This is the loonie left spinning more tales. The fact that both Clintons and even Lurch saw the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion AND SAID SO means nothing...Bush lied...Bush is the terrorist...Bush is Hitler...It was all about Cheney and Halliburton...blah blah blah(Threw that in for Wil)
Send,
You ruined my example. I should have asked the moore robots to respond only.
You are correct my friend no one on the left or the leftist media called clintoon a liar when he bombed iraq for the same exact reason bush cited. The only difference is Bush had to connect the dots after 9-11 or the left would have started with that BS again if iraq would have passed weapons to al qaida and we were hit.
You ruined my example. I should have asked the moore robots to respond only.
You are correct my friend no one on the left or the leftist media called clintoon a liar when he bombed iraq for the same exact reason bush cited. The only difference is Bush had to connect the dots after 9-11 or the left would have started with that BS again if iraq would have passed weapons to al qaida and we were hit.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GAMEFACE:
Iraq/Saddam were developing weapons of mass destruction and that was the reason for bombing Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
THE reason? What makes you think Saddam was taken out because of only one reason? I guess when you narrow it down to one reason, it's easier for the libs to make their case. There were numerous reasons for removing Hussein from power.
BTW, if he wasn't developing WMD, he should have cooperated with UN weapons instectors.
Iraq/Saddam were developing weapons of mass destruction and that was the reason for bombing Iraq.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
THE reason? What makes you think Saddam was taken out because of only one reason? I guess when you narrow it down to one reason, it's easier for the libs to make their case. There were numerous reasons for removing Hussein from power.
BTW, if he wasn't developing WMD, he should have cooperated with UN weapons instectors.
First, I think part of the reason Clinton bombed Iraq was to divert attention away from his own scandals. Secondly, I really have no opinion about whether or not Saddam did or did not have WMDs, although so far there is more evidence to indicate that he did not. However, I absolutely believe that Bush and Co. lied when they said that was the reason to go to war. It was not their reason to go to war, but rather the kind of excuse that a post 9/11 electorate could buy into.
These things are not alwasy black and white, lie or truth. I think Bush did believe that Saddam had some weapons and some interests in weapons and that he was a bad guy yadda yadda. But yes, he intentionally trumped up nad massaged whatever evidence he had, ignored any evidence to the contrary and said whatever he thought was needed to achieve his end -- to take out Saddam's regime at all costs. Whatever would fit that preconceived model was fine -- whether it was the Niger uranium claism, or the 9/11 link, or talking about humanitarian reasons, or creating democracy in the middle east, whatever or talking about a mushroom cloud. He threw out there every conceivable justification imaginable to see what might stick.
Do we call this a lie? I'd defeinitely call it deception and disingenuousness.
Do we call this a lie? I'd defeinitely call it deception and disingenuousness.
D2,
What evidence suggests that Saddam did not have any uranium, that he did not have a link with Alquida and maybe 9/11, that he was anything but unhumane, that his tyrancy was better than democracy, that he wasn't looking for and storing nuclear components? Just to name a few.
Any evidence that would suggest that, would be manufactured evidence. Saddam was doing just fine until the terrorist declared war on the USA. Ok, there I am wrong, they declared war during Clintons first term and he did nothing about it. September 11th finally got the ball rolling. And momentum is gaining to rip the hearts out of these evil doers.
I really do hope that the intelligence is getting better as it has not been a strong point for the USA. That way less seemingly innocent civilians will need to be killed and less Americans will be killed or injured while we fight the war on terrorism. You may have to give up a slightly less anominous life, but why would you want to be a hermit anyway?
What evidence suggests that Saddam did not have any uranium, that he did not have a link with Alquida and maybe 9/11, that he was anything but unhumane, that his tyrancy was better than democracy, that he wasn't looking for and storing nuclear components? Just to name a few.
Any evidence that would suggest that, would be manufactured evidence. Saddam was doing just fine until the terrorist declared war on the USA. Ok, there I am wrong, they declared war during Clintons first term and he did nothing about it. September 11th finally got the ball rolling. And momentum is gaining to rip the hearts out of these evil doers.
I really do hope that the intelligence is getting better as it has not been a strong point for the USA. That way less seemingly innocent civilians will need to be killed and less Americans will be killed or injured while we fight the war on terrorism. You may have to give up a slightly less anominous life, but why would you want to be a hermit anyway?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jointpleasures:
D2,
What evidence suggests that Saddam did not have any uranium, that he did not have a link with Alquida and maybe 9/11, that he was anything but unhumane, that his tyrancy was better than democracy, that he wasn't looking for and storing nuclear components? Just to name a few.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How, exactly, do you propose to prove a negative?
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?
D2,
What evidence suggests that Saddam did not have any uranium, that he did not have a link with Alquida and maybe 9/11, that he was anything but unhumane, that his tyrancy was better than democracy, that he wasn't looking for and storing nuclear components? Just to name a few.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How, exactly, do you propose to prove a negative?
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
D2,
Bush NEVER said anything of the sort about linking 9/11 with Sadaam...this is more of the liberal b.s. that continues to be repeated as fact. That is what is deceptive and disengenous. The libs are experts at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. Bush and Co. often used the terms Saddam, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, 9/11, War on Terror, etc. together or very close together throughout repeated speeches from early 2002 until the war. While you're right that they never blatantly stated that 'Saddam killed Americans on 9/11' they most certainly insinuated that fact. At best, they blurred the lines between Afghanistan and Iraq, Saddam and AQ, War on Terror and 9/11, that no reasonable person could insist that they weren't trying to influence the public. In fact, an August 2003 poll (note, after the fall of Saddam) that 7 in 10 Americans still believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Do you not think there is a reason why a full 70% of your citizens believed this to be true?
D2,
Bush NEVER said anything of the sort about linking 9/11 with Sadaam...this is more of the liberal b.s. that continues to be repeated as fact. That is what is deceptive and disengenous. The libs are experts at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not entirely true. Bush and Co. often used the terms Saddam, Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, 9/11, War on Terror, etc. together or very close together throughout repeated speeches from early 2002 until the war. While you're right that they never blatantly stated that 'Saddam killed Americans on 9/11' they most certainly insinuated that fact. At best, they blurred the lines between Afghanistan and Iraq, Saddam and AQ, War on Terror and 9/11, that no reasonable person could insist that they weren't trying to influence the public. In fact, an August 2003 poll (note, after the fall of Saddam) that 7 in 10 Americans still believed that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Do you not think there is a reason why a full 70% of your citizens believed this to be true?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
D2,
Bush NEVER said anything of the sort about linking 9/11 with Sadaam...this is more of the liberal b.s. that continues to be repeated as fact. That is what is deceptive and disengenous. The libs are experts at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't it make you sick? They think if they keep saying it that it will eventually become fact.
D2,
Bush NEVER said anything of the sort about linking 9/11 with Sadaam...this is more of the liberal b.s. that continues to be repeated as fact. That is what is deceptive and disengenous. The libs are experts at it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Doesn't it make you sick? They think if they keep saying it that it will eventually become fact.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What you're saying is that the liberals have no proof that Saddam WASN'T developing or pursuing WMD.
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What you're saying is that the liberals have no proof that Saddam WASN'T developing or pursuing WMD.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by American:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What you're saying is that the liberals have no proof that Saddam WASN'T developing or pursuing WMD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. What I am saying is that the onus is not on the people who didn't want to bomb Iraq to prove that Bush's motives weren't founded. It is Bush's responsibility to prove that they were. Further, how in the hell do you prove a negative? Please, answer me that. You cannot prove a negative, only presume it to be true by never being able to prove the positive.
If we look for WMDs for 25 years and never find them, it does not PROVE that they didn't exist, only that we haven't found them. The onus, again, is for you and yours to find them to prove that your war was even so much as quasi-legitimate (although I still believe containment was effective where Saddam was concerned.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
Further, why would the onus be on the naysayers to prove that Saddam wasn't building nuclear weapons or wasn't hiding WMDs? Isn't it the pro-war folks who have the responsiblity to prove that their actions were founded?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What you're saying is that the liberals have no proof that Saddam WASN'T developing or pursuing WMD.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. What I am saying is that the onus is not on the people who didn't want to bomb Iraq to prove that Bush's motives weren't founded. It is Bush's responsibility to prove that they were. Further, how in the hell do you prove a negative? Please, answer me that. You cannot prove a negative, only presume it to be true by never being able to prove the positive.
If we look for WMDs for 25 years and never find them, it does not PROVE that they didn't exist, only that we haven't found them. The onus, again, is for you and yours to find them to prove that your war was even so much as quasi-legitimate (although I still believe containment was effective where Saddam was concerned.)
Nice deflection, American. Except that this thread specifically asked us if we think Bush lied about his reasoning for war, WMD specifically, and by a war supporter. So spare me the 'get over it' routine.
As for handing sovereignty over to Iraq ... just because it looks like an orgasm, sounds like an orgasm, feels like an orgasm, does not mean it's actually an orgasm. Trust me.
Martial Law and Iraqi Sovereignty/Liberation/Freedom/Democracy -- strange bedfellows.
As for handing sovereignty over to Iraq ... just because it looks like an orgasm, sounds like an orgasm, feels like an orgasm, does not mean it's actually an orgasm. Trust me.
Martial Law and Iraqi Sovereignty/Liberation/Freedom/Democracy -- strange bedfellows.
