Who Lied???

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am amazed at the list of Bush 'lies' that are 'too old and too numerous'!
Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons. He used them. On this own people and against Iran and Kuwait. What more evidence to we need than the fact that he had them and used them???
The entire United Nations Security Counsel voted unanimously for Resolution 1441 which, among other things, stated that Saddam had those weapons. They all believed it, were the Euro-weenies lying too? Or is that just a charge that the bed-wetting, Kool-Aide drinking Liberals use against George W. Bush?
Furthermore, Saddam built a nuclear reactor. The Israeli's blew it up, but he built one. Think about what a lunatic dictator who lives on top of one of the world's largest oil reserves might do with a nuke...do you think it was to generate cheap electricity? He built it to produce nuclear bombs. Period.

The only man on the planet with the stones to deal with this problem is George W. Bush.
 
"were the Euro-weenies lying too? Or is that just a charge that the bed-wetting, Kool-Aide drinking Liberals use against George W. Bush?

Whatever your point was, it was trumped by all those nice remarks. I liked the post by the Moderator I saw last night. I hoped this forum would be different. Hopefully he won't mind if i post it here:


While we are considering other changes, one clarification is now in force: no more pejoratives.

Repugnicans, Democrats, Eurotrash, ragheads, etc. -- no more of that. Applying disparaging group labels is sloppy writing: it doesn't convince anyone except those who agree with us already, and it allows fence-sitters to discount the ideas presented. And it isn't the High Road. Also, so many THR members belong to one of the referenced groups, that we'd be offending them.

Offending people or making ourselves feel better by swearing at the opposition is counter-productive. So let's get back to the business of restoring full RKBA without locker-room talk. Please heed my binding request.

Oleg
 
Now Dick and G.W. can sit in the ....

oval office and watch the U.S. Army perpetrate homo sodomy on the Arab boys and girls. Who was the I.G.- (The head honcho riding shotgun) on this Skull And Bones occation for degenerates. I'm sure that G.W would "move a mountain" to make it otherwise- like he said about the trade tower attack. This is just about the most mismanaged mess i've ever seen! Nearly 800 military people dead? This Iraqi operation seems to have been started by a "brain dead chicken Hawk!" Boys and girls- we are not going to see a drop of oil fom it! We are being perceived around the world as world class dim wits.
 
targetshootr, while I share your distaste for the phrasing, the point was clear and you avoided it. :)

Apache, the combat phase of the war was not at all mismanaged. Even including the post-combat phase, our casualties have been far fewer than just one island landing in the Pacific in WW II. I have no intent to denigrate our lost men nor downplay our sadness at their loss, but looking back through time shows just how few have died.

What was not expected was the in-migration of fighters from Syria and Iran, et al. What was not expected was the ability of the remaining Baathists to avoid controls by the majority of Iraqis and continue fighting in a guerilla style in an effort to gain political bargaining power.

Look: I often describe the usual patterns of deer behavior to those new to the hunt. I generally close with something along the lines of, "But always remember that Bambi hasn't read my book." People regularly do differently than any war-planner expects; "They ain't read the book." Life is nowhere nearly as simple--or simple-minded--as Hollywood sitcoms.

Art
 
U.S. casualities are well below what may be expected....

for the size and scope of the Iraq operation.

What the media is striving to do with it's daily updated "butcher's bill" is to give the impression that the U.S. is suffering heavy casualities.

As Art wrote, looking back through time, it is apparent how few have died.

Does anyone remember a day-by-day accounting of dead in the Viet Nam war? :scrutiny:
 
I love it!

"Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture?"

THEY DID. REPEATEDLY.

Americans publicly admit their wrongs, investigate them, and try to make amends. That is uniquely American, pal. Contrast with other nations: some reward such behavior. Others simply do it without a qualm. Still others flatly deny it. Americans air their dirty laundry.

"Why not launch a new Manhattan project?"

This is the difference between liberals and conservatives. When we are attacked, liberals want to make nice-nice and try to understand why the bad guys want to kill us. Conservatives want to whack the bad guys before more innocents get killed. The former will dream of how it *could* be if only we all had a change of heart, while the latter know that human nature will never change and so we'd better man the barricades now. Who would you rather have at the wheel, anytime from 1980s onward?
 
Let me see if I can get this straight...when I refer to the 'Euro-weenies' and the 'bed-wetting, Kool-Aide drinking Liberals' I have violated posting etiquette? But if you state that “George W. Bush has a list of lies too old and too numerous to mention†that is polite?
Besides, I like the terms Democrat and Euro-weeny. They make a point, clearly and concisely. I also think that the former Vice President’s name is correctly spelled <al-Gore>. Similarly, I have described my friends and myself as “knuckle-dragging, Neaderthal, gun-toting, Conservative, Republicansâ€. I was called that once by a bed-wetting, Kool-Aide drinking, Liberal. It was meant as an insult but I took it as a compliment! And it has the advantage of being dead accurate.
Semantics aside, what was Saddam going to do with that nuclear power plant?
 
Life is nowhere nearly as simple--or simple-minded--as Hollywood sitcoms.

Amazing. It was bad enough that it is a war of choice but they can't even go about it right. Cut them all the slack you want, it won't change the reality; we started an unecessary war and if that weren't bad enough, made a gigantic mess of it.

As far as these pegoratives, I missunderstood. I thought they were verboten. By allowing it to stand is it being implicitly condoned?
 
Last edited:
Bush and Cheney made specific claims regarding Iraqi WMD which their intelligence professionals were privately telling them were false.
Click to expand...

idd

Foxnews is reporting the detonation of a 155mm shell containing Sarin. Also, sfgate.com is reporting the same thing. There's a thread in LP that is covering it now. Interestingly, you have yet to post there...

Maybe there were CBRs in Iraq, after all? Hmmmmm?
 
Even if they had or have WMDs the question was, were they any threat to us or our security. The answer was no, certainly not nearly as much as a dozen other countries, but they sure as he** are now. If we had to go after someone we should have gone after the Saudis but we know who they've been sleeping with, eh?.
 
Even if they had or have WMDs the question was, were they any threat to us or our security. The answer was no, certainly not nearly as much as a dozen other countries, but they sure as he** are now. If we had to go after someone we should have gone after the Saudis but we know who they've been sleeping with, eh?.
Click to expand...

How about making the case for why you believe they weren't a threat to us? Before 9-11, who would have thought a relatively insignificant country like Afganistan and its leadership was a threat?
 
How about making the case for why you believe they weren't a threat to us?

There are threats and then there are threats. Somehow we managed to go without invading the USSR for 50 years even though they had plenty of really big WMDs and weren't exactly our pals. I know, we didn't because it would have been hard by a factor of 1000. We thought Iraq would be a cakewalk which made a lot of difference in the decision. Great reasoning, huh.
The war in Iraq is about unfinished business of the people who were in the first Bush cabinet as well as personal revenge for Bush43. The one or two problems we think we solved have been far outweighed by the many it has caused.
As far as Afghanistan, we were actually attacked by people headquartered there so we had every right to take them out. Shame we didn't finish the job before starting another that has seriously drained our resources.
 
Target,

Your memory is selective. We went after Iraq because SH had a record of using WMDs, appeared to still have them, and *to put him away before he got nukes*. Whereas the Soviets, thanks to those idols of the antiwar left, the Rosenbergs, *already had nukes*. So we opposed them but did not invade them.

And as for the "getting revenge for Poppy" trope goes, I now offer an invitation to all you antiwar types here: prove it. Document it. Show me evidence or shut up about it. Or, if you've learned how to read minds, please clue us in how you did it.
 
SH had a record of using WMDs, appeared to still have them, and *to put him away before he got nukes*.

Then get out a pencil and paper cause youre gonna need to spend a couple of days listing all the other countries we have to invade who don't yet have nukes or who already have used WMDs.
Not that it matters. This may well turn into WWIII and its looking like this time it will be us against everyone else including former allies.
 
c'mon, Target

of course there are others. But most of them are not our enemies, and the others are under pressure to disarm (as happened to Qaddafi, and may be happening in Iraq). I'm afraid you dodged my point, mon.
 
I dont intentionally dodge anyones point. I tend to take one phrase or one point and expound on it. This war was unecessary and it's costing us a lot more than it is worth. We shouldn't have gone there but once we did we should have done it right and we didnt, so thats two screw-ups in a row. If you or I were as incompetent we'd be fired.
 
as for the "getting revenge for Poppy" trope goes, I now offer an invitation to all you antiwar types here: prove it.

On a couple of occassions he said as much. Once in Texas he was listing the reasons for invading Iraq and the last thing he said was, "...and he tried to kill my father" and looked like he was gonna cry. Lets face it, most all of the reasons he gave (that I listed above) were bogus so they must have had ulterior motives, eh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Kerry ad..
Replies
6
Views
1K
Legal
TooTaxed
T
A
  • Locked
A man of the "People"
Replies
1
Views
566
Legal
OF
O
A
  • Locked
It's Your Money
Replies
0
Views
573
Legal
Airboss
A
C
  • Locked
Scaryjohnkerry.com
Replies
0
Views
643
Legal
Chipperman
C
H
  • Locked
Check this out
Replies
1
Views
501
Legal
mrapathy2000
M
Top Bottom
Back