0 |
Subject: Bush on the lack of WMDs- "what's the difference?"
Posted by: Skidawg
- [321092023] Wed, Dec 17, 2003, 12:25
The Diane Sawyer of the President included his statement. The transcript can be found here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/bush_sawyer_excerpts_2_031216.html
"DIANE SAWYER: But let me try to ask ? this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence ? the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: ? an active ?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yet.
DIANE SAWYER: Is it yet?
PRESIDENT BUSH: But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that ? let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.
DIANE SAWYER: Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.
DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still ?
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference? "
So a U.S. President directly lied to the American public? I've never heard of such a thing..:)
|
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. [Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
198 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 30792616 Thu, Apr 22, 2004, 23:20
|
The Kurds welcome our help, even the Muslim ones
The Kurds wanted our help before we bailed on them, letting Saddam gas many to death and bury them in unmarked graves. The Kurds don't trust us. Don't make the mistake of thinking they do.
In fact, no one there trusts us. Bush has it exactly right that we need to set up things quickly and get out of dodge. The longer we are there the worse it will be.
|
199 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 04:20
|
But of course I didn't say they trust us nor had we earned it before Bush II. The question on the floor was whether the Iraqis welcome our help and that is something that could have been said about the Kurds for just about forever.
|
200 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 10:45
|
br 187 -- Freedom from oppression from a conguering nation is still freedom, Madman, whether we agree with their long-term motives or not.
I disagree.
The word "freedom" as used in the West generally conveys a meaning of either some degree of self-determination (as in a Republican form of gov't) and/or some degree of civil / economic liberty protection.
You can be free from oppression from a conquering nation, but still not free. Further, if you are fighting so that YOU or your ideology can become the thugs in control, then the term "Freedom Fighter" is an especially bad misnomer.
It is not a matter of longer-term or shorter-term goals; in neither the short nor the long term do our enemies wish to establish anything remotely approaching freedom as we would understand it.
However, I will grant you that the understanding of "Freedom" in the post-colonization world is different. Al Qaeda DOES probably view itself as Freedom Fighters if you want to use those words in the Islamic world.
But this board is located in the Eastern US. It is predominantly American in orientation. To suggest that Al Qaeda views themselves as "Freedom Fighters" not just as the Islamic World would view themselves, but as *WE* would understand the term is grossly inaccurate. Therefore, to ACCURATELY describe their self-perceived ideology to a Westerner, you cannot use the term "Freedom Fighter".
By using the term "Freedom Fighter" in the West, and by claiming that Al Qaeda (or Sadr's militia) views themselves as "Freedom Fighters", Tree is implicitly making the claim not just that they are fighting foreign oppression, but that they are fighting for some version of popular rule (i.e., Republican or Democratic form of gov't) with, in all likelihood, some predefined limitation on governmental powers of regulation. Al Qaeda does not view itself as such.
Further, this discussion is started in reference to Moore's description of Sadr as "minutemen", which is to parallel them with our own patriots who set up our version of limited government. This further imbues Tree's comment with these otherwise self-evident properties ... properties that, to repeat, Al Qaeda and Sadr vehemently and grossly reject.
To sum up, Al Qaeda and Sadr do not view themselves as the revolutionaries who are desiring to kick out a foreign occupier so they can establish some form of Republican limited self-rule. They only meet the first condition. That's good enough for them to view themselves as "freedom fighters" in the limited Islamic sense of the word; that's not good enough for a Westerner to make the claim that they beleive themselves to be "freedom fighters" as a Westerner would understand the term.
If Tree would say, "Al Qaeda views themselves as Freedom Fighters, which means to them that they wish to establish brutal Islamic theocracies" THEN I would accept it. But he leaves on the notation of what it means to them. Instead, he simply proclaims that they view themselves as Freedom Fighters. He is discussing this concept to an American in an American-hosted forum. I can only presume that he means that there are true parallels between Al Qaeda and the Minutemen in our own revolution, or between Al Qaeda and any militant organization fighting for limited government over a "free" people. There is no evidence for such a belief on his part. Therefore, I must express my disagreement.
The key here is to truly look at the world from other people's perspectives and UNDERSTAND it and also understand how language means different things in different contexts.
(on a partisan note: This is the sort of nuance that simplistic GWBII thinking picks up on instinctively, but that intellectual thought tends to confuse.)
|
201 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 10:45
|
(btw, in my parenthetical, I should have said "so-called" intellectual thought)
|
202 | Tree Donor
ID: 599393013 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 11:03
|
If Tree would say, "Al Qaeda views themselves as Freedom Fighters, which means to them that they wish to establish brutal Islamic theocracies"
by saying "They believe themselves to be freedom fighters," and then attaching your qualifier to it would make me feel like i'm speaking to an idiot and would make me feel like i'm condescending to you.
"They believe themselves to be freedom fighters," is plain enough that anyone with basic reading comprehension skills can infer context.
you're smart enough to know the difference without that extra statement, and i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't need said qualifier.
|
203 | Seattle Zen
ID: 53252259 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 11:27
|
Enter Comic book guy re post 200:
"Worst Post Ever"
Jesus, Madman, how can you expect anyone to ever read another post by you after that? What a load!
|
204 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 13:09
|
Tree 202 -- In your post 169, you said that Michael Moore, when he made the parallel between Al Qaeda (and/or Sadr) and Minutemen, was not false.
Now, you are claiming that *they* do *not* believe that they are like the Minutemen (our conception of "Freedom Fighters", as per your parallel in 169), a direct (and accurate) challenge to Moore's analogy. I believe this leaves us in agreement.
|
205 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 13:14
|
Waste of time Madman...SZ and Tree are relativists and can't even wrap their mind around the concept of these schoolbus bombers being objectively evil.
|
207 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 13:22
|
Idiot. You can't wrap your mind around anything other than the concept that any group you choose to malign thinks with only one brain and is capable of only one thought. Some of the people shooting at us are responsible for bombing a school and Baldwin comes to the objective conclusion that they are all evil.
|
208 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 13:43
|
Yes MITH, surely there must be great moral debates among Sadr's militia over the morality of burning alive kidnap victims who were only there to repair the infrastructure. No black and white there. It miiiiight be 'good' in a certain light. Relatively speaking of course.
|
209 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 14:38
|
Baldwin why is it so hard for you to understand that some of the people shooting at us are doing so simply because of their natural resistance to accepting American occupation? I know you've said that you would dutifully provide personal hygene services to people who you see as oppressors while they mocked you, but you shouldn't be so quick to label as evil others who choose instead to go with the resistance. As sadistic as that resistance might be, is it so hard to understand why many civilian Iraqis might still see them as a lesser evil than the Empirical American occupiers, given the anti-American rhetoric they were raised to believe in, and the failure of the US in the past to thwart such notions? Do you deny that the Iraqi resistance has grown since the end to major combat operations (whatever that meant)? You think the new members of the various insurgencies were all murderous thugs who simply hadn't yet found an outlet for their berserk rage?
Yes, there are most certainly are great moral debates among everyday regular Iraqis and within the hearts and minds of many individuals themselves over who to side with. Obviously, many make the wrong choice. Many have chosen to side with us, I'm not about to label all of them as inherently good because I think they chose the right side to fight on.
I take exception to your post 205 for essentially the same reason that I patently disagree with the Moore quote in the cartoon in post 162. As the insurgencies have grown, their members have come more and more from different walks of life.
|
210 | walk Leader
ID: 32928238 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 15:56
|
Sorry for the rare post, I am not as well-read and linked as the rest of you, but enjoy reading and am inclined to chime in here. I hope it's okay.
My guess MITH (OT: it is nice nowadays to see donnie in uniform by the way) is that the evil references are to the suicide type bombers and insurgents who are taking civilian lives, be it Iraqi or otherwise, in brutal fashion. However, I agree (for what it's worth), that the other insurgents, the one's fighting for what they feel is their freedom from opression (e.g. U.S.) is not so evil. As you say, we are (the) evil (imperialists) to them. I'll buy that. However-however, I'm also inclined to believe that the current rebels represent a number of different motivations and types, all of whom are aligned in having a common foe, U.S. I wish I had a better read on the proportion of insurgents who are mercenaries, baathists, terrorists, etc. I'm not sure they are freedom fighters to the extent that Michael Moore says (I actually like Moore a lot, because of his "satire" and willingness to point out a lot of wrongs in the world, even if he is sometimes extreme), but I also don't feel we should be there. Mr. two-sided face man here...
Either way, I surely wished we had not gone in, cannot figure out how we are going to get out (June 30 seems like a tough goal), and wonder what'll it'll cost us in total, two-five years down the line (in terms of lives, int'l relations, and $). I also wonder what Iraq will look like 2-5 years down the line, and will our "efforts" have been exposed as totally a waste. I feel they are/were a waste to begin with, but I don't think most of America feels that way...
- walk
|
211 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 1629107 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 16:02
|
Walk, I'm not quite as high on Donnie's new job as you might think, but I agree that it is just great to see him in the stripes again.
Anyhow, I simply take exception to the insurgency (the people shooting at us) being painted in one broad stroke, whether Michael Moore does it or Baldwin.
Also, the goal (as I understood it) was never to get out by June 30, just to hand over power by then. Exactly how much power and who the recipiant will be remains to be seen, of course.
|
212 | walk Leader
ID: 32928238 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 16:10
|
Gotcha on both counts, MITH (the donnie thing and the exception to the insurgency thing), I agree. Regarding the June 30th thing, it just feels arbitrary, and ultimately, either a mere ceremony with no change, or some premature change. I'm not sure if I'm conveying my thoughts well here. It seems like June 30 will be moot, and in the grander scheme, we are stuck in Iraq for a long time, or we leave it mess, a different mess than the more orderly and brutal dictatorship it was before we went there...but that's not why we went in there anyway.
- walk
|
213 | Madman Donor
ID: 398591212 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 16:50
|
walk -- good to see you still around.
I haven't piped up much on the June 30 thing ... I agree that it is arbitrary, but it is also important because (a) it has come to symbolize whether or not we can keep our word to let Iraqi's take over and (b) having a deadline like that forces the parties to come to the table. I think everyone has known for a long time that this negotiation over the structure of a new gov't was going to be incredibly difficult. Without a hard-and-fast arbitrary deadline, they would never agree. I would anticipate that people will start caving in on negotiations during June, especially the end of it. Or, maybe not. But confusion and bickering until then only confirms to me that some deadline was required. We won't know until after June 30 if it was too early or not.
Regarding my point (a), symbolism, we need to give Iraqi's who are on our side "talking points" (for lack of a better term). Having an Iraqi spokesperson for an Iraqi Governing Counsel that has at least SOME additional authority would do that. I am speculating that this is also why the primary spokespeople for the CPA right now are NOT Iraqi ... it will help to accentuate the change-over when it occurs.
Again, until after June 30, I am not optimistic that militia's like Sadr's will stop fighting us and work for a united Iraq. However, I am hopeful that at least some will start doing that after June 30, even if it is arbitrary and mostly just symbolic. It's what the administration has been gambling on for quite some time now, at the least.
|
214 | walk Leader
ID: 32928238 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:00
|
I'll buy that logic, madman, and hope it results in said benefits. I tellya, being president, why? The pressure, pressure, pressure! I guess the ego, ego, ego to be in charge. I sweat what food I'm going to serve my kids if the wife is not around for dinner.
;-) walk
|
215 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:48
|
Interesting.
|
216 | Baldwin
ID: 463571714 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 17:51
|
Also interesting...Moqtada al-Sadr represents a formidable problem for the military in Iraq, the U.S. intelligence community has acknowledged, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
Al-Sadr might be the bane among Shiite clerics. But over the last year he has managed to completely intimidate even the most prominent of clerics, such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani.
Al-Sadr has also managed to win supporters and cooperation within the Sunni community. His poster has been pasted in mosques even in hardcore Fallujah.
U.S. intelligence analysts said al-Sadr has managed to inspire just about everybody who opposes the U.S. in Iraq.
More importantly, al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army have exploited a new class of disenfranchised Shiites who are unemployed and have nothing to lose. He has won thousands of Shiites – and in some cases Sunnis – with tens of millions of dollars of Iranian money.
The intelligence analysts say the U.S. military underestimated several factors:
1. The extent to which Saddam Hussein kept Iraq together by pure intimidation. 2. The absence of a community infrastructure in Iraq.
3. The vulnerability of a socially- and politically-decimated Iraq to neighboring Iran.
Al-Sadr brings the United States to a crossroad. Over the next few weeks, the U.S. will either push hard or bring Sunni and Shiite insurgents to the wall and reign by fear until an authoritarian Iraq can rule itself.
Or, the Iraqi Governing Council and the security forces will disintegrate, with soldiers and police doing little more than showing up to work and collecting salaries – but failing to impose order.
The analysts warn that the United States cannot rely on either the Sunni or Shiite clergy. Indeed, they have never been in a position of influence on a national level.
In many towns and cities, Shiite clerics took over municipal services but were quickly confronted by rivals who stressed their opposition to the United States.
Their analysts' assessment: a Shiite insurgency could go nationwide over the next few months.
|
217 | biliruben
ID: 441182916 Fri, Apr 23, 2004, 18:14
|
"They brought our bags in and I made a hanky disappear. The guard was initially unimpressed so I showed him the secret of the trick in the hope he would let me off," she said yesterday.
Anything to survive, I suppose, but I consider giving away magic tricks high-treason.
|
218 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 08:23
|
The case for the WMD's having been exported becomes stronger as details leak out.
Way too good to just cut-n-paste portions, just jam packed with blockbuster info. Read it all.
|
219 | Tree
ID: 412835 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 09:34
|
let me get this straight.
a 19-year-old kid makes the aforelinked claims (among his other claims are links between Saddam and 9/11 - he also considers WND a viable source), in a story written by another guy who's credits include being the editor of such clasics as "Left Illusions" and "The Hate America Left" (which, btw, is described as a book that will expose the seditious connections and unseemly goals of the new generation of anti-Americans, and the author of the sarcastic "15 Tips to Be a Good Leftist", and you consider this to be a strong argument?
The foolish are easily fooled...
|
220 | Perm Dude Dude
ID: 030792616 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 10:05
|
I haven't really found Ryan Mauro to be all that credible--he gets gigs based on his age and the fact that he spouts the latest conservative theory (mobile labs! the nukes are there, we just have to look harder! He must have moved them, then! Of course they had nukes--Saddam didn't shoot the scientists!).
To cut short a potential objection about him: I don't believe that the fact that he's often reprinted in WND is necessarily a mark against him. I think he's quoted for the reasons above--he is consistently backed the Administrative position.
I think we have to ask ourselves, however: What if he's right? If so, why hasn't Syria (or the other recipient countries) used any of the precursor chemicals or weapons (Mauro is remarkably inconsisntent in how the stuff is described).
|
221 | Pancho Villa
ID: 519522811 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 10:14
|
from the link in #218..
Glazov: So if all this evidence is credible, why wouldn't the Bush Administration take advantage of this information?
Mauro: There are multiple ideas out there. I tend to believe that the foreign policy implications of these revelations explain the Administration’s silence. The politicians don’t want to feel obliged to take strong action against Syria
If this is true, then the entire premise of a War on Terror is a fraud. One of the justifications for the Iraq invasion was that Saddam would either use WMD himself, or allow them to fall into the hands of terrorists. If they were transported to Syria, that scenario would a reality.
If the Bush administration ignores this reality while claiming to be serious about a War on Terror, then what is the real agenda? If the weapons were suspected to have been shipped to Iran, would there not be even more sabre-rattling for military action against Tehran?
But then, Iran is rich in natural energy resources and Syria is not. So the reality is that there really is no War on Terror, but a War for Securing Future Energy Sources, at least if we can believe the 19 year-old wunderkind.
|
222 | GolfFreak
ID: 14140284 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 10:39
|
Pancho Villa I think your up in L13
|
223 | Boldwin
ID: 49626249 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 11:55
|
You don't think it is possible Bush just realistically can only fit so much onto his plate in 8 years?
|
224 | sarge33rd
ID: 2511422414 Fri, Mar 03, 2006, 13:52
|
and amongst those things is NOT the War on Terra which has driven this administrations rehetoric over the past 4 1/2 years?????????? (Or was that not sufficient room for that, while busying oneself with trampling the 4th ammendment?)
|
225 | Perm Dude
ID: 19751117 Tue, Aug 12, 2008, 21:27
|
Ron Suskind interview on Jon Stewart
We have a freaking circus running the country right now. Years from now, historians will wonder at the incredible incompetence of it all.
|
226 | Boldwin
ID: 176322815 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 05:47
|
If only LBJ had been conducting these two wars.
|
227 | Boxman
ID: 571114225 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 06:41
|
If only LBJ had been conducting these two wars.
I think you're on to something. Maybe the Democrabs have "war envy". FDR interned Japanese-Americans, Truman dropped the bomb--twice on Japan and precided over the Korean War, and JFK and LBJ fanned the flames in Vietnam.
Oh well, but "Bush lied, they died" is such a catchy tune.
|
228 | Tree
ID: 22713146 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 07:15
|
never mind the fact that you guys are apparently living 40 years ago in the past.
no question vietnam was wrong - but now you're somehow comparing our entry in WW II - you know, after we were ATTACKED - with our war in Iraq, where we've been the aggressor in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands?
|
229 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 08:49
|
with our war in Iraq, where we've been the aggressor in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? i think you are mixing up your wars. i assume by hundreds of thousands you mean WW2. And when was the last time the US the aggressor in the Iraq? Say Iraq was wrong, but don't exaggerate and make Iraq sound like WW2.
Hypothetical question if the US government had know that pearl harbor was going to happen and the let it happen in order to draw us in to WW2, how would we view that act in retrospect?
|
230 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:09
|
Hypotyhetical response to a hypothetical question...with utter disdain and disgust.
As for when we were the aggressor in Iraq...are you kidding? We INITIATED the war in Iraq. WE crossed into teir borders, with Army, Air Force and Marines; supported by the Navy.
And it is quite safe to say, that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, since we invaded their nation.
|
231 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:18
|
I was not denying we were the aggressor i was just asking how long has it been sense we would be classified as aggressors and not peace keepers.
i would like to see any evidence of this: where we've been the aggressor in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands? and sarge you opinion is not a bases for fact.
|
232 | Tree
ID: 67581211 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:18
|
i assume by hundreds of thousands you mean WW2.
no, i mean Iraq. the *documented* death toll is probably around 90,000...
And when was the last time the US the aggressor in the Iraq? Say Iraq was wrong, but don't exaggerate and make Iraq sound like WW2.
seriously?
the US attacked Iraq. the US is the aggressor. that is the plain and simple truth.
Iraq is nothing like WW2. in WW2, we were defending ourselves after an attack on a US Military base. in Iraq, we went into that country, and attacked someone who, at worst, was peeing on us from half-way across the globe.
|
233 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 10:37
|
no, i mean Iraq. the *documented* death toll is probably around 90,000...
a) that is not hundred of thousands as claimed earlier. b) those deaths did not all result at the hands of of the US as you imply in post #225.
i assume by hundreds of thousands you mean WW2. yes i assumed you meant WW2 because we did lead to direct deaths of hundreds of thousands.
|
234 | Tree
ID: 67581211 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 12:37
|
no, i mean Iraq. the *documented* death toll is probably around 90,000...
a) that is not hundred of thousands as claimed earlier.
if the *documented* is 90,000, i think it's perfectly fair to put those numbers significantly higher.
b) those deaths did not all result at the hands of of the US as you imply in post #225.
yea, they did. the US doesn't Iraq, those deaths don't happen.
|
235 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 13:38
|
yea, they did. the US doesn't Iraq, those deaths don't happen.
I should not even bother disagreeing with you, clearly you do not use rules of logic to form your answers. you just stated that if A happens at time 1 and if B happens at time 3 then A caused B which is clearly not true. this is an example of correlation not causation. what your post should have read was:
with a war in Iraq, there have been tens of thousands of deaths?
in stead you up the deaths by a magnitude and you imply that the deaths happened at hands of Americans. which I am sure is what you intended.
|
236 | Tree
ID: 67581211 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 13:43
|
I should not even bother disagreeing with you, clearly you do not use rules of logic to form your answers. you just stated that if A happens at time 1 and if B happens at time 3 then A caused B which is clearly not true. this is an example of correlation not causation. what your post should have read was
so, are you disagreeing with me that those deaths will happen anyway if the US doesn't attack Iraq?
let's just give you the number. let's give you that 90K. are you telling me those 90K die anyway, regardless of whether the US attacks Iraq or not.
the US caused those deaths in Iraq. period. whether directly or indirectly, they were caused by the US incursion into Iraq.
|
237 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 15:24
|
let's just give you the number. let's give you that 90K. are you telling me those 90K die anyway, regardless of whether the US attacks Iraq or not. maybe, maybe not how can i say what would or would not have happened. i mean Saddam could have started a war with Iran again, ethnically cleansed some kurds. Or there could have been coup who knows how many would have died if that occurred. it hard to make a judgment in place where death was all ready common. I must have missed the part where the US introduced sectarian hate in Iraq, because they all loved each other before the US came.
|
238 | Tree
ID: 67581211 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 15:55
|
maybe, maybe not how can i say what would or would not have happened. i mean Saddam could have started a war with Iran again, ethnically cleansed some kurds. Or there could have been coup who knows how many would have died if that occurred. it hard to make a judgment in place where death was all ready common. I must have missed the part where the US introduced sectarian hate in Iraq, because they all loved each other before the US came.
what do those have to do with anything. i can say beyond certainty that the 90k who died, would not have died if the US had not gone in.
would some of them have died in some other way? quite likely. but that's completely irrelevant..
|
239 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 16:05
|
can say beyond certainty that the 90k who died, would not have died if the US had not gone in.
would some of them have died in some other way? quite likely. so you know for sure they would have not died, but they probably some of them would have died? please make up your mind?
irrelevent...your own words:
yea, they did. the US doesn't Iraq, those deaths don't happen.
|
240 | Pancho Villa
ID: 47161721 Thu, Aug 14, 2008, 16:33
|
I must have missed the part where the US introduced sectarian hate in Iraq, because they all loved each other before the US came.
You must have missed the part where removing Saddam created a power vacuum, since the Bush administration's plan was to replace Saddam with Ahmed Chalabi, who had no influence with any of Iraq's sects.
|
241 | Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 18:47
|
Associated Press – Mon, Jul 30, 2012
BAGHDAD (AP) — Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what's left of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, still stored in two bunkers in north of Baghdad, the British embassy in Baghdad announced Monday.
Which 'as we all know' don't exist.
|
242 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 18:51
|
The Right wing meme of the day!
This is like removing unexploded ordnance from a field and saying that the field owner had a stockpile of hundreds of 50 mil guns.
We always knew of the deteriorating and unusable stockpiles, which the (Godless) UN had recorded through their inspections. They weren't useful as weapons anymore and Iraq lacked the will, or need, to move them.
|
243 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 18:57
|
roflmfao B.....talk about trying to pass off a sows ear as a pearl. Good gawd man.
|
244 | Boldwin
ID: 23111863 Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 04:18
|
U.S. Prepares for Syria Intervention over Chemical Weapons, not even bothering to bring the Colin Powell Dog and Pony Show before the UN first.
Don't even expect a subdued hypocritical murmur from the Cindy Sheehans and the Bush lied, people died, crowd.
|
245 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 06:15
|
Hahaha
|
246 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169 Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 12:13
|
Heh. The logic on that one is so convoluted I'm not even going to try. Let's just tag it "I hate America" and move on.
|
247 | Boldwin
ID: 23111863 Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 12:24
|
The libs are so deep in cognitive dissonance on this one they can't even feel the irony tidal waves.
|
248 | Mith
ID: 4310402110 Thu, Dec 06, 2012, 12:36
|
Don't do it, boys. Not worth it.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: Bush on the lack of WMDs-
|
|