"Q...U...A...G..."

You expect us to prove something doesn't exist doesn't exist. I also think it is about time you prove it does.

0 Replies

Ok, I apologize, I was too hard on you, Tartarin, (it's the Poison Ivy I tell ya!!) but after some benadryl I am feeling a little bit better.

But I will continue the point, further expounded by ehbeth, and contend that it is the responsibility of the administration's detractors, not the administration, to prove it's claim.
The continued drumbeat of "Why haven't the WMDs been found?"
is so intellectually dishonest as to be laughable.

FACT: Saddam Hussein has possessed WMDs.

Does anyone care to dispute this fact?

0 Replies

Years ago. But they were destroyed. Bush said they were not destroyed, but, now Bush has the run of the place, these TONS of weapons are nowhere to be found. The evidence cited by Bush was the ilk of: Here's a photo of trucks moving things. Turns out the photos were demonstrably not accurate. So with all the so called evidence.

0 Replies

The President's point at the time of invasion was not that Saddam had once had WMD's, but that he had them at the time of invasion and that there was some type of imminent danger. Remember the friggin' duct-tape?

The burden of proof is with the man making the claim. His claim was that there were WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion.

I was one of the people who posted before the invasion, saying that we hoped they would find the WMD's. As much as I dislike any country having WMD's, I would be less afraid of, and for, the United States right now, if they'd been able to say "here they are". And then proved it.

0 Replies

Thank you edgar, you concede the point that he had them.

You then make the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that they have been destroyed.

Why do you say this edgar, because Saddam says he has?

Are we to believe him?

He has provided no proof of the destruction, and from what I understand, there would still be sufficient evidence of their destruction were this to have occurred.

So, if they have been destroyed, it is easy to prove that they have been destroyed.

But again, this proof is nowhere to be found, Blix couldn't find it, Saddam couldn't provide it, and, so far, we haven't found the proof of their destruction either.

And yet, despite this, you continue to maintain and hold out as fact that he has no weapons?

I am at a loss as to the cognitive activity that is the precursor to this illogical progression.

0 Replies

I say they were destroyed because the only credible evidence - the word of Iraq's scientists, who no longer are in fear of Saddam, say that, and because every bit of evidence from Bush was discredited. What Saddam said is moot. We don't need his word in this.

0 Replies

We've had UN inspectors in there for years; we've had desperate Bushies searching for three months. That's not to say there were never any WMD's -- no one is saying that, not that I know of. What it does say loud and clear is that there is no evidence of "imminent threat," which is to say, casus belli. But the Bush administration, to create a rationale for the invasion, got the support of Congress and allies based on faulty information and it is likely the administration knew it was faulty. That makes Congress rightly angry -- they were told that there was an imminent threat. It obviously diminishes the credibility of the administration in the eyes of many Americans. And it seriously harms American credibility in the rest of the world.

The following letter to the NYTimes (from Julia Reid, NJ) in response to a report in the 6/18 edition has the final word, I think, on the matter of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq:

You quote Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, as saying, "Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?"...

Of course no one wants to say the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein's sadistic and brutal regime in place, but that isn't the question on the table. The issue is whether or not the end justifies the means. Yes, removing Saddam Hussein is ultimately a good thing. But if deceit and manipulated information are what got us to this point, we must cry out against it...

We have no guarantee of being "better off" the next time our government uses such tactics.

Allowing our leaders to set this kind of precedent would be playing a dangerous game. We must refuse to play; that is the heart of the matter.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Crunch said:

"it makes me glad that there is some place on this forum where we're free from such rhetoric. Its called The Roundtable. I always know I shouldn't venture out into the uitlandes!"

And you define "always" as the 11 days you've been a member of this board, I take it?

The eleven days that you know about, snood. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

edit: And by the way, why don't you respond to my quote, instead of attacking me.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

How can someone at a computer have more evidence than the links that are available to all? There have been many cited in this thread and others that conclusively pinpoint the Bush administration's lies about WMDs and also Lynch. The fact that conservatives dismiss them with the haughtiness of a true believer does not diminish the truth.

If you'd open your eyes, you see one of two things. Many of those links accuse and lie (one characteristic of them is they attack Bush; another is that they seem to know more than the CIA). The next thing you'd notice if you open your eyes (sorry for the quasi-ad-hominem, you might not do it, but others who argue for your side do) is that there are just as many articles out there that indicate that there ARE WMDs. I guess we won't know for sure till some are found -- and in that case, many will claim that we planted there. Those people again need to refer to George's post.

0 Replies

Crunch -- the war was based on what GWB said he KNEW and WHAT HE HAD EVIDENCE FOR. That's where he lied. Think it through...

0 Replies

Let me ask this question.

Would it make a difference at this point?

0 Replies

Are all Iraqi's hating the US?

0 Replies

maxsdadeo wrote:

The continued drumbeat of "Why haven't the WMDs been found?" is so intellectually dishonest as to be laughable.

Sorry about the poison ivy. I'm allergic to it -- so I have lots of empathy for you.

However -- the question "Why haven't the WMC's been found?" is not in the least "intellectually dishonest."

It is a perfectly reasonable question.

Quote:

But I will continue the point, further expounded by ehbeth, and contend that it is the responsibility of the administration's detractors, not the administration, to prove it's claim.

Are you saying it is up to us to prove that the weapons have not been found?????

Are you suggesting that the administration HAS FOUND THEM but is pretending not to have found them for some reason?

Quote:

FACT: Saddam Hussein has possessed WMDs.

Does anyone care to dispute this fact?

I don't know that anyone seriously disputes that fact.

But we did not go to war with Iraq because once had WMD's.

We went to war with him -- ACCORDING TO THE ADMINISTRATION -- because he had huge stockpiles of these weapons and they presented a clear and present danger to us.

They may still exist.

I seriously doubt that anyone writing in this forum KNOWS for sure if they are there or not.

Some of us are asking "Where are they?"

Some of us are saying that even asking that question is laughable.

Max, isn't it possible that the "laughable" position is that latter stance -- and the reasonable one is the former?

0 Replies

Crunch
First remove the log from your own eye before criticising the mote in mine.

0 Replies

Where DO you SUPPOSE that amazingly clean and cute little girl GOT that American flag, HUH?

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Where DO you SUPPOSE that amazingly clean and cute little girl GOT that American flag, HUH?

Warning, warning, warmongers: this is what one calls an attempt at satire, ok?

Bill O'Reilly (of Fox News: we report, you decide): "Come here, little girl, if you hold this flag and smile, I'll give you some food . . ." Fox News: fair and balanced.
Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

Ha!

I appreciate the humor...

I think that her school was making them before the war to say thank you to the saviors of her country.

0 Replies

They are exactly the same flags (the kind that don't droop but stay in an unnatural position) which were handed out at a Clear Channel pro-war demo I watched.

"Q...U...A...G..."

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know