TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Did the Bush administration deliberately mislead the public of Saddams WMD'S?
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 According to the Project For A New American Century the short list is: Iraq Iran North Korea But not in that order.

How about Syria and Turkey? They're probably next on the list.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Geez, are you really THAT naive?

no. i think you'd have to be naive to think that George Bush actually went into Iraq knowing there wasn't WMD's and try to get away with it without finding or producing any.

that naivete' just sounds more plausible to me. it sounds more plausible to a lot of people. actually i think you are the minority here.

seriously there is no "fine line" here between being wrong after the fact and lying about it before the fact.

quote:

The deception obviously benefitted the Bush administration, seeing as how they're still in power and not in jail for treason.

there can be only one event that you are reffering to here and thats the 2004 election. if i recall correctly we still didn't find WMD's.

...so, in effect, as it relates to your argument, corrolation does not imply causation.

...furthermore, as it relates to your "treason" assertion, unlike the 2004 election that "kept him in power" he has yet to be tried for treason (never will) the converse applies; causation does not imply corrolation.

i think you're are a very scared and confused person, that is really not that bright to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X How about Syria and Turkey? They're probably next on the list.

yeah, Billary is gonna nuke'em.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. i think you'd have to be naive to think that George Bush actually went into Iraq knowing there wasn't WMD's and try to get away with it without finding or producing any. that naivete' just sounds more plausible to me. it sounds more plausible to a lot of people. actually i think you are the minority here.

agree totally. all the evidence points to george W et al truly believing there were WMDs in iraq. sure, they sexed it up a lot etc, but it IS pretty naive to think the coalition of the willing went on and on (and on!) about WMDs if they didnt think he had them. coz theyre all looking like dickheads now!

the deception only benefits George Bush if we actually DID find WMD's.

the undeniable truth is we DIDN'T find WMD's.

to go any further with this thinking George Bush lied is absolutely insane and ludicrous and only points to the obtuseness of the Bush Derangement Crowd.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the deception only benefits George Bush if we actually DID find WMD's. the undeniable truth is we DIDN'T find WMD's. to go any further with this thinking George Bush lied is absolutely insane and ludicrous and only points to the obtuseness of the Bush Derangement Crowd.

He lies about everything else. What would make this any different?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no. i think you'd have to be naive to think that George Bush actually went into Iraq knowing there wasn't WMD's and try to get away with it without finding or producing any. that naivete' just sounds more plausible to me. it sounds more plausible to a lot of people. actually i think you are the minority here. seriously there is no "fine line" here between being wrong after the fact or lying about it before the fact. there can be only one event that you are reffering to here and thats the 2004 election. if i recall correctly we still didn't find WMD's. ...so, in effect, as it relates to your argument, corrolation does not imply causation. ...furthermore, as it relates to your "treason" assertion, unlike the 2004 election that "kept him in power" he has yet to be tried for treason (never will) the converse applies; causation does not imply corrolation. i think you're are a very scared and confused person, that is really not that bright to begin with.

lol

I think that they knew that they wouldn't find the WMD's but they were relying on a Nation of ignorant sheeple like yourself to not do or say anything about it. Nice work

And yeah, I am scared. I'm scared that idiotic, zombified pansies like yourslelf are going to be as complacent and compliant in the face of any real (and potentially upcoming) National crisis as you've been through all of the injustices that have occured within just the last several years alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X lol I think that they knew that they wouldn't find the WMD's but they were relying on a Nation of ignorant sheeple like yourself to not do or say anything about it. Nice work

right. everyone is wrong and you seem to have the inside poop on what the President was really thinking. he just crossed his fingers after all that was said prior to the war about WMD's and hoped for the best. like the President is all by himself there in the oval office pulling all the war strings.

i mean how f**king obtuse do you have to be to believe this little world you've created for yourself?

look dude, you are whats wrong with this country not me. k?

you create this fictional world. you live in it. and then react indignantly like you know better than everyone else when someone points out the obvious to you.

quote:

And yeah, I am scared. I'm scared that idiotic, zombified pansies like yourslelf are going to be as complacent and compliant in the face of any real (and potentially upcoming) National crisis as you've been through all of the injustices that have occured within just the last several years alone.

you obviously didn't grow up in the 80's

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X What would make this any different?

facts

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo right. everyone is wrong and you seem to have the inside poop on what the President was really thinking. he just crossed his fingers after all that was said prior to the war about WMD's and hoped for the best. like the President is all by himself there in the oval office pulling all the war strings. i mean how f**king obtuse do you have to be to believe this little world you've created for yourself? look dude, you are whats wrong with this country not me. k? you create this fictional world. you live in it. and then react indignantly like you know better than everyone else when someone points out the obvious to you. you obviously didn't grow up in the 80's

No, I'm just extremely curious and am also a rather voracious reader. I've known for years that Bush, Cheney and Rummy were pushing to get into Iraq even before 9/11, which was an event they simply used as another pretext for war. If you got your head out of your ass, turned off the boob tube and did a little research maybe you'd understand these things.

And I'm sorry, Q5 - but it's a gross overabundance of apathy and ignorance that is destroying our country. It's people like myself who are trying to change that, though. Which is pretty much the reason why I'm on this board in the first place, to help lift that veil of ignorance. And I know that noone likes to be called ignorant but if you didn't act as such I would never had to have said it.

The world is meant to be understood which is precisely the reason why I DON'T even read fiction anymore. Heck, I really don't even watch TV unless I'm at a friend's house and it's on and the only reason why I even do then is because I don't like to be rude.

Bush Sought �Way� To Invade Iraq?
Jan. 11, 2004(CBS)

A year ago, Paul O'Neill was fired from his job as George Bush's Treasury Secretary for disagreeing too many times with the president's policy on tax cuts.

Now, O'Neill - who is known for speaking his mind - talks for the first time about his two years inside the Bush administration. His story is the centerpiece of a new book being published this week about the way the Bush White House is run.

Entitled "The Price of Loyalty," the book by a former Wall Street Journal reporter draws on interviews with high-level officials who gave the author their personal accounts of meetings with the president, their notes and documents. [Simon and Schuster, the book's publisher, and CBSNews.com, are both units of Viacom.]

But the main source of the book was Paul O'Neill. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports. Paul O'Neill says he is going public because he thinks the Bush Administration has been too secretive about how decisions have been made.

Will this be seen as a �kiss-and-tell" book?

�I've come to believe that people will say damn near anything, so I'm sure somebody will say all of that and more,� says O�Neill, who was George Bush's top economic policy official.

In the book, O�Neill says that the president did not make decisions in a methodical way: there was no free-flow of ideas or open debate.

At cabinet meetings, he says the president was "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection," forcing top officials to act "on little more than hunches about what the president might think."

This is what O'Neill says happened at his first hour-long, one-on-one meeting with Mr. Bush: �I went in with a long list of things to talk about, and I thought to engage on and as the book says, I was surprised that it turned out me talking, and the president just listening � As I recall, it was mostly a monologue.�

He also says that President Bush was disengaged, at least on domestic issues, and that disturbed him. And he says that wasn't his experience when he worked as a top official under Presidents Nixon and Ford, or the way he ran things when he was chairman of Alcoa.

O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind � and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.

Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book � including several cabinet members.

O'Neill is the only one who spoke on the record, but Suskind says that someone high up in the administration � Donald Rumsfeld - warned O�Neill not to do this book.

Was it a warning, or a threat?

�I don't think so. I think it was the White House concerned,� says Suskind. �Understandably, because O'Neill has spent extraordinary amounts of time with the president. They said, �This could really be the one moment where things are revealed.�"Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.

�Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive,� says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. �You don�t get higher than that.�

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

�From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,� says O�Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

�From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,� says Suskind. �Day one, these things were laid and sealed.�

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying �Go find me a way to do this,�" says O�Neill. �For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.�

And that came up at this first meeting, says O�Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. �There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, �Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,�" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

�It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,� says Suskind. �On oil in Iraq.�

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

�The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said �X� during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing �Y,�� says Suskind. �Not just saying �Y,� but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election.�

The president had promised to cut taxes, and he did. Within six months of taking office, he pushed a trillion dollars worth of tax cuts through Congress.
But O'Neill thought it should have been the end. After 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan, the budget deficit was growing. So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts.

�Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,� says Suskind. �He says, �You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.� � O'Neill is speechless.�

�It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,� says O�Neill. �And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.�

Did he think it was irresponsible? �Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,� says O�Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O�Neill. Meanwhile, the White House was losing patience with O'Neill. He was becoming known for a series of off-the-cuff remarks his critics called gaffes. One of them sent the dollar into a nosedive and required major damage control.

Twice during stock market meltdowns, O'Neill was not available to the president: He was out of the country - one time on a trip to Africa with the Irish rock star Bono.

�Africa made an enormous splash. It was like a road show,� says Suskind. �He comes back and the president says to him at a meeting, �You know, you're getting quite a cult following.� And it clearly was not a joke. And it was not said in jest.�

Suskind writes that the relationship grew tenser and that the president even took a jab at O'Neill in public, at an economic forum in Texas.

The two men were never close. And O'Neill was not amused when Mr. Bush began calling him "The Big O." He thought the president's habit of giving people nicknames was a form of bullying. Everything came to a head for O'Neill at a November 2002 meeting at the White House of the economic team.

�It's a huge meeting. You got Dick Cheney from the, you know, secure location on the video. The President is there,� says Suskind, who was given a nearly verbatim transcript by someone who attended the meeting.

He says everyone expected Mr. Bush to rubber stamp the plan under discussion: a big new tax cut. But, according to Suskind, the president was perhaps having second thoughts about cutting taxes again, and was uncharacteristically engaged.

�He asks, �Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again,�� says Suskind.

�He says, �Didn�t we already, why are we doing it again?� Now, his advisers, they say, �Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.� And the president kind of goes, �OK.� That's their response. And then, he comes back to it again. �Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, �You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?�"

But according to the transcript, White House political advisor Karl Rove jumped in.

�Karl Rove is saying to the president, a kind of mantra. �Stick to principle. Stick to principle.� He says it over and over again,� says Suskind. �Don�t waver.�

In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.

With the deficit now climbing towards $400 billion, O'Neill maintains he was in the right.

But look at the economy today.

�Yes, well, in the last quarter the growth rate was 8.2 percent. It was terrific,� says O�Neill. �I think the tax cut made a difference. But without the tax cut, we would have had 6 percent real growth, and the prospect of dealing with transformation of Social Security and fundamentally fixing the tax system. And to me, those were compelling competitors for, against more tax cuts.� While in the book O'Neill comes off as constantly appalled at Mr. Bush, he was surprised when Stahl told him she found his portrait of the president unflattering.

�Hmmm, you really think so,� asks O�Neill, who says he isn�t joking. �Well, I�ll be darned.�

�You're giving me the impression that you're just going to be stunned if they attack you for this book,� says Stahl to O�Neill. �And they're going to say, I predict, you know, it's sour grapes. He's getting back because he was fired.�
�I will be really disappointed if they react that way because I think they'll be hard put to,� says O�Neill.

Is he prepared for it?

�Well, I don't think I need to be because I can't imagine that I'm going to be attacked for telling the truth,� says O�Neill. �Why would I be attacked for telling the truth?�

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was asked about the book on Friday and said "The president is someone that leads and acts decisively on our biggest priorities and that is exactly what he'll continue to do."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain592330.shtml

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo facts

oh-kayyy...

For Bush, Facts Are Malleable
Presidential Tradition Of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 22, 2002; Page A01

President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States."

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time."

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago.

As Bush leads the nation toward a confrontation with Iraq and his party into battle in midterm elections, his rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Statements on subjects ranging from the economy to Iraq suggest that a president who won election underscoring Al Gore's knack for distortions and exaggerations has been guilty of a few himself.

Presidential embroidery is, of course, a hoary tradition. Ronald Reagan was known for his apocryphal story about liberating a concentration camp. Bill Clinton fibbed famously and under oath about his personal indiscretions to keep a step ahead of Whitewater prosecutors. Richard M. Nixon had his Watergate denials, and Lyndon B. Johnson was often accused of stretching the truth to put the best face on the Vietnam War. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, too, played with the truth during the Gary Powers and Bay of Pigs episodes.

"Everybody makes mistakes when they open their mouths and we forgive them," Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess said. Some of Bush's overstatements appear to be off-the-cuff mistakes. But, Hess said, "what worries me about some of these is they appear to be with foresight. This is about public policy in its grandest sense, about potential wars and who is our enemy, and a president has a special obligation to getting it right."

The White House, while acknowledging that on one occasion the president was "imprecise," said it stands by his words. "The president's statements are well documented and supported by the facts," Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer said. "We reject any allegation to the contrary."

In stop after stop across the country, Bush has cited an impressive statistic in his bid to get Congress to approve terrorism insurance legislation. "There's over $15 billion of construction projects which are on hold, which aren't going forward -- which means there's over 300,000 jobs that would be in place, or soon to be in place, that aren't in place," is how he put it last week in Michigan.

But these are not government estimates. The $15 billion figure comes from the Real Estate Roundtable, a trade group that is leading the fight for the legislation and whose members have much to gain. After pleas earlier this year from the White House for "hard evidence" to make its case for terrorism insurance, the roundtable got the information from an unscientific survey of members, who were asked to provide figures with no documentation.

The 300,000 jobs number, the White House said, was supplied by the carpenters' union. But a union official said the White House apparently "extrapolated" the number from a Transportation Department study of federal highway aid -- not private real estate -- that the union had previously cited.

The president has also taken some liberties as he argues for his version of homeland security legislation. He often suggests in stump speeches that the union covering customs workers is blocking the wearing of radiation detectors. "The leadership of that particular group of people said, 'No way; we need to have a collective bargaining session over whether or not our people should be made to wear these devices,' " he said in Michigan last week. "And that could take a long period of time."

The National Treasury Employees Union did indeed argue in January that the radiation devices should be voluntary, and it called for negotiations. But five days later, the Customs Service said it saw no need to negotiate and would begin to implement the policy, which it did. After a subsequent exchange between the union president and Customs Service commissioner, the union wrote in April that it "does not object" to mandatory wearing of the devices.

The Customs Service said the delay had less to do with the dispute than the fact that customs lacks enough devices (about 4,000 are on order). The White House and Customs Service said the dispute was settled in part because Bush had the authority to waive collective bargaining, although he did not exercise it.

On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need."

The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House said that Bush "was imprecise on this" and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA.

In the president's Oct. 7 speech to the nation from Cincinnati, he introduced several rationales for taking action against Iraq. Describing contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq, Bush cited "one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year." He asserted that "we have discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet" of unmanned aircraft and expressed worry about them "targeting the United States."

Bush also stated that in 1998, "information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue." He added, "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," an alliance that "could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

In each of these charges, Bush omitted qualifiers that make the accusations seem less convincing. In the case of the al Qaeda leader receiving medical treatment, U.S. intelligence officials acknowledged that the terrorist, Abu Musab Zarqawi, was no longer in Iraq and that there was no hard evidence Hussein's government knew he was there or had contact with him. On the matter of the aircraft, a CIA report this month suggested that the fleet was more of an "experiment" and "attempt" and labeled it a "serious threat to Iraq's neighbors and to international military forces in the region" -- but said nothing about it having sufficient range to threaten the United States.

Bush's statement about the Iraqi nuclear defector, implying such information was current in 1998, was a reference to Khidhir Hamza. But Hamza, though he spoke publicly about his information in 1998, retired from Iraq's nuclear program in 1991, fled to the Iraqi north in 1994 and left the country in 1995. Finally, Bush's statement that Iraq could attack "on any given day" with terrorist groups was at odds with congressional testimony by the CIA. The testimony, declassified after Bush's speech, rated the possibility as "low" that Hussein would initiate a chemical or biological weapons attack against the United States but might take the "extreme step" of assisting terrorists if provoked by a U.S. attack.

White House spokesmen said in response that it was "unrealistic" to assume Iraqi authorities did not know of Zarqawi's presence and that Iraq's unmanned aircraft could be launched from ships or trucks outside Iraq.

Some of the disputed Bush assertions are matters of perspective.

Bush often says, as he did Friday in Missouri, that "because of a quirk in the rules in the United States Senate, after a 10-year period, the tax-relief plan we passed goes away." There is a Senate rule that required a 60-vote majority for the tax cut, but the decision to let the cuts expire was based on pragmatic considerations. Proponents of the cut from the House and Senate -- both under GOP control at the time -- decided to have the tax cut expire after nine years to keep its price tag within the $1.35 trillion over 10 years that had been agreed between lawmakers and Bush.

Other times, the president's assertions simply outpace the facts. In New Hampshire earlier this month, he said his education legislation made "the biggest increase in education spending in a long, long time."

In fact, the 15.8 percent increase in Department of Education discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 (the figures the White House supplied when asked about Bush's statement) was below the 18.5 percent increase under Clinton the previous year -- and Bush had wanted a much smaller increase than Congress approved. Earlier this month, Republican moderates complained to Bush's budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., that the administration was not spending the full amount for education that Congress approved. Daniels said it was "nothing uncommon" and decried the "explosively larger education bill."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...61903-2002Oct21

quote:

President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a Joint Resolution authorizing the use of American military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation. Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war. That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking. http://hnn.us/articles/1506.html

Let's just pray that they don't execute another false-flag operation because then we'll see full-fledged martial law and we won't be able to do shit about ANYTHING!

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X No, I'm just extremely curious and am also a rather voracious reader. I've known for years that Bush, Cheney and Rummy were pushing to get into Iraq even before 9/11, which was an event they simply used as another pretext for war. If you got your head out of your ass, turned off the boob tube and did a little research maybe you'd understand these things.

i don't care if you're "curious". noone does. your "curiosity" is about as relevant to this discussion as the shoes you are wearing. and excuse me for saying that just because you can read doesn't make you more cognitively aware than the "sheeple". that kind of conceitedness is more dangerous than you realize.

what i do care about (very limited) and what carries more cred in my book is any rationale that anyone has as to the assertion that George Bush lied about non-existent WMD's. so far, my "curious" friend, you have come up with inuendo, creative editing and opinion pieces but no clear reason as to why hundreds of government and intelligence personel from around the world would claim and support evidence of alleged WMD before Bush was ever thought of being the President, yet the one man that tried to do something about it was the ONLY person in your opinion that risked everything to lie about it...and then not have the scruples enough to at least fabricate some! your answer to that was "just hope that we forget about it".

now, you'll have to forgive us "sheeple" when we question your omnipotent intellectual authority after we sift through some of the garbage you post here only to come up with your own analysis of "Bush just hoped we'd forget about it". ok, Mr. Curious?

quote:

And I'm sorry, Q5 - but it's a gross overabundance of apathy and ignorance that is destroying our country. It's people like myself who are trying to change that, though. Which is pretty much the reason why I'm on this board in the first place, to lift your shroud of ignorance. And I know that noone likes to be called ignorant but if you didn't act as such I would never have said it.

you're not here to change anything. you may honestly think that, but your'e looking for some personal validation as to why you think some of the things you do but noone else does. thats why you only listen to similar opinions and inuendo and you neglect dissenting ones that point out the obvious because it's the obvious that everybody else has a handle on, and the obvious does not invoke fear. fear is where you live, not everyone else.

quote:

And yeah, I was born in '74 so duhhhhh. (doesn't that prove it? lol)

i was born in '72. it's irrelavent either way, because you still don't understand that the 70's and 80's were a far more tumultuous time politically to grow up in. today we just have more voices to to add to the dinn of fear.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Sorry, but I had to get that out of my system.

you can tell when psychotics, the paranoid delusional and obsessive compulsives realize they may be wrong about their worldview...they change the subject.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you can tell when psychotics, the paranoid delusional and obsessive compulsives realize they may be wrong about their worldview...they change the subject.

Do you mean like you just did with another baseless ad hominem? lol

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Let's just pray that they don't execute another false-flag operation because then we'll see full-fledged martial law and we won't be able to do shit about ANYTHING!

They'll just blame the whistleblowers for everything. Remember no good deed goes unpunished.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X lol

laughing out loud is another defence mechanism psychotics, the paranoid delusional and obsessive compulsives use when confronted with uncomfortable situations.

you do it a lot.

sorry, i had to get that out of my system.

quote:

I think that they knew that they wouldn't find the WMD's but they were relying on a Nation of ignorant sheeple like yourself to not do or say anything about it.

back to the topic.

tell us some more about this statement Mr. Reads-a-lot. because this is at the very core of your pathetic argument for lying about WMD's. or pretty much anyone's argument for that matter for lying.

if you feel AT ALL uneasy about standing behind that, your own statement, then you might as well pack up your pathetic worldview and go live under a f**king bridge giving handjobs for crack.

i think the fringe-dwellers do more harm than good, by hijacking (valid) points of contention and annoying the crap out of everyone by merging it into their grand conspiracy mess(age). as Q5 said, there was nothing to gain by outright lying about WMDs, there's little doubt that those at the top were convinced of their existence. whether they lied to themselves is another question, but no rational politician would use WMDs as an excuse for invading a country if he didn't believe he would be vindicated afterwards by their discovery. that just doesn't make any sense.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo laughing out loud is another defence mechanism psychotics, the paranoid delusional and obsessive compulsives use when confronted with uncomfortable situations. you do it a lot. sorry, i had to get that out of my system. back to the topic. tell us some more about this statement Mr. Reads-a-lot. because this is at the very core of your pathetic argument for lying about WMD's. or pretty much anyone's argument for that matter for lying. if you feel AT ALL uneasy about standing behind that, your own statement, then you might as well pack up your pathetic worldview and go live under a f**king bridge giving handjobs for crack.

I have to get this straight..

Do you support the Bush Administration and its war in Iraq?

I'de call you crazy if you said yes. Please don't make me call you crazy. I was a Bush-toting Republican too, man, it hurts I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Do you support the Bush Administration and its war in Iraq?

yes

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes

lol wtf do you support exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer lol wtf do you support exactly?

i support doing whatever it takes to foster the moderate majority in the greater Middle East.

...and all the human good that can come from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i support doing whatever it takes to foster the moderate majority in the greater Middle East. ...and all the human good that can come from it.

I'm going to infer you mean invading Iraq..

Do you actually think invading Iraq has fostered a moderate majority? Look at the current situation. Has maderation won the upper-hand? NO. What moderate would stay in a country with so much lawlessness? Very few, that's how many. The moderates are gone my friend, to Jordan, Egypt, Europe, Syria, etc. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, smart smart people, have left Iraq because of the chaos. War does not foster human good, or moderation. War defends it. You can't say we're going to war for moderation or human good. The reality of the situation proves my point.

Do you know Saddam Hussein was more afraid of Islamists within his country than the US ever was? Yet, this was one of the excuses for the 2003 invasion. Do you know that Al-Qaida is stronger, not weaker than before 2001?

Do you have an understanding of national sovereignty? Without respect for sovereignty, our civilized world goes back to the stone age. Iraq violated no sovereignty in 2003, so why does the US have an excuse to do so itself? The US can't just go into any country it wants based on trumped up charges. Afghanistan under the Taliban supported Al-Qaida, which attacked the US. That invasion is justified under the violation of sovereignty of the US by Al-Qaida, and by supporting AQ, the Taliban.

Why hasn't the US invaded North Korea for WMDs which the North Koreans proved by testing a nuclear device successfully?

I ask you to not look at the senario through the one-sided view of a staunch conservative or liberal. Just look at the facts, the definitions, and see that the Bush Administration has betrayed the trust of the world, country, and ESPECIALLY conservatives and Republicans such as ourselves. I'm proud of my views, but I don't let them blind me to the truth of reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm proud of my views, but I don't let them blind me to the truth of reality.

when i say moderate i mean peaceful Iraqis. there are moderate Iraqis still in Iraq. they're helping us every day.

no human being should like whats going right now. no human being should have accepted what went on before with Saddam. doesn't mean for one second we should let it go on because our selfish Conservative principles got in the way and the more courageous ones take a back seat.

i know all about Saddam. he and his progeny needed to go, but Saddam was a big part of a larger picture. that picture is coming together. i know not fast enough for you to feel comfortable with while people hurl insults at your Conservative ideaology and tear away at what you, Krypton, thinks is a more right way of life, but those people didn't have any respect for you or me in the first place and sure as hell didn't give ANY respect due the sacrifices free men made while preserving those priciples for other free men.

i'm not stupid. i know the Greater Middle East will never have an American style democracy. but i know what peaceful people need in order to prosper in a country with Iraq's potential. peaceful Arabs live all over Arabia.this is nothing new. the extremism is new. the extermism or fascism whatever is new and peaceful, moderate Arabs and Muslims know it can't stay and it's going to take an American power to keep it away. maybe that's because we are there but that doesn't make the extremism less fraudulent in the eyes of peaceful Arabs who don't want us to leave.

our "trust around the world" means little if we can't we uphold the core values of what brought us the greatest democracies the world has ever known from the barrel of our guns.

i'm not sure you know what realities are happening right now while we help the children of Iraq prepare for a better future. i see a different reality than you do i guess. maybe a more optimistic one, who knows. doesn't make me insane or psychotic or crazy if thats what you were trying to imply.

yeah. thats why it's gonna hurt when you see Iraq succeed. and when Iraq succeeds then we've got something very special.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.