efforts is considerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
It doesn't really matter to me who is running it, IF they do a good job. My "liking" is to simply have a successful conclusion. I mistakenly thought Bush couldn't screw this up, so I supported doing it.
What is happening now is a re-analysis of what went wrong. We've had years to "get it right." That hasn't happened. So now we have to figure out what hasn't worked, why, and how to proceed from here. Continuing to bumble along indefinitely is a bigger mistake than using an incorrect basis for war in the first place.
IMO, the speech itself was entirely inappropriate for the day it was given. Nov. 11th, is a day to honor our veterans and their fallen comrades - not one to justify the loss of more on the premise that "had we only known all the info for starting it was wrong ..... he'ld have found another reason to sell the public and done it anyway."
It saddens me that Bush43 would take such a day and attempt to use it to justify his FUBARs. To express some form of remorse for the fallen sons and daughters he sent to war, would have demonstrated he actually comprehends the loss most Americans feel (on days such as Veteran's Day). Rather than attempting to use the day to justify an ill conceived, poorly planned, and needless war.
His "screech", shames all veterans. Rather than honoring us, he honored himself and his war policy. SHAME!
IMO.
No WMD's?
How about...
the 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium confiscated from facilities near Bagdhad immediatly after the city fell to coalition forces,
the 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents found by the 4th ID, supposedly near a storage facility for liquid dispersing missile warheads
the 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas),
or the over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form (meant for dispersal over populated areas),
not to mention roadside bombs IED loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas (which weren't used the right way because the terrorist "grunts" didn't know what they had).
Source: R. Minter
Apparently, only the discovery of half-completed nuclear warheads or missles loaded with nerve-gas and aimed at Kuwait would've counted. The media has reached its verdict, and that verdict is: no WMDs. Therefore, US efforts in Iraq can only be the result of dastardly lies or outright incompetence.~:rolleyes:
The scary part is that your read stuff like that and believe it. Can't you tell when you are reading distortions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I remember some of these reports, they get paraded out now and again. It was pre-1991 materials. Nothing new. The chemical rounds were old. Nobody discounts Saddam having a program back then. That is what the weapons inspectors had been doing.
Really disappointing that we can spend all this time searching for WMD's, issue a report that says, "we didn't find what we were looking for/expected/etc." and yet some twit author can go around claiming we found them based on half baked reports.
I very well remember all those FOX reports of the WMD's that had been found too...
Well,
I actually heard this stuff on Hannity -- so I was taking it with a grain of salt. I threw it out here for the sake of argument.
So, for WMD's to have been there, it would have to have been an extant program, in your eyes, to qualify as a significant threat. Leftovers or items lost off Saddam's own inventory do not qualify. Correct?
If that is the standard, than it would appear that either he had no program, or had successfully dismantled and shipped it off prior to the invasion. We have no evidence of "active" programs to date (at least not that I am aware of).
This may represent a poor assessment, but given the assessment that had been made, the attack was a rasonable course of action. I do wish the occupation had been as well coordinated as the assault.
But it never was an assessment, not even a poor one. The folks in DC knew there weren't any WMDs, our own intel (the real intel, not the PR intel) told us Saddam was bluffing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
WMDs were a red herring from the beginning, the whole story concocted to sell the deal. The plan to invade Iraq was made prior to the election.
ichi:bow:
Well, I guess I can predict your answer to the poll I just put up.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
What a load. That's nothing more than a neatly tailored excuse for Democrats to cover their backtracking. MANY Democrats had the security clearance access to unfiltered intelligence on the various intelligence comittees. Need I drag out some pre-war quotes from Jay Rockefeller? They were being opportunistic then in their support and are being opportunistic now in their opposition. If they want to impeach Bush, that's fine- but they'd better turn in their own resignations as well. They're every bit as incompetent as he.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelian
Holy crap... I agree with that.... ~:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Why do you still argue these things? Go relax and forget about it- you're not going to convince each other of anything! Go out, meet some girls, get high- do something, but stop arguing fruitlessly with people you've never known and will never meet.
Hey, nobody was madder than I was that some Democrats decided to vote for the "Joint Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". Taking Bush at his word on Iraq was naive.Quote:
Excuse me, even I knew at the time that the WMD claims were nonsense, Powell's presentation in the UN Security Council was nonsense, the links with Al Qaeda were nonsense. Your darling Democrats chose to go along with the nonsense and lend it credibility, in the same way as they went along with the Patriot Act. The difference being that the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for. The Democrats have nothing resembling a political opinion anymore. - Adrian
If you can remember back to the Fall of 2002, the Bushies were saying that war was a last resort, and that the US needed to present a unified front so that Saddam would allow inspectors in and turn over his WMDs. Nobody knew for sure, including you and I, whether or not Saddam had any WMDs. The point of the Joint Resolution was to get inspectors into Iraq and make that determination.
In his recent Veteran's Day speech, Bush said:
"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began... More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate who had access to the same intelligence voted to remove Saddam Hussein from power."
Of course, the problem with that statement (besides the "access to the same intelligence line") was that they weren't voting to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Here is what Bush was saying around the time of the Joint Resolution:
Bush, 10/1/2002:
"Of course, I haven't made up my mind we're going to war with Iraq."
Bush, two days after the Iraq War Resolution:
"But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire."
McClellan, 11/2/2002:
This is about disarmament and this is a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to disarm. If he chooses not to do so peacefully, then the United States is prepared to act, with our friends, to do so by force. And we will do so forcefully and swiftly and decisively, as the President has outlined. But the President continues to seek a peaceful resolution. War is a last resort.
So, just that we're perfectly clear, Bush himself was not characterizing the Joint Resolution as a "vote to remove Saddam Hussein from power"! He was still talking about disarmament, acting with our friends, and seeking a peaceful resolution.
Here's what Senator Kerry said, on the floor of the Senate, regarding his vote on the Joint Resolution:
Now, let's remember what was revealed in the Downing Street Memo, regarding a secret meeting from July 23rd, 2002! Months before the Joint Resolution was authorized:Quote:
"As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."
“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”...
“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”...
“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."LINK
Bush had already made his decision to go to war, but he was still telling the public, and the Democrats in Congress, that war was a last resort, and that he was seeking a peaceful disarmament solution! That was a lie.
The only problem with the Democrats in Congress was that they, based on their much more limited access to intelligence, chose to give the President the benefit of the doubt and authorize the use of force if necessary to compel Iraq to accept inspectors and disarm. We now know that they were deceived, because the intention was always to invade no matter what.
They shouldn't have believed him. Luckily, not all of them did. My favorite Senators, including Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (from my home state of MI), were among the 23 Senators that chose not to give their authorization:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
Those Senators, at least, earned the right to criticize the president.
For those who chose to go along, I'm sure that some of them did so because they thought that national unity was important on the issue, some of them shared the president's views, and others probably did so because they wanted to avoid being labelled "unpatriotic" or "weak on terrorism" in the hostile media environment. Let's remember that the party that was slinging those labels around and using 9/11 and the threat of terrorism for political purposes was NOT the Democrats. That's why I can't stand the assertion that "the Bush administration and the Neocons at least have some views and ideals worth lying for". If you're going to criticize the Democrats because some of them helped enable Bush's invasion, you should be harder on the Republicans for almost universally supporting it and using McCarthyite tactics against anybody who held a dissenting opinion. Democrats don't agree on all things, but they certainly have views and ideals that they stand up for on a regular basis, and usually without having to serially lie about them.
Even given the big steaming pile of lies used to justify the war and the massive worldwide demonstrations against it, I think Bush might've gotten away with it as a fait accompli *if* he'd really managed to turn Iraq into a decent, stable, developing society. You know, the ultimate good results being grudgingly admitted to outweight the dubious methods by all but the more hardcore opposition and all that.
Didn't happen, though. So he and his boys are fair game as far as most people are concerned.
So how do you guys explain things like this again?
Also I cant find a link but I heard a clip yesterday of him saying during operation desert fox that Clintons bombing of Iraq was not enough and that we need to put boots on the ground there. This is 1998 and Bush wasnt even running yet.Quote:
John Kerry Circa '97
On CNN's Crossfire in 1997 (via Drudge):
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
And I may have missed your rationalization for all of these.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!Quote:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
There's two separate issues here. One is that Bush exaggerated and used WMDs as cover for a war his cronies wanted for other reasons, and the other is that some Democrats got caught up in the hysteria and in an effort to garner votes or to not look 'weak', supported the invasion.
Regardles of how many politicians jumped on the bandwagon, Bush lied and tricked his country and a few allies into attacking Iraq. Remember that there's a big price to be paid for appearing soft or being a dove in this country. There's a lot of hostility out there and one way to get votes is to be a hawk. This means that some Democrats have no real compass to guide them other than that which garners votes.
Despite the failure of some Democrats to develop a coherent effective policy and stick to it, this in no way excuses Bush and the neocons for their failed foray in Iraq. They played us, played on our fears. They were not honest, haven't been honest since they got into office. Their Blue Skies Initiative for clean air means relaxing constraints on polluters, they talk of more freedom then pass the Patriot Act which gives the guv almost unlimited power, they talk of fiscal responsibility then build up massive deficits while almost eliminating the country's ability to respond to important issues and events.
Because some folks change with the wind doesn't deny me or others the right to ask tough questions or speak out against government abuse.
Currently the Dems have no plan other than to criticize Bush. It seems to me that most conservatives no longer have a valid defence for the actions of their boy, other than to say that Clinton did it or the Dems flip-flopped.
Iraq is going the way of Vietnam. We were warned but Bush ignored it. We spent billions (that we had to borrow) we destabilized the region (likelihood of civil war after we leave, increased power for Iran, a proven enemy), we fostered terrorism (Iraq is no longer a magnet for terrorists, it is now an training ground and exporter), and we've damaged our credibility and relationships around the world. We have also lost a number of fine young men and women, while emasculating our potentially fruitful efforts in Afghanistan.
So I don't give a damn what Kerry said, I want to know who's accountable for the curren situation and what can be done to resolve the current mess.
ichi:bow:
after reading his speech the first thing that popped into my brain is that it's pathetic that GW is still campaigning a year after the election
More like damage control, or an attemp therof. If you assume him to have some sort of far-reaching ideology or vision about how things ought to go, it's certain that they're based on the Reps being in power even after he runs out of terms; hence trying to at least limit the fallout damage to the party would be perfectly sensible...
~:eek:
...wait, am I actually presuming Bush Jr. could have a coherent long-term policy in mind and act rationally upon it...? Sheesh, I must be getting soft.
Thsis total BS. Look my friend.Quote:
There's two separate issues here. One is that Bush exaggerated and used WMDs as cover for a war his cronies wanted for other reasons, and the other is that some Democrats got caught up in the hysteria and in an effort to garner votes or to not look 'weak', supported the invasion.
These are all long before Bush was even runnng for president. How do you explain these statemnets. Were they lying then?Quote:
John Kerry Circa '97
On CNN's Crossfire in 1997 (via Drudge):
"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said Mr. Kerry. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
Personally, I'm starting to question who even cares in the first place ? The current thorny problem isn't the Democrats, after all; it's the Bush adminstration.
And just for the record, I didn't like Clinton too much either when he was in the office. But at least he was a competent enough crook not to insult my intellect by his clumsy antics.
I'm not gonna repeat myself. I've already addressed the fact that some folks were worried about WMDs doesn't excuse Bush for deliberately lying to us about the war (and a lot of other things - God man, read the papers his admin is corrupt and incompetent and now they're getting caught at it)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
ichi:bow:
So, at what point did the WMD claims become lies? Were they lies when everyone in the Clinton administration said them? Were they lies when Jay Rockerfeller(or any intelligence committee member) said them? Where they lies when Bush first said them? Or did they only become lies once the war began to get unpopular? Please elaborate.Quote:
Originally Posted by ichi
if i recall the only evidence of the existance of WMD's that Any one had,
Was a doctored Essay some one had writen on the Internet,
if i remember this essay basically said, what COULD happen if there were WMD's
Some usa official then edited the document to say They HAD WMD's And could Launch then within 2 hours if wanted,
Many of the officials who said this was a lie were forced to resign,
They kept changing the people who were inspecting the place Becous they kept saying There are no WMD's here,
And every time they said there are No WMD's, they were removed and replaced with people who were more likley to say What America wanted to hear.
im prety shure had britain not helped,
Some WMD's Would have *Cough* appeared from some where to justify their attack,
But its a bit dificult to plant anything when there are other people and camera men about,
So no WMD'S were found.
The only Reason bush had for this war was to save face,
1st he saves his family name by doing what George failed to do,
2nd, he saves face becous Every 1 forgets he said he was going after osama binladen "Terible failure that 1",
And thats without mentioning Oil.
This is a redundant debate,
Where only the most patriotic and brain washed people can beleve bush is in the right.
But there you go,
the worlds full of people like that.
Really? Tell that to all the dead Kurds and IraniansQuote:
if i recall the only evidence of the existance of WMD's that Any one had,
Was a doctored Essay some one had writen on the Internet,
if i remember this essay basically said, what COULD happen if there were WMD's
Wow we never heard that here. I think your mixing him up with Blair.Quote:
Some usa official then edited the document to say They HAD WMD's And could Launch then within 2 hours if wanted,
Wrong againQuote:
So no WMD'S were found.
I could say only a brain washed traitor would believe he lied but that would be as ridiculous as your statement.Quote:
This is a redundant debate,
Where only the most patriotic and brain washed people can beleve bush is in the right.
But there you go,
the worlds full of people like that.
Where are Thes WMD?
W.M.D = Weapons of MASS destuction,
That dosent mean RPG, or AK47's mf
And if you never heard of the doctored essay that started the war I suggest that you Actualy Research the matter,
And not just sit and listen to American propeganda.
LOl if you look at bushes reasons "that americans were told" for not attending the world summit.
And the Real reasons, You know what i mean About propeganda,
maby then youd Think for your self. Not just sit their Blindly following your leader,
But that just shows there realy are Brain washed patriots out their As i said.
How about enriched Urainium or sarin gas? Again was Clinton lying also? What were the UN inspectors looking for Easter eggs? I mean you all are saying that no one other than Bush really believed he had them so why were they there then?Quote:
W.M.D = Weapons of MASS destuction,
That dosent mean RPG, or AK47's mf
You think this one document started the war? I suggest its you who need to do some research.Quote:
And if you never heard of the doctored essay that started the war I suggest that you Actualy Research the matter,
I dont. As a matter of fact I was against the invasion.Quote:
Not just sit their Blindly following your leader,
Just because you say so doesnt make it so.Quote:
But that just shows there realy are Brain washed patriots out their As i said.
I don't have the foggiest notion of what she's talking about.... ~:confused:
Ok then according to your,
Clinton is not a lier post LMFAO. Snigger LOL.
Sorry
LOL
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Sorry 1 sec
"I did not have Sexual relations with that woman"
Lol
followed by
"I may have Lied"
I mean the guy couldnt even say i did lie,
he said I may have lied which implies maby he did maby he didnot,
Yah I trust his word.
Ahem
Ok back to your clinton Snigger IS not a lier Post,
Sorry i find that So damn funny,
How can you ask Is clinton a lier And not laugh i dunno.
Is nixon a crook ?
LOL
Damn sorry.
Any way Lets asume clinton is trustworthy "snigger"
And he had a reason to beleve that USA needed to go to war with iraq. "which dosent involve oil"
That justyfies this war? Dont be silly.
According to that logic,
If some kid makes a essay about what america would be like if it had slaves.
Then we doctored the essay to say they did have slaves. We can declair war on america Now.
Becous they used to have slaves when they wernt suposed to.
Obviosuly wed haft to invade to make shure there were no slaves.
And then if we found none,
What the hell America needed sorting out any way,
And that makes it all ok?
I mean Really.
Thats just dumb.
p.s
the inspectors were their becous its their job to go inspect and tell That idiot Bush Theres nothing here,
1st thing that happens. Bush sacks them and sends more in
p.p.s
"fighting for truth justice and the American way"
LMAO
See what i mean about Brain washed patriots....
Lets all Stand up and sing the star spangled banner shall we.
God bless america
Bush can lie. He takes advice from God, hence can't be wrong or lying..... ~;)
Check out her next post if you thought the first one was unintelligible.~DQuote:
I don't have the foggiest notion of what she's talking about
Quote:
Bush can lie. He takes advice from God, hence can't be wrong or lying
Once more with all the comedians out of work please stop with your tired one liners. I hate to say it but most of them are pretty bad.