Nuclear arms reportedly found in Iraq

[William Huff]

I'd just like to point out that even though the first few liberals here thought there were not just any WMD's, but nuclear WMD's they still made idiotic statements like "it wasn't an immediate threat" and "...that doesn't matter!"

Proof that liberals don't really care if Iraq was a threat, they just hate Bush so bad for having the guts to go in there.

"Bush Lied" = "I'm a moron who thinks it would make sense for a leader to invade a country on a basis HE'D PROVE WRONG BY INVADING IT"

--------------------

The Social Security Administration, one of FDR's central government devices for entrapping a dependent constituency, just celebrated its 65th anniversary. SSA employees were given small boxes with stylish memorabilia pins emblazoned with the propaganda casting, "Social Security, An American Cornerstone." Ironically, the back of the boxes stated -- more accurately -- "Made in China."

[Koga]

Fact remains that there wasn't a threat.

If they had weapons that they could fire within 45 minutes (as Blair claimed) why would they not have used them when the US attacked?

If the weapon inspectors had found nuclear weapons before the war it would've been an entirely different story.

[Jonathan Resop]

The Dems are wrong for constantly attacking Bush.

The Reps are wrong for being too eager to go to war with Iraq.

They're both idiots.

We need a third independant party.-jay

[William Huff]

Because no one actually responded to what I said I'll repost it.

I'd just like to point out that even though the first few liberals here thought there were not just any WMD's, but nuclear WMD's they still made idiotic statements like "it wasn't an immediate threat" and "...that doesn't matter!"

Proof that liberals don't really care if Iraq was a threat, they just hate Bush so bad for having the guts to go in there.

"Bush Lied" = "I'm a moron who thinks it would make sense for a leader to invade a country on a basis HE'D PROVE WRONG BY INVADING IT"

--------------------

The Social Security Administration, one of FDR's central government devices for entrapping a dependent constituency, just celebrated its 65th anniversary. SSA employees were given small boxes with stylish memorabilia pins emblazoned with the propaganda casting, "Social Security, An American Cornerstone." Ironically, the back of the boxes stated -- more accurately -- "Made in China."

[Koga]

Can't you read?

The quote you give is exactly what happened. That's why they now say they did it for humanitarian reasons, and to topple Hussein's regime.

[Philip19]

Don't you realize how stupid that theory is? [img]graemlins/lol.gif[/img] Give Bush's motive.

[Koga]

I think Bush wanted to attack Iraq no matter what. After he declared the war on terorrism he thought that would be the best way to go, that's why they desperately tried to find an Al Qaeda link, and WMDs. Now that that has not worked, they are going by the humanitarian way: "OK, so they didn't have weapons, but he was brutal and we brought democracy to the Middle East".

[Philip19]

That's not a motive; all you really said is 'he wanted to.' Why did he want to?

Didn't work? Why would he expect it to work? According to you, he never thought there were WMDs in the first place.

CIA's been saying it for ten years. France said it, Russia said it, the UN said it. That's not a desperate search for some kind of connection.

[ July 27, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Philip19 ]

[Koga]

No no, I don't think he didn't think there were no weapons. I think it's not just Bush's fault, also the fault of the intelligence agencies.

I think he wanted to do it, because he wanted to do what his father could not. He wanted to do something to be remembered by. It could be for the oil reasons some people have mentioned.

I thought there was no Al Qaeda link? It would not make sense for a secular government like Hussein's to support religious fundamentalists.

[Philip19]

Are you telling me that ten different intelligence agencies just happened to make up false intel because they wanted to take down Hussein? If Bush is responsible for listening to the what the French and Russians told him, I guess he'll have to live with that.

There are numerous al Qaeda links. There was no direct 9/11 link, but there's even a minor link to it, too.

Bush and Cheney are millionares; winning reelection is more fun than war for oil. He could also win reelection and then 'steal' Hussein's country. Anyway, I guess Blair also wanted to make oil money and do what Bush's father couldn't.

Bush is one of the few people who isn't suspected of oil corruption. Our friends the French are on that list.

So if the intelligence messed up, who are you saying is at fault here? If it can't be taken seriously under these circumstances, intelligence gathering as a whole should be abandoned.

[Ditto McCloaker]

If all Bush wanted was to be remembered, Afghanistan woulda done it.

Let's face it: The Dems are largely the people opposing Bush's actions in Iraq. They've also been against him on every policy since the beginning of the Administration. Education, the economy... and then after 9-11, he wasn't handling Afghanistan properly, the Patriot Act was a restraint on our liberties, the Department of Homeland Security was a 'farce', our National Terror Levels are stupid, everything's stupid.

I'm surprised this doesn't make anybody suspicious. It looks to me like all they want is to regain power, no matter WHAT.

Once again: We did Iraq because we weren't getting any solid intelligence out of there. All that came out were mixed messages going both ways.

When you have a country like Iraq, with an intelligence picture like this, that's all it takes for them to be a security threat. That's all.

There's an unspoken policy we have about the third world, and totalitarian regimes in general, folks: Kindly let us spy on you, all we want, or we'll nail you to the wall.

[Flamethrower Mario]

I'm surprised this doesn't make anybody suspicious. It looks to me like all they want is to regain power, no matter WHAT.

And you act like this is a quality of only the democratic party. The republicans would be just as up in arms too about every little thing Gore did if he won.

[Ditto McCloaker]

At the risk of venturing an opinion everyone else will hate (this is new?): That's just conjecture. I don't think we were this bad over Clinton.

We Republicans were happy when Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Bill. We didn't put up a fight when he gave it to us. We let Kennedy write the budget for educational reform and they sitll bash us for it not being enough.

There's holding to a set of values, and then there's maniacal, hand-wringing, mouth-watering power hunger. It's what's bringing down the Democrats. No unbiased person gives them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

[Nick]

Ditto, I'm going to pick on you for a few minutes because I'm bored.

They've also been against him on every policy since the beginning of the Administration.

They're the OPPOSITION PARTY, they're supposed to oppose him.

Education,

Bush policy arguably didn't do much to help the education crisis in this country. NCLB essentially leaves children behind.

the economy...

this is the weakest bush link. Is anyone better off economically than they were 4 years ago? I'm certainly not, as the job market looks like complete **** and the wages haven't risen with the cost of living. Stocks overall are down (granted, tech fallout), but things like Enron, etc and the lack of governmental prosecution doesn't help confidence. Taking the largest surplus in the country's history and changing it into the largest deficit is inexcusable and shameful. Personally, i think Bush should be kicked in the groin for this as a massive deficit will only hurt the country in the medium and long run economically.

and then after 9-11, he wasn't handling Afghanistan properly,

You're kidding, right? They didn't start to even say anything negative about him until about this time last year. The reason they started to say Afghanastan wasn't handled properly is because its still a wartorn ****hole. Sure, nobody is expecting it to become some gleaming technological Eden, but surely we expected something slightly better than what we have. Even then, you're not hearing much complaint about afghanastan from public politicians, as those complaints are mainly coming out of the academic journals and a few opinion pieces.

the Patriot Act was a restraint on our liberties,

Well, it can be and it is a threat to liberties. The potential (and probability) of abuse is extremely high, and this law is extremely dangerous to political speech as well as privacy. It should say something that many of these provisions have been repeatedly rejected by both Republican and Democratic Congresses over the last 20 years.

the Department of Homeland Security was a 'farce',

Uh, it is. FBI says one thing, Ridge says another. It isn't doing what it should have done, which is coordinate FBI, military, and other law enforcement agencies. It can still work, but it isn't really working as people think it should.

our National Terror Levels are stupid, everything's stupid.

I hear TV people saying that, not politicians. Sorry, Conan O'brian, as much ass as he kicks, does not really matter.

I'm surprised this doesn't make anybody suspicious. It looks to me like all they want is to regain power, no matter WHAT.

As opposed to doing such underhanded tactics as pushpolling people, running ads that show a Senator's face and morph it into Osama bin Laden's, trying to exploit a horrible act of terrorism for political gain by holding your convention in NYC right before the anniversery? Politicians are supposed to gain power, hence their career. Successful politicians do not run to lose. Come on, stop being dumb. If you want to be elected, you have to do everything to ensure that, even if its hypocritical and distasteful. Nice guys may not always finish last, but they seem to do that in politics.

Once again: We did Iraq because we weren't getting any solid intelligence out of there. All that came out were mixed messages going both ways.

Really? Because...uh...a year ago, you as well as the President, Sec of State Powell, PM Blair, Condi Rice, Chaney, Rummy, and everyone else here that supported the war seemed to cite this "clear, solid, smoking-gun evidence" of Iraq's clear and present WMD program.

There's an unspoken policy we have about the third world, and totalitarian regimes in general, folks: Kindly let us spy on you, all we want, or we'll nail you to the wall.

Outside of the current administration, PROVE IT.

don't think we were this bad over Clinton.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHA Oh god that's funny. Remember Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider" campaign slogan? That wasn't just a catchy song-and-dance. People were sick of the polarized state Washington had been in since Clinton was elected. As soon as he stepped in, they hounded him over EVERYTHING from personal life to policy. Come on, are you that blind in hindsight? And furthermore, look what happened when Clinton stepped into Kosovo to help stop the ethnic cleansing, REPUBLICANS WENT APE****. You know, I've always found it ironic that the same republicans who said "It isn't our duty, etc etc etc" in 1998 are now saying the exact opposite.

There's holding to a set of values, and then there's maniacal, hand-wringing, mouth-watering power hunger.

Sort of like the Republicans throughout the Clinton administration?

[edit: corrected format errors]

[ July 28, 2004, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: Lurch1982 ]

[GRENTLEMEN]

Originally posted by Philip19:
There are numerous al Qaeda links. There was no direct 9/11 link, but there's even a minor link to it, too.

So, why don't you enlighten us?

[El Barto]

I've never liked Ditto's conjectures.