the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
God must be a capitalist.Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not an insult, just an observation
No, it was an insult, prick! You've 'observed' not one damn thing that indicates I am "amoral" as you claimed. It was simply a lame attempt to hurl shit at me personally, like you always seem to do when you have no response to what I post.
Now, I understand, it's a 'pride' thing, you can't really help being pissed off at me, I made you look like a complete idiot, so you have to do something to retaliate. So, I completely get why you have to be that way, I just don't understand how you can think other people don't see it? I mean, you honestly think your hurling a few insults at me is going to detract from my well-made points you couldn't refute?
I mean, it's not like someone is going to read through this thread and say... Wow, Dixie made some great points that couldn't be refuted, but uscitizen really owned Dixie's ass with the insults and put downs! I think most intelligent people can read along, and see a distinct pattern here... Dixie makes a great point, pinheads reel off a string of insults that spill onto the next page... Dixie makes another great point... pinheads reel off more insults to bump the thread to the next page... You are aware of the fact, people can go back to previous pages, right?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, Clinton was not impeached for being unfaithful. In fact, some might argue, that was one of the 'sexy and hip' things about Clinton that made him so popular among pinheads, and got him elected!
We've already established, Bush had no tenable justification to mislead a nation, which is required for anyone other than habitual liars, for there to be a "lie" in the first place. The person responsible for commanding the military of the United States, doesn't have to "drag" you anywhere. As for "aid and comfort to enemies" ...the treatment of enemy combatants at Gitmo, is the result of Congressional actions, not those of the president. It took you a lot of nerve to type that line, I bet!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
If that's what it takes to keep you from being an asshole, then by all means, put me on ignore! ...AND... never respond to me again! Just forget I exist, usc! If it will mean the world doesn't have to witness you being an asshole or a complete jerk, then I am all for that!
As a matter of fact, I have several people on my ignore list, simply because they can't seem to ever contribute anything of substance to the debate, they just want to hurl shit bombs, like you tend to do. Maybe I should put you on ignore as well? It would remove my temptation to thwack you about the head and upper torso, for being such an incompetent and immature moron pea-brained pinhead!
maineman
Banned
No...YOU THINK that you have established that Bush had no tenable justification to mislead a nation. I have pointed out many plausible reasons why he would do precisely that....none of which you have been able to refute.
MORE LIES... President Clinton never admited to sex with Genifer Flowers, if he did show me up.. provide a link something!
MORE LIES, how did President Clinton's alleged lies cause PJ's case to be dismissed?
JUST SAYING SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, NO MATTER HOW BAD YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE!
Last edited:
I am not the one making affirmative allegations, you are. Its an old trick of those who are stuck in a corner, asking the opponant to prove an negative!
President Clinton allegedly lied under oath about an affair he allegedly had more than 10 years after what PJ claimed happened! How did this affect PJ'c Civil Rights? How would anything having to do with Monica Lewinski have any relevance to if PJ suffered sexual harrassment or not?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No...YOU THINK that you have established that Bush had no tenable justification to mislead a nation. I have pointed out many plausible reasons why he would do precisely that....none of which you have been able to refute.
Well, the fact that the president did not require public approval for his actions, is evidence he had no tenable justification to lie. And even IF you could create some tenable justification to lie, you can't logically justify a lie with no basis, in this situation, where the net end result is guaranteed to be a negative. It completely defies logic that Bush would lie, and it defies logic even more, that he would tell lies which could so easily be disproved.
The only potential tenable justification you can come up with, is his political ambition, which I think we can both safely say, is toast now. So, what did he gain in telling these lies that were so obvious, with regard to his political career? Why would any strategist figure on any other potential result of deliberately lying to the American public? Your premise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, in fact, if Bush was concerned about his political career, it would be justification for him to NOT lie, or say anything that could even remotely be viewed as a lie.
Well, the fact that the president did not require public approval for his actions, is evidence he had no tenable justification to lie. And even IF you could create some tenable justification to lie, you can't logically justify a lie with no basis, in this situation, where the net end result is guaranteed to be a negative. It completely defies logic that Bush would lie, and it defies logic even more, that he would tell lies which could so easily be disproved.
The only potential tenable justification you can come up with, is his political ambition, which I think we can both safely say, is toast now. So, what did he gain in telling these lies that were so obvious, with regard to his political career? Why would any strategist figure on any other potential result of deliberately lying to the American public? Your premise makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, in fact, if Bush was concerned about his political career, it would be justification for him to NOT lie, or say anything that could even remotely be viewed as a lie.
maineman
Banned
OK...Dixie.... regardless of Bush's legal authority to launch the war against Saddam with no congressional approval and no public support, he would have been a complete fool to do so, don't you think? Can you just imagine if there had been no public debate about the war whatsoever and, out of the blue, Bush kicks the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq and launches Shock and Awe? What would have happened? He would have been hounded from office and soundly trounced by Howard Dean in '04 and the republicans would have been swept from office.
But he SO wanted to invade Iraq. His entire team of senior advisors - Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Perle had all spent a great deal of time planning that very thing..they wrote about it in a document they were quite proud of. PNAC's manifesto is some powerful stuff.
Osama gave the neocons their Pearl Harbor. 9/11 became the justification to finally get the ball rolling on the whole PNAC agenda. We know that, immediately after 9/11. Secretary of State Powell had to forcefully put the brakes on RUmmy who wanted to bypass the whole "Let's go to Afghanistan and get Osama" ruse and invade Saddam right then! THose neocons were just chomping at the bit to start moving...they had flowering multicultural Jeffersonian deomcracies to build on the banks of the Tigris and EuUphrates..they had an entire world paradigm to shift.
But the American people were still really mad at Osama...and this group called Al Qaeda. They failed to comprehend just how beautiful and wonderful the world would be when the multicultural Jeffersonian democracy was flourishing and we had this wonderful oil-soaked ally smack dab in the middle of the middle east.... but the neocons felt CERTAIN that the benefits of that paradigm shift that they would cause would be so self evident to Americans and the entire world that they needed to push it forward...use the anger and the fear and the vengefullness of the American people - channel it... and let it be the impetus for this glorious change.
The neocons thought: If only we could conflate Saddam with Osama... Iraq and 9/11.... then the anger and the fear would be focused on Iraq and away we'd go.
And then we lost Osama.... and then they said he was dead...or dying...or on dialysis...or dead...or dying in a cave somewhere...but then WHOA... there was a video of him talking about current events and taunting us... and then there was an audio tape...and the CIA said it wasn't him..and then they said it was... and America began to get restless and impatient... and then, in the fall of 2002, Bush and Cheney and Rummy and Wolfie and Perle all began giving speeches... and those speeches all had the following words in them: 9/11 (blah blah blah) Iraq (blah blah blah)Weapons of Mass Destruction (blah blah blah) Al Qaeda (blah blah blah) Saddam (blah blah blah) 9/11 (blah blah blah) Iraq (blah blah blah)Weapons of Mass Destruction (blah blah blah) Al Qaeda (blah blah blah) Saddam ...over and over and over and over and over and over and over again AND NEVER ONCE MENTIONED OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!! They were quite careful to never actually SAY that Saddam had planned and executed 9/11...but funny thing... after five months of speeches like that to a country of folks who KNEW on 9/13/01 who attacked them, and then, over half of them then KNEW that Saddam was behind 9/11 all along.
Everything was in place. It looked like a cakewalk. Apply a little shock and awe...send the overwhelmingly superior US military into Iraq... run on up to Baghdad crushing tons of rose petals strewn under the treads of our tanks by thankful Iraqis... grab Saddam... hold some elections... write a constitution... erect some statues of George Bush in prominent locations throughout the country... watch the multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossom... start pumping the oil and start planning out the next ten republican presidential inaugurations. WMD's??? WHo the fuck would care that we didn't find WMD's when the multicultural jeffersonian democracy was blossoming on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates - when Exxon was putting a steady suction on the Iraqi oil fields?
That's why they told us there was no doubt that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that they even knew exactly where they were... because when their grand plan came to fruition, the absence of WMD's would be lost in the noise of the world cheering its new heroes and its new rulers.
Ooops.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
OK...Dixie.... regardless of Bush's legal authority to launch the war against Saddam with no congressional approval and no public support, he would have been a complete fool to do so, don't you think? Can you just imagine if there had been no public debate about the war whatsoever and, out of the blue, Bush kicks the UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq and launches Shock and Awe? What would have happened? He would have been hounded from office and soundly trounced by Howard Dean in '04 and the republicans would have been swept from office.
As opposed to being hounded from office and soundly trounced by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 and the republicans swept from office. The only net difference is, two years and a bunch of impeachable lies, I just don't see two years of governing being worth that. No, I think he would have been smarter to just use executive authority and do it, than to concoct a bunch of flimsy lies to do it, when you don't have to.
As opposed to being hounded from office and soundly trounced by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in '06 and the republicans swept from office. The only net difference is, two years and a bunch of impeachable lies, I just don't see two years of governing being worth that. No, I think he would have been smarter to just use executive authority and do it, than to concoct a bunch of flimsy lies to do it, when you don't have to.