the proof Bush team Knew Iraq had no weapons in 2002

That is really amazing.... Dixie reads the first paragraph of my post...cuts it and pastes it and makes a lame ass comment that makes absolutely NO sense if he had taken the time to read the entire post.

Maybe this is Dixie's immature little hissy fit way of "getting back" at me for not taking his stupid and inane and utterly off topic pointless "Is DIxie Lying" trivia quiz?
 
read the fucking post, Dixie...all the way down to the Ooops at the end... and then respond to all of it.... debate me on this issue or run away with your yellow tail between your legs.
 
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.

LMAO... the entire reasoning and justification was a complete fabrication, and that would be lost in the noise of the world cheering? What planet do you live on? What crack-smoking political strategist convinced Bush this would work? And WHY would they go to such an extreme, when all the president had to do, was sign an executive order? That's the part that totally baffles me.

If Bush needed some mythical excuse to blame why he went into Iraq, he could have told us the information is Top Secret, and highly classified, and can't be released to the public. He could still be stringing us all along with that, if he needed some fake excuse! EVEN IF Bush had needed to come up with a lie, which he clearly didn't, he could have told a better one than WMD's that weren't there!

So, we have two points... first, that Bush had no tenable justification to tell us a lie... and... even IF he did, he wouldn't have told an obvious and discoverable lie! One is completely illogical, the other is complete stupidity.
 
Again...if Bush had invaded Iraq without public support, he would have been hounded out of office in 2004. They certainly were not sitting on intelligence that told them, categorically, that Saddam did NOT have any WMD's.... but they knew that America would not buy the rationale that we NEEDED to kick the UN inspectors OUT of Iraq - the UN inspectors that were there looking for WMD's because we thought that Saddam might in fact have WMD's...maybe. How fucking stupid would that have been. It had to be right then....it had to start NOW.... before the inspectors could report that there were no more WMD's... the PNAC agenda needed to be started and American fear and anger was what would jump start it.
 
Again...if Bush had invaded Iraq without public support, he would have been hounded out of office in 2004.

...as opposed to being hounded out of office and impeached in 2007!

Your premise has no basis for support!
 
the UN inspectors that were there looking for WMD's because we thought that Saddam might in fact have WMD's...maybe.

Really? So... when Bush articulated this, he was lying? When you articulate it, it's valid? WTF? Make up your mind! Either Bush KNEW Saddam had no WMD's and intentionally LIED to us, or he didn't!
 
Dixie said:
Again...if Bush had invaded Iraq without public support, he would have been hounded out of office in 2004.

...as opposed to being hounded out of office and impeached in 2007!

Your premise has no basis for support!
Click to expand...

Stop being dishonest. Bush thought this would be a lovely, tidy little war. If you'll remember, after his sales pitch and initial invasion, public support for the war was very high. Your false idol though, much like you, has absolutely no foresight, and little regard for the facts or the truth.

He could only see as far as his "Mission Accomplished" fuckup, not a millisecond further. Apparently, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree when you consider your party stronger than your sense of decency.
 
the PNAC agenda needed to be started and American fear and anger was what would jump start it.

Okay... again... let's take your supposition for granted, and say this WAS the case... would the "PNAC agenda" be better served by telling an obvious and provable lie, which would be discovered in a matter of a few years? I mean, it's the Project for a New American Century... not Decade! What part of this are you not getting, Maine? There simply has to be a tenable justification for someone to intentionally lie, unless they just do it out of habit, like you! Maybe that's why you can't comprehend this?
 
It was a small lie and they could easily chalk it up to unknwingly faulty intelligence.....the point is... there always WAS doubt...there always were qualifiers and caveats with that intell.... it was never really a slam dunk.... the intell was old...single sourced... based on dubious satellite photos.... and it could be explained away...and again... if the multicultural jeffersonian democracy replaced the sadist of Baghdad, why would anyone be upset?

If Iraqis had welcomed us with rose petals, if Iraqis had come together in downtown Baghdad at the fall of Saddam for a giant sunni-shiite-kurd group hug... if they had written a constitution that looked like ours...if everything turned out as rosy as Perle and Wolfie et al were so confidently predicting it would, a few missing chemical weapons cannisters would have been completely overlooked by everyone...the world would have been cheering the great success of Bush.. the marvelous paradigm shift of the neoconservatives and dancing into the new American century.

as I said before....ooops.
 
Dixie said:
the UN inspectors that were there looking for WMD's because we thought that Saddam might in fact have WMD's...maybe.

Really? So... when Bush articulated this, he was lying? When you articulate it, it's valid? WTF? Make up your mind! Either Bush KNEW Saddam had no WMD's and intentionally LIED to us, or he didn't!
Click to expand...

Dixie...the intentional LIE was the creation of the illusion of certainty. My point was.... how ridiculous would he have sounded if he had NOT forged ahead with certainty about Saddam's WMD's? If Bush HAD been less than certain about Saddam's arsenal, the urgency for war would not have been present. How could he have been less than certain...how could he have said..."we THINK Saddam might have WMD's..... so we have to kick the UN inspectors out who are looking for WMD's and invade right now because he may just have them"? Does that make any sense? Of course not. WHy the rush to kick Blix out and get the shock and awe moving if not for the certainty of WMD's?
 
Stop being dishonest.

And what am I being dishonest about?

Bush thought this would be a lovely, tidy little war.

Even less reason for him to risk impeachment by concocting a lie he didn't need.

If you'll remember, after his sales pitch and initial invasion, public support for the war was very high.

Yes, I remember... the anti-war pinheads made up about 14% This is even more evidence that Bush had no tenable justification to lie. He enjoyed enormous public support after 9/11, he had enormous support for Afghanistan, and almost as much for Iraq in the beginning.

Your false idol though, much like you, has absolutely no foresight, and little regard for the facts or the truth.

Bush isn't my idol, I've written threads on his mistakes, it's well documented. You seem to be the one with a problem regarding fact and truth here. Bush, 1) Had no reason to lie, and 2) wouldn't have intentionally told such an obvious and provable lie, even if he had a reason!

He could only see as far as his "Mission Accomplished" fuckup, not a millisecond further.

You know... I thought we had moved past the "Mission Accomplished" thing? Wasn't it explained, this was in reference to the capture of the capitol and toppling of the regime? That mission certainly WAS accomplished. This milk-toast towing the line for pinheads is unbecoming your libertarian self, Beefy.

Apparently, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree when you consider your party stronger than your sense of decency.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, it just sounds like a typical liberal bleat of self-righteous faux indignity. When you regain your senses, and decide you want to debate the issues, let me know... until then, keep repeating to yourself... I am a Libertarian, not a Liberal!
 
It was a small lie and they could easily chalk it up to unknwingly faulty intelligence.....

LMAo... Small lie, huh? The entire and complete basis and justification for the war... just a "small lie" they could easily chalk up to something? Again... what does the sky look like in your world, Maine?
 
My point was.... how ridiculous would he have sounded if he had NOT forged ahead with certainty about Saddam's WMD's? If Bush HAD been less than certain about Saddam's arsenal, the urgency for war would not have been present.

I accept this point, but it still doesn't justify lying intentionally. I agree, had he gone to the UN and presented all of the cherries that weren't picked, it would have been utterly stupid, and he would have garnered nothing but ridicule from the UN for even wasting their time.

The key thing to remember, and you said it yourself, the UN inspectors were there in Iraq precisely because we DID think he had WMD's. Knowing this, the President has an obligation and responsibility for the security of the nation, and he clearly has the executive authority to take appropriate action. You want to act as if he knew Saddam didn't have WMD's when the rest of the world suspected he did, and insist he intentionally lied about it, when he had no justification to do so.
 
Dixie said:
Stop being dishonest.

And what am I being dishonest about?

Bush thought this would be a lovely, tidy little war.

Even less reason for him to risk impeachment by concocting a lie he didn't need.

If you'll remember, after his sales pitch and initial invasion, public support for the war was very high.

Yes, I remember... the anti-war pinheads made up about 14% This is even more evidence that Bush had no tenable justification to lie. He enjoyed enormous public support after 9/11, he had enormous support for Afghanistan, and almost as much for Iraq in the beginning.

Your false idol though, much like you, has absolutely no foresight, and little regard for the facts or the truth.

Bush isn't my idol, I've written threads on his mistakes, it's well documented. You seem to be the one with a problem regarding fact and truth here. Bush, 1) Had no reason to lie, and 2) wouldn't have intentionally told such an obvious and provable lie, even if he had a reason!

He could only see as far as his "Mission Accomplished" fuckup, not a millisecond further.

You know... I thought we had moved past the "Mission Accomplished" thing? Wasn't it explained, this was in reference to the capture of the capitol and toppling of the regime? That mission certainly WAS accomplished. This milk-toast towing the line for pinheads is unbecoming your libertarian self, Beefy.

Apparently, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree when you consider your party stronger than your sense of decency.

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean, it just sounds like a typical liberal bleat of self-righteous faux indignity. When you regain your senses, and decide you want to debate the issues, let me know... until then, keep repeating to yourself... I am a Libertarian, not a Liberal!
Click to expand...

Get over yourself Dix. I am a libertarian, not a liberal. In fact, this war meets liberal standards far more than honest conservative standards. Since when were nation building, invasion and occupation in order to liberate, and military adventurism "conservative" ideas.

Again, you can't distinguish between your party and what you want your ideology to be.

And I suppose it took a "pinhead" to oppose this war before it started? This is where I question your decency. You yourself have stated that you would take this war back if you could. Yet you would prefer to spill our boy's blood in barrels and barrels to fulfill a nonexistent and utterly fantastic dream.

And YOU'VE moved past the "Mission Accomplished" thing because reminding you of it shines a light on the blind fellowship you share with the W. And you know it.
 
Dixie said:
It was a small lie and they could easily chalk it up to unknwingly faulty intelligence.....

LMAo... Small lie, huh? The entire and complete basis and justification for the war... just a "small lie" they could easily chalk up to something? Again... what does the sky look like in your world, Maine?
Click to expand...

read... again:

If Iraqis had welcomed us with rose petals, if Iraqis had come together in downtown Baghdad at the fall of Saddam for a giant sunni-shiite-kurd group hug... if they had written a constitution that looked like ours...if everything turned out as rosy as Perle and Wolfie et al were so confidently predicting it would, a few missing chemical weapons cannisters would have been completely overlooked by everyone...the world would have been cheering the great success of Bush.. the marvelous paradigm shift of the neoconservatives and dancing into the new American century.

the sky is blue in my world. America woke up.... there were no rose petals....we WILL be able to turn around the PNAC nightmare in '08.
 
Dixie said:
My point was.... how ridiculous would he have sounded if he had NOT forged ahead with certainty about Saddam's WMD's? If Bush HAD been less than certain about Saddam's arsenal, the urgency for war would not have been present.

I accept this point, but it still doesn't justify lying intentionally. I agree, had he gone to the UN and presented all of the cherries that weren't picked, it would have been utterly stupid, and he would have garnered nothing but ridicule from the UN for even wasting their time.

The key thing to remember, and you said it yourself, the UN inspectors were there in Iraq precisely because we DID think he had WMD's. Knowing this, the President has an obligation and responsibility for the security of the nation, and he clearly has the executive authority to take appropriate action. You want to act as if he knew Saddam didn't have WMD's when the rest of the world suspected he did, and insist he intentionally lied about it, when he had no justification to do so.
Click to expand...

and again (and again and again and again....you thick obtuse prick) the LIE was creating the illusion of CERTAINTY. Without certainly there WAS no urgency.... and the PNAC crowd was SO certain that their experiment in nation building would be a rousing success...they needed to sieze the moment and start the ball rolling while Americans were still angry and scared and ready for payback.... once they got it rolling, the success of the venture would wipe away any concerns about the less than certain WMD issue... there would be a flourishing multiethnic democracy...a strong new ally for America..smack dab in the middle of the middle east...the paradigm would shift....

oops.
 
You yourself have stated that you would take this war back if you could.

No, I never stated this, it is another urban legend. I said, if it were possible to make Iraq not be, by going back in time and doing it differently, I might be interested in going back and doing something different or debating what we could have done instead of what we did... but that isn't reality, that is fantasy! I still firmly believe in establishing democracy in the Arab world, as a means to combat the radical religious ideology. I also believe Saddam had been given plenty of time to "reform" and we were well-justified in taking him out, regardless of the WMD issue.
 
Dixie said:
You yourself have stated that you would take this war back if you could.

No, I never stated this, it is another urban legend. I said, if it were possible to make Iraq not be, by going back in time and doing it differently, I might be interested in going back and doing something different or debating what we could have done instead of what we did... but that isn't reality, that is fantasy! I still firmly believe in establishing democracy in the Arab world, as a means to combat the radical religious ideology. I also believe Saddam had been given plenty of time to "reform" and we were well-justified in taking him out, regardless of the WMD issue.
Click to expand...

So you believe in Imperialism. Please explain to me how this is a conservative ideal.

So far as I can tell, uprooting sovereign political systems and implementing favorable ones in imperialistic, not a conservative ideal.

Stop calling yourself a conservative, and start admitting to being a Republican Lemming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top