God, those filthy Iraqis. They were planning on exterminating us when we went swimming. Thank you Lord, for saving me with Bush.
So... just out of curiosity...
If no WMD's are ever found, do you think the opposers of Bush will take it far enough to impeach him?
If no WMD's are ever found, do you think the opposers of Bush will take it far enough to impeach him?
It all makes perfect sense to me now. We have proof that Iraq has WMD. Unfortunately, we don't know where they are. And the only way we can find them is if the Iraqi citizens themselves tell us. But they would never tell us as long as SH is in power. Solution - remove Saddam. Step 1 is complete. Step 2 is ready to commence...time to interrog...er, interview, some Iraqis.
Ari Fleischer, "Tiii...iii...iii...ime is on my side. Yes it is."
Question - It's a fact that President Bush said he has proof of WMD in Iraq. The fact that he doesn't want to reveal his sources (or methods, it depends on who you talk to) is the reason he won't tell us what that proof is. But is that also the reason for not getting specific? Bio, chem, or nukes? Obviously (?) it isn't nukes. If it's bio or chem, he can't say "we have proof that they possess ..."?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Sadly, I think he's right. Based on what we've heard so far, Bush can't be impeached.
It really shows how screwed up our values are. Tell lies that cause thousands of deaths and cost tens of billions of dollars and you're OK. Tell lies about sex, a private matter that doesn't affect the country, and you face impeachment. So glad we have our priorities straight.
I guess we should have made Bush swear under oath that they had info about Iraqi WMDs and purchases of nuclear material and all the other BS they invented to justify the war.
Get off your soapboxes, you can't make any argument about WMD not being the "real" reason right now. Come back in a month or two.
I have noticed that some of these conservatives have been downplaying it though. I think it is just a stalling until they find them, but it's a stupid thing to do if you ask me. I understand that they need a couple months to produce the proof before I start calling for the lynchings.
I have noticed that some of these conservatives have been downplaying it though. I think it is just a stalling until they find them, but it's a stupid thing to do if you ask me. I understand that they need a couple months to produce the proof before I start calling for the lynchings.
While I didn't understand the significance at the time, and even questioned the administration's reasoning for using Iraqi freedom as a reason to invade, it has become clear in recent days. They needed something to shift the focus from WMD if they were wrong and couldn't find anything. They needed justification. To the average American this offers the perfect solution, expanding the rights we all enjoy and love to other parts of the world, so long oppressed by tyrants and theocracies. How noble an ideal to bring freedom and hope to the downtrodden. However, is it our place to do so? No. The Iraqi's want us out of the country now, I don't think that is a good idea as they will probably experience years of civil unrest as the various factions struggle for power, with the ultimate end result being a Shiite Theocracy. The last thing we want is a government with the right of God backing them in the middle east. To disagree with the government would be to disagree with God. The only option now is to turn it into a democracy, weather they want it or not, yet fear not, we are not the opressors, we are bringing freedom to the Iraqi people!
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Good article, more evidence suggesting Bush & Co. lied to the world to justify his crusade against Iraq. Somewhere along the line, die-hard Bush supporters need to start asking themselves why Bush had to lie if this war was so just. What was the real reason behind the rush to attack? How is it not hypocritical to condemn dishonesty in Clinton while condoning it in the Bush administration?
It's too bad the Democratic so-called "leadership" is too spineless to take the offensive, because Bush has a lot to answer for.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Was this just a war to get the guy killed who tried to kill his daddy ?
How many of ours died in the process?
How many of theirs?
Who would of thunk it?
First the israeli Mussad tried to Kill BUSH, It's own agents wrote a book about it.
Second, NO american should die for an Iraqi. That's what I call supporting our troops.
These elitist neo-cons in the white house has gall to sneer at people trying to keep the United States out of war as being "appeasers," if not traitors? WTF??? :frown: :frown: :frown: When did they EVER put thier ass on the line?
I have said it before it's about oil and saddams potential hegemony over it and his potential to one day aquire nukes and really actually be a threat. And that's fine by me. Just present it as such but to tell the American people that a Third World country is an imminent threat to the survival of the United States is ludicrous.
I'm still here and no it isn't weaker and weaker by the day. Come on now, you are really saying that Saddam didn't have any? First of all, they already have several stashes of missiles that were prohibited by the UN. Gee, you mean Saddam didn't bring them out to destroy them with the other stash that the UN caught him with red-handed instead of hiding them? That is a violation that everyone is willing to ignore I guess. Also there may not be a smoking gun yet on WMD, but there is already a hell of a lot of circumstancial evidence. Chemical weapon suits and masks, secret underground centers with highly radioactive material, tons of exiles that came out even before the war and told about them, lots of buried barrels, etc. Look, they had months to hide and get rid of evidence so it will take some time. I'm not one of those that's going to use that as an excuse for it to be ok, but I will give them more time.
Looks to me like someone is preparing to yell planted WMDs when they are found.
I really wish you guys would stop using buzz-words if you don't even know what they mean. Neo-cons is short for neo-conservatives. Neo means new. So neo-con means a new conservative, as in they were not conservative in the past. Bush, Rummy and the others have always been conservative republicans as long as I have heard of them so that is not an accurate term to describe the white house.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Quote
Looks to me like someone is preparing to yell planted WMDs when they are found.
[/quote]
Plausable Denial.... It don't matter anymore. If some are found those who won't believe won't and if some are planted those who will believe will... It is the way of things back East in DC. The support base won't change one bit even if plantings are on video or findings are performed by the Pope. That is just a deflection from the real issue.... THE OIL and the Manifest Destiny for the region as proclaimed by New World Order.
Looks to me like someone is preparing to yell planted WMDs when they are found.
Plausable Denial.... It don't matter anymore. If some are found those who won't believe won't and if some are planted those who will believe will... It is the way of things back East in DC. The support base won't change one bit even if plantings are on video or findings are performed by the Pope. That is just a deflection from the real issue.... THE OIL and the Manifest Destiny for the region as proclaimed by New World Order.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Buzzwords? They are an accurate description of the party split and the neo-dems are with them.
Neo-conservatives- "big government types; who favor vigorous government in the service of the goals of traditional morality and pro-business policies. Tends to favor a very strong foreign policy of America as well." and "Where typically ivy leage liberals who moved to Reagan in the 80's."
Conservatives- "Specifically a "fusionist" conservative of the National Review - Heritage Foundation mold. Someone who believes in traditional morality and capitalism, and the need for a limited government to allow both to flourish. "
Big difference, but then you knew that did'nt you?Text and Text
Uh duhh... did you read your own post? --> Where typically ivy leage liberals who moved to Reagan in the 80's. They were former liberals and as far as I know, the current leaders in the white house were never liberals. I guess cuz you found an article you think you fully understand the term? Here is the dictionary's definition which is a bit more official than Daniel McCarthy:
Notice how it says "movement". What it is talking about here is the fact that there was a political movement to conservativism in the 1920's, 1950's, and the 1980's. Of course there can't be a movement if they were conservative to begin with, can there? Now this trend is showing up again and people have been talking about it. Unfortunately the media has picked up this term and used it incorrectly which in turn allowed others who are uninformed to continue using it incorrectly.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter