President Bush: Is He a Liar?

So what? They are WMD.

And what would preclude these at some point being passed into the hands of terrorists, if we had not gained control over them?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Pertinent to the subject of this thread, one of the favorite lying accusations against Bush is about WMD in Iraq. So check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Quote:

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s.

Quote:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

So in other words, they didn't find WMD. They found degraded weapons.

The OFFICIAL administration response is these are not the ones claimed prior to the invasion. Are you saying the administration is lying now okie when they make that claim?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

So what? They are WMD.

And what would preclude these at some point being passed into the hands of terrorists, if we had not gained control over them?

Actually they aren't WMD if they aren't in a usable condition.

0 Replies

Yaknow, this isn't anything new that was found, Okie. Did you miss the word 'degraded' in re: the sarin and mustard gas in the shells? You understand that means 'probably doesn't work anymore?'

The reason that this wasn't trumpeted as 'oh, we found the WMD!' by the DoD is that:

Quote:

a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

It isn't any secret that Saddam had chemical weapons. We gave him those chemical weapons back in the 1980's, or have you forgotten that fact?

This is Santorum trying to get re-elected, because he's twenty points low on polling, nothing more.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:
So what? They are WMD.

They are not WMD; they are degraded to a point, it's not even worth weapon's grade.

0 Replies

Go ahead. Keep it up. I am glad you are so convinced. I am not so quick to draw final conclusions about information that we do not know everything about.

Besides, there is evidence that some of the later weapons were probably moved out of Iraq before the war.

Forget it for now. Your conclusions are cast in stone about WMD. But remember, we will learn more, and history may not be what you have already concluded.

But when it comes to soldiers killing innocent Iraqis, it is probably already automatically fact in your minds before any reliable evidence is even considered. I've got you guys figured out, yes sir.

0 Replies

You calling the Bush administration liars okie?

The administration said those finds had nothing to do with the WMD argument used to take us into Iraq. Are you proving the Bush administration is lying? You seem to be.

0 Replies

Isnt this resolved yet? Surely we all know the answer by now.

0 Replies

Steve, Some people's brain is calcified to the point logic and common sense are no longer viable options.

0 Replies

It's moot. Based on what was known at the moment of invasion, there might have been workable WMD, and we couldn't take the chance.

0 Replies

"We" couldn't take the chance? Who the hell are you talking about, "we?"

Most of the world was against Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq that killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, and still continues to kill innocents.

The failure of Bush and his minions to listen to the experts and world opinion and to proceed with this war was criminal. Do you know why most of the coalition forces are now gone from Iraq?

0 Replies

If nothing else, it further confirms the deceit of Saddam Hussein and the inability of the inspectors to find all of this stuff. We also know this stuff is very dangerous if passed into the hands of terrorists even if some of it may be "degraded" to some extent or another. Degraded may indicated it would not for sure work according to original specifications, but does in no way preclude the possible alternate use of them in a very destructive manner.

Parados, this is not about lying, its about opinion, when you refer to what the administration is saying about this now. Good grief.

0 Replies

You don't kill thousands of innocent people because a leader is deceitful.

If that were true, many in this world would attack the US based on the deceit of Bushco. First it was Saddam's WMDs, then it was to get rid of a bad leader, then it's now to bring democracy to the middle east. Do you understand anything about "justification for war?" It surely is not based solely on "fear."

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You don't kill thousands of innocent people because a leader is deceitful.

If that were true, many in this world would attack the US based on the deceit of Bushco. First it was Saddam's WMDs, then it was to get rid of a bad leader, then it's now to bring democracy to the middle east. Do you understand anything about "justification for war?" It surely is not based solely on "fear."

The reason why I believe America had to invade was the significant possibility that Hussein was still lying about and concealing WMD and WMD programs, as previously. Had this still been occurring, then eventually his development would probably have come to fruition with horrible consequences for the world. We couldn't take a chance on negative consequences of that magnitude.

0 Replies

This bullshit apologia of yours for an illegal and immoral war wears thin pretty quickly. The Iraqis were cooperating with the inspection teams. The inspectors said the Iraqis were cooperating. The inspectors said they had found no evidence that Iraq possessed womd, and no evidence of programs to develop them. You keep whining that he could have had them, and that we couldn't take the chance. We were told by people on the ground that it was unlikely, and that the Iraqis were cooperating. That idiot on Pennsylvania Avenue invaded anyway, and now tens of thousands have died, and the dying doesn't end. You disgust me, with your smug, safe-in-your-armchair judgments.

0 Replies

Brandon 9000- I have posted this many times, but Mr.Imposter and the left wingers are not skillful enough to rebut it.

Clinton in 1998-

quote

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminsh the threat posed by IRAQ'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION program"

end of quote

Why, can't they rebut that, Brandon9000? Because it takes all of the air out of their case. It says that the LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BELIEVED THAT SADDAM HAD WMD'S.

The left wing liberals will, of course, act as if that sentence and others spoken by Democratic leaders all through 1998, 199, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 DO NOT EXIST.

They do and PROVE that the Democrats also believed that Saddam had WMD's.

Now, we hear of stocks of WMD chemicals being found in Iraq AFTER SADDAM SWORE ON A KORAN that there were no more in the country-That they were all destroyed.

I challenge the left wing liberals to rebut Clinton's quote. If they don't or can't, they show they have lost the argument.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If nothing else, it further confirms the deceit of Saddam Hussein and the inability of the inspectors to find all of this stuff. We also know this stuff is very dangerous if passed into the hands of terrorists even if some of it may be "degraded" to some extent or another. Degraded may indicated it would not for sure work according to original specifications, but does in no way preclude the possible alternate use of them in a very destructive manner.

Parados, this is not about lying, its about opinion, when you refer to what the administration is saying about this now. Good grief.

Your statement was that this proved the administration correct and refuted anyone that said the administration lied about WMD. The administration said this revelation has NOTHING to do with their pre war claims. Ergo you are calling the administration liars if you persist in claiming it proves they didn't lie about WMD.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

This bullshit apologia of yours for an illegal and immoral war wears thin pretty quickly.

Your assertion of illegality and immorality is merely an unproven claim.

Setanta wrote:

The Iraqis were cooperating with the inspection teams. The inspectors said the Iraqis were cooperating. The inspectors said they had found no evidence that Iraq possessed womd, and no evidence of programs to develop them. You keep whining that he could have had them, and that we couldn't take the chance. We were told by people on the ground that it was unlikely, and that the Iraqis were cooperating.

Quote:

Baghdad also undertook strenuous efforts to frustrate inspections in the field by blocking UNSCOM convoys, diverting inspectors to safe areas, and moving banned weapons, materials, and equipment to isolated hiding spots. In several instances, satellite intelligence revealed that Iraqi officials literally moved forbidden items out the back door of a facility while U.N. inspectors were coming in the front door.

Source

Setanta wrote:

That idiot on Pennsylvania Avenue invaded anyway, and now tens of thousands have died, and the dying doesn't end. You disgust me, with your smug, safe-in-your-armchair judgments.

Sorry I'm safe, but as you should know, you cannot disprove any of my assertions by referring to my personal flaws. It's unfortunate that you'd try.

0 Replies

The source you present is a notorious conservative organization, and they have presented assertions, and no proof. I have already dealt with your bullshit about womd by pointing out that the inspectors aid there were none, and that the Iraqis were cooperating in the inspections regime. Clinton's comment, which Italgato trots out because conservatives just writhe if they cannot holler "oh yeah, well what about Clinton? ! ? ! ?"--comes from the time when the Iraqis threw out the UN inspectors. At any event, Clinton did not invade and kill tens of thousands of Iraqis in the process.

Thanks to American pressure and threats, the Iraqis let the inspectors back in. The inspectors said they had found no evidence of womd or womd programs--and the unsubstantiated assertions of the Heritage Foundation doesn't alter that. That is the basis upon which i refute your idiotic assertions about "the need" to invade Iraq.

Commenting on you personally was simply to explain why i am disgusted by you.

0 Replies

Why don't you talk about the inspections in 2002-3 Brandon instead of 1995-98?

Can we say Bush is still a drunk today because he was arrested for drunk driving 30 years ago?

In case you didn't realize it Brandon. Bush didn't invade in 1998 when the Iraqis were no cooperating. He invaded in 2003 when they were.

By the way Brandon, they just raised the maximum age to join the army. You can now join at the age of 42. Better jump on it quick and prove how much you love this country and this war.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know