George Bush Lied?

[VinceZeb]

source: Of course, the Boortzinator. http://www.boortz.com/

GEORGE BUSH LIED?
This is the current favorite of the left. The word is out. Keep repeating the idea that George Bush intentionally lied to the American people in order to get them to support a war to 86 Saddam Hussein.

You do know the definition of a lie, don’t you? A lie is a statement made with knowledge, at the time the statement was made, that it was not true. The key here is that you had to know the statement to be untrue at the time you made it in order for that statement to be categorized as a lie. If, for instance, If I told you last week that Katherine Hepburn was going to be a guest on my show this Wednesday, that statement would not have been a lie. I did not know, at the time I made that statement, that Katherine Hepburn would be taking the eternal celestial dirt nap by this Wednesday.

In order to reinforce my point, let me give you some examples of actual lies.

“I didn’t have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” Sorry, Monica doesn’t appear to be skilled enough to induce long-term memory loss in the objects of her oral affections. That statement was known to be true to the utterer at the time of the utterance. A lie.

“I don’t have those Rose Law Firm billing records.” Yeah, right. Then those records turn up in her office with her fingerprints and handwriting all over them. A deliberate lie, known to be untrue when said.

Lesson over.

[Sethomas]

Well, had he not lied by this understanding of the term, then his error paints him as stupid beyond previous estimations. I think the right is better off saying that he lied.

[Zero Signal]

In a word, no.

Bush specifically stated that he had proof of Iraq's WMD, even going so far as to allude to knowing exactly where they were. Not to mention the fact that much of the data was plagarized from a highly inaccurate student paper. Way to go, morons.

Well, where are they? Can you answer that? Bush certainly cannot.

The CIA and the FBI (and other agencies) have cast doubt of Iraq's supposed WMDs, but does Bush listen? No. Because that would not have given him a precept (as far fetched as it was) for engaging in the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation (whose government the US set up in the first place).

[Mockery]

Yes, Vinth, way to go.

Let's compare Bill Clinton lying about getting his cock sucked to George Bush's lying to get support for a war which cost the lives of many people. :rolleyes

Brilliant.

[Miss Modular]

This is worth repeating. (http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=4357)

[VinceZeb]

A lie is a lie. People need to learn what the definition of words are.

[pjalne]

Who in this thread has displayed a lack of understanding of the definition of the word 'lie'?

[Zero Signal]

A lie is a lie. People need to learn what the definition of words are.
People like you, Vinth?

lie.

1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive
1 b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives

Bush deceived the American people, therefore, by definition, he lied. How much more simple does it have to get for you?

Who in this thread has displayed a lack of understanding of the definition of the word 'lie'?

Just Vinth so far.

[AChimp]

A lie is a lie. People need to learn what the definition of words are

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

LIKE, PERHAPS YOU, VINTH?

Degenerate, denigrate, equity, equality, and the list goes on and on.

[VinceZeb]

Prove Bush decieved the american people.... oh wait, you cant!

That is not a lie.

Monica had a jizz stained dress and Clinton stood up there and lied through his teeth. He was impeached, if you recall recent history. THAT IS A LIE.

The Hildabeast said she had no knowledge of certain documents, and then the documents appeared with her markings all over them in her private quarters. THAT IS A LIE.

Now, if there is proof that bush knew Iraq never had WMD, which would be impossible since everyone agreed he had them, then that would be A LIE.

Now, if you can't comprehend this, maybe you need to step away from this board and enroll in your local community college's remedial English program.

[Zero Signal]

Prove Bush decieved the american people.... oh wait, you cant!

Sure, I can.

WHERE ARE THE WMDs?

[Mockery]

Oh you didn't hear? They moved them over to North Korea. We're gonna go bomb the shit out of them next.

[VinceZeb]

Zero, you would have gave the UN till december to find something, but as soon as the US doesnt find anything, you whine.

I guess by that standard, Charlie Manson should be released becuase there is no evidence he actually killed anyone, huh?

[Zero Signal]

Oh you didn't hear? They moved them over to North Korea. We're gonna go bomb the shit out of them next.
No, no, no. They are in Iran, silly boy.

Or was it Syria.

Wait.

Sudan?

Hmmm.

:rolleyes

[VinceZeb]

Zero, when we find them... I expect you to get a plane ticket to St. Louis so you can get on your knees and kiss my ass.

[Mockery]

No, no, no. They are in Iran, silly boy.

Or was it Syria.

Wait.

Sudan?

Hmmm.

:rolleyes

Shit. I guess we'll have to bomb all them fuckers until we do find somethin!

:spittoon

[Mockery]

Zero, when we find them... I expect you to get a plane ticket to St. Louis so you can get on your knees and kiss my ass.

You mean when we "plant" them and then "find" them, right?

[Zero Signal]

Zero, you would have gave the UN till december to find something, but as soon as the US doesnt find anything, you whine.
Bush said that he KNEW that Iraq had WMDs, so why did he not find any when he invaded?

If the invasion was to specifially remove Saddam Hussein for his crimes against the Iraqi people, then I would have had NO PROBLEM with it. However, now that sets up a precident. There are plenty of other dictators like Hussein around the world; are we going to depose them, too. Most of them we probably put in power, as well. :rolleyes

Bush decided to play musical chairs when there were no WMDs to be found.

Oh, we are there to liberate the Iraqi people (and their oil) instead. Yeah, that is why. Sure.

[Zero Signal]

Zero, when we find them... I expect you to get a plane ticket to St. Louis so you can get on your knees and kiss my ass.
LOL :lol

Bush said he already knew where they were! Both the FBI and the CIA have said that they doubt any of what the President says about Iraq's state of WMDs.

OMG! A few days ago we found a centrifuge that could be used for refining uranium! What they do NOT tell you is that you need thousands of them to even create a minute amount of weapons-grade uranium. We found one. haha. You are such a sheep, Vinth.

I will not be kissing your ass or any other part of you. Especially not after the Bush administration seems to have already had its way with you.

[pjalne]

I'm just going to say what everyone else has been saying. It's my experience that you have to at least make a point seven or eight times before Vince acknowledges its presence and maybe stops calling people Jewish or women instead of responding to the arguments made against his case. All right, here goes again:

Bush said he knew where the weapons are, and it's painfully obvious that he didn't. He said somehing that was not true. That is the definition of a lie.

Who wants to go next?

[Mockery]

I'll go next, but I'll do it in pink, since we know Vinth is all about the pink.

Bush said he knew where the weapons are, and it's painfully obvious that he didn't. He said somehing that was not true. That is the definition of a lie.

[Zero Signal]

Let me also elaborate more on the uranium-enriching centrifuges.
The US says it found a centrifuge used for processing nuclear fuel for reactors and warheads. It was found buried under a rose bush (lol). A complete gas centrifuge facility here in the United States covers approximately 750 acres; not something that you can hide easily.

[Jeanette X]

A lie is a lie. People need to learn what the definition of words are.
Christ, Clinton has been out of office for three fucking years! His affair not in any way relevant to what Bush is currently doing!

[Preechr]

I know for a fact that right now, in the state of California, there is a swimming pool completely filled with improperly PH balanced water. I've narrowed the location down to just that one state, which is about the same size of Iraq, and the amount of material my statement concerns is roughly the same amount of biological and chemical weapons agents we are looking for in Iraq.

The comparison is flawed, I know. People don't generally bury their swimming pools or take other great pains to hide them. It's flawed in your favor, then...

Our spy technology is great and all, but don't you think it's a bit silly to assume that we could possibly have KNOWN EXACTLY where this stuff was hidden? The only people that know this for a fact are the folks that hid it. It will take time to find the WMD material. This time will be shortened considerably when some of those people start to come forward.

Oh, wait... that's already happening... This one scientist will most likely encourage a few more to come forward.

I guess it's just a matter of waiting now... I'm guessing you guys are 100% sure that no WMDs will be found then? Should we call Mr. Bremer and let him know? I'm sure he'd welcome the opportunity to re-assign the troops we're using to scour Iraq looking for ficticious hidden weapons to something more productive, like policing or getting rid of the Iranians and Syrians that are shooting at our other troops...

...or maybe you guys are just running off at the mouth? I guess we'll just have to wait and see how forthcoming you are with your sincere apologies once very real WMDs start to be unearthed. I'll be sure to check back over here when that day comes.

[Preechr]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iraq.htm

[Zero Signal]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how forthcoming you are with your sincere apologies once very real WMDs start to be unearthed. I'll be sure to check back over here when that day comes.
:rolleyes

What apologies are there to be had? If WMDs are found 6 months from now, or even 6 years from now, it does not mean I owe ANYONE an apology for ANYTHING.

You and Vinth are so blatantly missing a CRITICAL POINT. One that has been statement numerous times in this thread alone.

BUSH SAID HE HAD PROOF THAT IRAQ HAD WMDs AND SAID HE PRETTY MUCH KNEW WHERE THEY WERE BEING HIDDEN, BEFORE THE INVASION EVEN STARTED.

Is that a little more clear to you now?

With the prerequisite killing is done, NOW he is looking for the WMDs. I thought he already knew that they had them and where they were? :rolleyes

Unless he lied.

[Helm]

Vince, do us all a favour and go away. Go to a land far far away from here where idiots are considered sacred and never harmed you will like it there and we will like you there and not here.

[Mockery]

And then we'll bomb that land too because by then we'll be 100% absolutely without a doubt in our minds positive that we know exactly where the WMD's are.

[Zhukov]

"May retain stockpile of chemical weapon..."

"may retain related components and software. "

"May retain stockpile of biological weapon "

"May retain biological weapon sprayers for Mirage F-1 aircraft. "

"May retain mobile production facility with capacity to produce "dry" biological agents "

"May possess smallpox virus..."

"Believed to possess sufficient precursor chemicals..."

"May retain several al-Hussein (modified Scud-B) missiles..."

"May retain components for dozens of Scud-B and al-Hussein missiles..."

"May possess several hundred tons of propellant for Scud missiles."

"could resume production of al-Hussein missiles"

"could develop 3,000km-range missiles... "

"could develop ICBM within 15 years."

"Reportedly converting L-29 jet trainers to unmanned aerial vehicles "

"May possess spraying equipment for BW dissemination by helicopter"



I'm not arguing the existancce of WMD, but are the words "May" "Could" "Believed to" and "Reportedly" strong enough to justify thousands of deaths? They don't sound very definate to me.

[Preechr]

...HE PRETTY MUCH KNEW WHERE THEY WERE BEING HIDDEN, BEFORE THE INVASION EVEN STARTED.


Pretty much? Yep. There are and were in Iraq. That "pretty much" narrows it down. Are you saying you would have supported the war IF Bush would have drawn you a map to the exact locations of some WMDs and shown you some pictures of Saddam Hussein posing next to a bunch of barrels clearly marked "VX" and "Anthrax Spores?" How long do you think might be a sufficient amount of time to find the "smoking gun" now that no one is actively moving them around and actively deceiving those that would look for clues?

As for not owing anyone any apologies... are you not one of those people bitching about any American activity in Iraq on the basis that Bush knowingly LIED to the world? You are telling me that we should all just ignore you? That once you are proven wrong on this, you'll be perfectly fine just moving on to the next thing you wish to raise hell about? We shouldn't even consider your opinion as possibly truthful or even well-considered?

I don't know you, as I am new here. That's why I'm asking these questions. If you have established a reputation as a partisan that will say ANYTHING to serve some anti-this or that agenda, then I'm sorry for engaging you at all. Generally speaking, failing to make accurate predictions, especially one as risky as predicting that the President of the US blatantly LIED to the world just so he could get his rocks off playing General, just because you can't see through the walls of your own colon would count against your credibility. If you have none anyway, I guess no apology would be necessary after all...

[AChimp]

Regarding spy technology:

What happened to those satellites that can apparently take a picture of a license plate? They can't find someone digging a 750 acre hole in the desert?

The centrifuge that they found is a load of shit for evidence, and probably just left over from years and years and years ago. And the plans! Oh ho! Well, since when are plans considered WMD themselves? In that case, you better bomb my house, because I drew up some plans to make a spaceship that can blow up the Earth.

[Spasmolytic]

fine he didn't lie... he grossly MISLEAD (lied)

we have sattelites that can track people and see what time it says on their watch yet we can't keep an eye on some WMD that we "know" Iraq has?

perhaps that's why Colin Powell said "I'm not reading this. This is bullshit" when he was presented w/ some questionable evidence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html

lolzers certainly George W. Bush couldn't... LIE?!

[Preechr]

I have similar plans. Is your space ship purple? Mine is...

Don't get me wrong. I wish they'd get a move on myself. I personally don't believe that Saddam Hussein spent Billions of Dollars and employed thousands of people over decades to research and develop banned weapons systems without ever producing anything.

Oh wait... he did... and he has used them. Then the UN told him to stop, and to prove that he'd destroyed any remaining capability that he might still have to develop and use these things again, and he refused to do that for a long, long time...

Y'know... there are a lot of credible ways to decry the Bush plan for Iraq... simply calling the man a liar is not one of them... though it is quite cute. You guys should go pull his hair, too. Tell Condi he has cooties while your at it...

Here's a good theory: Maybe Saddam truly believed world opinion would hold the US back. Maybe he really destroyed his weapons, but was scared to say so for fear of what Iran might do with that information. His stubborn evasiveness could have been strategic, as we know Iran is developing its own WMDs.

You might make that boat float, where jumping up and down hollering "He Lied! He Lied!" just seems like juvenile Bush-hate.

As for satellites, Chimp, I guess we all know there has to be classified imagery, just like Saddam was well aware we had that capability. If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.

Sure, you could spot a huge hole in the desert, or some sort of maze being constructed in the foundation of a new "palace," but Saddam wasn't just building weapons facilities, and we had no way to verify the purpose of whatever projects he had going on at any time. Surely you can see that a determined Saddam could do pretty much whatever he wished, as long as he was careful?

[AChimp]

If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.
So then why did we get to watch Rumsfeld and Powell get up in front of reporters and start pointing out fuzzy gray shapes on the satellite photos and say, "This here is a chemical plant" and, "This truck has missile parts, and this is what it looks like after we blew it up" and so on?

Can they see inside the building? Can they see inside the truck? According to your own admission, no they can't, so why were they drawing conclusions so quickly? There are many examples of where they discovered that the trucks weren't carrying what they thought when they surveyed the wreakage.

So then what was the purpose of making all these claims about the satellite photos? I just know Vinth is going to come in here and say, "Well, they were knowing what they thought at the time in was the trucks! So lying they weren't! Jew!"

If they weren't lying, then they were grossly ignorant or trying to mislead the public. Surely you can see that a determined Bush could do pretty much whatever he wished, as long as his staff was clever?

Except they're not nearly as clever as Saddam if a) we still haven't found him and b) all these inconsistencies are emerging now.

[Zhukov]

As for satellites, Chimp, I guess we all know there has to be classified imagery, just like Saddam was well aware we had that capability. If you see a truck come out of a building, drive across the desert into another building, can you tell me what was in it? Satellites are only useful when those you are watching don't know about them.


They could tell when the Russians were making nukes. Apparantly enriching uranium and what not gives off an enourmous amount of heat, and the satellites had heat vision or something... I don't know, I am just remembering things here.

[kahljorn]

even if he didn't have them he still refused the UN sanction(i sound so smart, but i prolly spelled that wrong) to search for them.

[GAsux]

It's a strange thing to ponder really. Since no WMD have been found, it would appear to be a safe assumption that they don't exist. But it doesn't make sense.

Saddam has spent decades struggling to retain his stranglehold on power. He clearly demonstrated that he didn't care who he had to kill to maintain his grip. Perhaps I could rationalize that in 1998 he didn't believe that Clinton was committed enough to seriously jeopardize his regime so he felt comfortable in pushing the envelope.

But under the Bush administration, particularly in the face of obvious military mobilization, surely Saddam didn't intend to call Bush's bluff did he? If there are not now and never were any WMDs, why would he do this? Why would he risk what would certainly been the end of his reign, and quite possibly his life in an effort to continue to thumb his nose at the U.N.?

I guess that will always sort of baffle me. I suppose one could try to make the case that HE did try, and that the U.N. and U.S. stiffled him, placing him in a no win stituation, but I don't think that's the case. He played the hide and seek shells game for over a decade. Why would he do all that if he truly had nothing to hide? It's so irrational.

I'm certainly not saying that this is proof that weapons DO exist, or did. Just that it seems like a curious move on Saddams part for the last half a decade at least to play this suicidal game if there was nothing to hide in the first place.

[Preechr]

Maybe Saddam felt that the danger of letting his next door neighbor (who would LOVE to kill him) know he was now effectively defenseless was greater than the danger posed by American and UN pressure to do just that. Iran could have exerted pressure to that end during the US troop deployment, just to further muddy the waters, or maybe Saddam just dropped the ball at crunch time. Maybe he should have come clean with Bush & Co... had he actually destroyed the weapons...

[kahljorn]

Sometimes I think he did it all on purpose so America would invade and fuck shit up, find no WMD's and be seen as tyranical. It would be a nice blow in it's own form. He is on the end of his life, and he's obviously not the stupidest creature out there.

[Preechr]

So then why did we get to watch Rumsfeld and Powell get up in front of reporters and start pointing out fuzzy gray shapes on the satellite photos and say, "This here is a chemical plant" and, "This truck has missile parts, and this is what it looks like after we blew it up" and so on?

Can they see inside the building? Can they see inside the truck? According to your own admission, no they can't, so why were they drawing conclusions so quickly? There are many examples of where they discovered that the trucks weren't carrying what they thought when they surveyed the wreakage.

They have a system. Of course they wouldn't start blowing shit up without some sort of verification. If other sources placed a big barrel of Nerve Agent in a particular warehouse at a particular time, then a satellite photo showed a Saddam twin struggling to load a barrel marked "VX" onto a truck, they'd blow up the truck... possibly even without the labeling...

Satellite imagery is not our only tool for spying. It's just one of the sexier ones we use. Most of our information still comes from old-fashioned, on-the-ground bribing people. Most of the middle east is pretty much immune to our efforts to do that. Americans will typically NOT live like even Iraqis do for the time it takes to successfully breach them. To be fully trusted in an Arab theocratic society, you have to be vouched for since birth or even longer. You can't fake that, and we don't have the will to imbed agents that deeply.

That's one of the many reasons that we are such good friends with Israel, BTW. That have that kind of motivation.

[Protoclown]

Riddle me this, Vince...if Saddam had WMDs, why in the FUCK didn't he use them on us when we invaded his country? Seems highly illogical to me. Sure, it's possible he could have been that stupid, but damn, when you move away to your idiot utopia and we come and bomb you because we think you have WMDs, aren't you at least going to use whatever you have available to defend yourself?

Oh, and just to reiterate for Vince's benefit:

Bush said he knew where the weapons are, and it's painfully obvious that he didn't. He said somehing that was not true. That is the definition of a lie.

[FS]

Can a satellite really identify a license plate from a top-down view, or was that just a figure of speech? :(

Cute post, Vince. I like how Boortz doesn't really bother to explain exactly why Bush's words aren't a lie, but instead focuses on a nice "look over there" tactic with references to Clinton.

Bush and most of his administration told the American people and the world that they were sure of the existence of WMD in Iraq and the imminent danger of them. They knew that they were not sure of this. Ergo, they lied. Simple as that. Nuff said. Bar none.

[GAsux]

Proto,
I totally see where you're coming from and I think it's a valid argument. But again, if he DIDN'T have them, isn't just as absurd to think that he would have played his cards the way he has all these years? It just doesn't make sense and I don't care how crazy a person tries to protray Saddam, he has historically shown that his hold on power in Iraq has always been his utmost concern.

It just doesn't make any sense to me why he would play the game if he had nothing to hide in the first place. Why try so hard to stifle inspections early on. Why kick inspectors out and blatantly irk the international community in 1998. Why continue to play hard to get if all along there was nothing to hide anyway?

It just doesn't add up. Regardless I don't suppose either point of view (he didn't give in so he must have been hiding something or he didn't use them so he must not have ever had them) is anything more than speculative, but it makes for interesting discussion.

[FS]

That's true. For someone who comes across as calculating as Hussein, you'd think there's hidden motives to his behavior if he really didn't have WMD anymore. Perhaps it was a matter of megalomania, Saddam believing himself king of the world because he'd been able to get away with his behavior for so long. Believing the public outrage with the war on Iraq would help, or even save him.

Or, perhaps he really did have WMDs and was moving/selling them. Perhaps things didn't work out as he planned, he waited too long with allowing inspectors back in and decided to let things just run its course.

The thing that irks me though, is that the Bush administration was far from sure of the threat of Iraq - rather the opposite. Even finding WMDs now can't change that.

[The One and Only...]

Every politician lies and takes part in shady deals: It's just some are smart (or lucky) enough not to get caught!

[Preechr]

Not to butt in for Vince, but I think we've been dancing all over your answer, Proto... This wouldn't be the first place it has been suggested that the weapons, if they are still in Iraq, were hidden very well. Coalition psy-ops prior to the actual fighting began were very explicit in that use of those weapons by Iraqi forces would constitute war crimes. I think it's pretty obvious that the majority opinion among the Iraqi military set was that defeat was inevitable, so i htink had Saddam wanted to use WMD capabilities, he would've had to go dig them up himself.

And yes, FS. The satellites aren't right over their target. With enough viewpoints, it's possible to see all sides of any event. It is actually possible to see into a building as well, but the limitations are still easily exploited.

As for: "They knew that they were not sure of this." what makes you so sure? Why would Saddam have spent so much money, time and resources for a bluff? I'm 99% sure that WMDs will eventually be found... and not just more of this cheap ass aluminum tube/blueprint crap. One thing is for sure: at the end of the Gulf War, he definitely had them and was required by the UN to prove that he was eliminating his stocks and destroying his capability to produce more. He never did that.

There are very good arguments, however, against that alone being cause for war. The disarmament/sanctions game is not new. Hitler built a world-class military under similar restrictions, and the argument can be made that the game made him stronger and more determined to start WWII. Rather than turn a simple situation into a philosphical argument that is essentially unwinnable, the Bush team opted to go for the WMD angle and capitalize on the enduring 9/11 sentiment.

I say they played their part well, and the results are proving that. Sure, your feelings a hurt a bit... but I'm thinking there's not anything short of abysmal failure by whatever effort America had put forth that would have pleased you guys.

Go ahead and admit it. When the "He Lied! He Lied!" tactic fails you, either for lack of public interest or, more likely, the eventual unearthing of that smoking gun, you will Move On to the next tactic, completely ignoring that you have once again lost your credibility, just like you did when the Iraqi people didn't smash America on the gates of Bagdhad or when America didn't bomb Iraq back into the Stone Age.

It's Ok to be partisan. God loves you all just as much as any of the rest of us. Go ahead and focus on getting John Kerry or Howard Dean into the White House next year. A bit of advice, though... if things keep going as they are right now, you might want to start looking for a non-Iraqi tactic to exploit relentlessly. This ceaseless Bush-bashing is just making ya'll look childish as hell...

[VinceZeb]

Proto, he could have held back from using them because that would only make our fight just and cause and no one could deny it. I mean, what would get him more support in the long run: Using WMD and offing 10,000 of our troops, or putting the seeds of doubt into anti-bush hungry folks like yourself?

[GAsux]

I find it ironic that you like to throw around terms like "partisan" to everyone who is not fond of the current administration. I'll have to double check my dictionary because perhaps I'm a little unclear as to the meaning of the word. If you are using "partisan" as a deragautory term, wouldn't one who incessantly defends the administration be just as guilty of that very same partisanship?

And I also suppose that anyone who thinks perhaps military intervention in Iraq was unjust must also obviously be completely anti-Bush. I suppose it makes your fantasy a little more entertaining. That way you can blow off any rational arguments they make as some kind of blind, irrational hate. Those silly partisans.

[Preechr]

You don't know whether I would criticize Bush on any other issue because I've not really addressed any other topics. I didn't vote for the guy last time, and I won't next time... though that's beside the point.

I'm telling you that because you obviously don't know it, and I'm wanting to put your fears to rest... I'd also like to point out that my use of the word partisan twice may be redundant, but it's accurate. I'd challenge you to make the same kind of distinction I just did.

The highlight of the Bush administration so far has been the handling of Iraq. His response to 9/11 won't be remembered, as it was sorta irrelevant. Attempts to steal his thunder in Iraq will continue to be more and more fruitless, and the latest futile, pathetic attacks ("He Lied!") are a sure sign of an anti-Bush zealot. I stand by my characterization.

...and do look up "partisan." It's a great word to throw around at parties.

[GAsux]

Yeah thanks for easing my fears about you because I was really internet worried. I guess.

So let me ask you this. Do you also so easily dismiss those within the intelligence community who have said in essence the same thing, although perhaps in a slightly less slanderous way? It's one thing to blow off a message board regular who just doens't like the "man". But what about those within the administration who have made the very same assertions?

Are the just childish partisan blowhards too? Do you suppose Dubya's assessment of the situation is more accurate than that of uber geeks and spooks, many of whom have spent their entire lives studying the region?

There are an awful lot of folks at State and the intel agencies begging to differ with the presidents assessment. I would venture to assert that many of these folks are educated, expereinced people who have much more at stake than does the average message boarder. Why would they risk their entire careers to suggest that perhaps the administrations handling of the situation is less than ideal?

[Zero Signal]

For Vinth and Preechr, the ends justify the means. Like the Inquisition or the Holocaust. :rolleyes

WMDs or no WMDs. Lies and deception or not.

If curing AIDS meant killing every single homosexual on the planet, Vinth would be first in line to beginning the slaughter.

[GAsux]

Well that's just it. What exactly is the ENDS? If the goal is to find and destroy WMD, that goal has not been accomplished. Is the threat of terrorists gaining access to whatever WMDs there may have been any LESS now that Saddam is gone? What if they were in fact moved to Syria?

I think that you will find agreement amongst many ME analysts, even those who SUPPORTED the war, that they are of the impression that a strong, overly visible U.S. presence in Iraq will not remain stable long. Each day that passes creates more and more resentment.

It's my opinion, of course, but I think its the process we're now in that demonstrates the shortcomings of unilateral action. Sure we could fight the war on our own. But rebuilding is an entirely different set of circumstances. And as it stands, even if five or ten years from now we're successful, we'll have still stirred a great deal of Arab resentment. At least under the GUISE of multinationalism it becomes more difficult to accuse the U.S of being an occupier. As it stands now, we're forced to bear the brunt of the guilt.

And while it's all fun and good to sit here and debate it, none of us are paying the price. The people who are really suffering for the stagnation in policy here are the kids on the ground trying to hold on to whatever stability they can. Those guys are being tasked with an almost impossible mission, and I am very confident that there will be no let up in the number of suicide bombings, sniper attacks, and ambushes no matter how many Operation Scorpions we have. The more we invade Iraqi homes under the auspices of peace keeping, the more they will resent us.

I was not necessarily oppossed to military intervention in Iraq. I suppose I'm an optomist. I still believe that although none have been found to this point, WMDs do or at least did exist. I can prove it no more than the nay sayers can disprove it so it's really a moot point. But I am not at all fond of the direction the post war efforts have headed. There has already been an unprecedented level of dissension within the administration, and I think it will only get worse as this drags out.

Great, we've kicked their ass. Now what?

[Spasmolytic]

Can a satellite really identify a license plate from a top-down view, or was that just a figure of speech? :(
satellites don't hover over a particular location... they orbit :)

that's how you get pictures from different angles

[Big Papa Goat]

Sure Bush lied, he said that he Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any complete information as to the whereabouts or existence of these weapons, but he led the American people to believe that he did. Clearly, even if there are WMD's in Iraq, George Bush did not have as good of intelligence about them as he claims, as he has not found them yet. I like what Vinth said about Clinton 'a lie is a lie' Well, its not exactly like a lie is in and of itself that bad, it is the effects that the lie has that determine the mischeif and evil of it. Clintons lie caused a lot of stupid people to get very upset. Bush's lie caused a lot of innocent people to get very dead.

[Protoclown]

Proto, he could have held back from using them because that would only make our fight just and cause and no one could deny it. I mean, what would get him more support in the long run: Using WMD and offing 10,000 of our troops, or putting the seeds of doubt into anti-bush hungry folks like yourself?

Gee, I guess his "plan" is working perfectly, considering that he's gotten his ass booted out of his leadership position, we are still running around all over his country, and he's running scared for his life. What a brilliant tactician! I'm sure he's cackling with glee and rubbing his hands together wickedly from within his cardboard box.

I do agree with the idea though that either way, whether he had the weapons or not, something doesn't add up with how he reacted. He either had them and failed to use them for reasons I can't even fathom, or he had gotten rid of them long ago and was simply being an ass for reasons that I also cannot fathom.

But the fact remains that Bush CLEARLY spoke too soon about the WMDs. Even if we DO find them now, it'll be a stroke of luck, not a matter of Bush, Powell, or anyone else having concrete intelligence on them beforehand.

We were deceived. And for those of you who don't realize that, I'd like to convince you to trade me a $20 bill for this shiny new nickel I have here that has a unique one-of-a-kind stain on it. A rare collector's item!

[mburbank]

" People need to learn what the definition of words are."
-Irony McClambake.

Coming from the person who has used wrongly words for which there are deffinitions of the the corrective ones aviable bar none, that's pretty iron clad, and speccuulous to boot.

[Zero Signal]

But Max, Vinth is applying for membership to Mensa! That must give him free license to use words in any way he wants because, as you know, he is "teh smarts".

May Vinth got a letter from Mensa begging him to join, like the Navy allegedly sent.

[mburbank]

Preecher's hooked on I-mock,
Preecher's hooked on I-mock,
Preecher's hooked on I-mock,


Tee hee.