scared, crying in a cave dies from complications of fear

So since it is sooo blatant that the current administration lied. Then tell me specifically what was the lie?

Try to see if you can manage to come up with something factual please.

 

Here are two off the top of my head:

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

"Mission accomplished."

 

Mission failed on two levels. It was a complete failure actually.

First off there is no dispute that there were tons of chemicals found in Iraq and there is no dispute that the U.N. demanded that the chemicals be destroyed under the supervision of the U.N. team of investigators. The chemicals were not destroyed. No one saw them destroyed rather the team of investigators were kicked out of the country.

Are you telling me that we are to take him at his word that the weapons he refused to destroy and dispose of under the watchful eye of the investigators was destroyed in secret?

You smugly come up with that whopper of a lie very quickly and with confidence. The media spin has worked on the simpleton minds of the masses very well. Some people are very quick to comfortably slide right into the notion that if a majority of the persons informing me on my television set repeated the lie and a poll shows the a majority of persons believe that lie. Then it is a safe argument to repeat that same lie.

Besides the weapons he was under order to dispose of by the U.N. inspectors but refused to do so. There are the weapons that were found after and during the war.

There is also the fact of the equipment that he had. There is the technology to develop weapons there are the Iraqi scientist with manuals and such hidden in their homes and equipment buried on their yards.

There is the Iraqi government attempts to purchase yellow cake uranium in South Africa. This proven by that befuddling idiot Joe Wilson even though he thought he was doing an election year hatchet job on the president it backfired.

Lastly any reference that the president made was in reference to intelligence reports regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Have you ever considered the consequence of Bush ignoring those Intel reports and only fighting in Afghanistan and having out troops there hit with weapons supplied to the Taliban by Iraq? What a heyday the scumbags would have waving Intel reports under everyone's noses and asking "Why did the Bush administration ignore these reports?" "If we had been in office we would have taken these very seriously!"

You want you cake and you want to eat it also don't you?

 

wow joe.. you're still talking shit..

if iraq really had viable WMD (they could launch an attack in 45 minutes remember!!) then the US would have gone down the diplomatic route....


and don't forget joe.. the terrorists.. the insurgents.. are fighting even harder because they know they are losing....

 

yeah joe you're right about a media-bias in the US tho..

 

just in case you think it's bullshit

 

So you cannot even give me one lie.

 

You demonstrate my point Pimp. You are such an idiot. It is the second time not only can you not show me that lie you claimed agains the Bush administration. You played right into what I am saying about the media. Why Pimp do you think Newsweek decided to do the different U.S. cover and then plaster the fact accross their web page?

Answer: Just for people like you pimp. Newsweek is doing what they typically do to decieve the people and you are just an ignorant tool.

 

Joe,

Answer me these two questions:

1. If Iraq had WMDs of ANY description, why didn't Saddam use them when he knew the jig was up anyway?

2. Why am I even bothering, when you're going to regurgitate the same right-wing media conspiracy theories you've already painted the entirety of Cold Sober with?

:?

 

which proves that Newsweek is not much different from any other magazine - they publish whatever sells best.

I have no confidence in any news source that depends on subscriptions, purchases, and advertising to stay alive.

Do any of us actually get the unbiased truth? Think about it.


Barry

 

Saddam had a grip of fear and still does on his people. But they feared worse the repercussions of using weapons of mass destruction against a foe that could retaliate 10 times over. Even is Saddam gave the order I would not be to sure that his generals would be willing to commit that kind of suicide.

What are you suspecting happened to the tons and I am not talking about a few ton but instead the hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical warfare agents the world already agrees that Iraq had? Remember Saddam kicked out the inspectors and refused to allow them to monitor the destruction of the chemicals.

Plus just like I said Joe Wilson himself validated the yellow cake uranium suspicions. Joe Wilson would want nothing more than to slander the president. Remember the fake lawsuit against top members of the Bush administration by prosecutor Fitzgerald? That was all part of the Joe Wilson fiasco. He wanted Bush impeached and Dick Cheney I believe it was frog marched out of the white house and put behind bars. Surely someone with this kind if visceral hatred against Bush unknowingly validating the Yellow cake claims is believable. No right wing conspiracy there.

And a perfectly good reason for reasonable adults to discuss this is to get to the heart of the truth I can not think of a more noble reason.

 

I didn't think it was possible to get the world to agree on anything. And I'm sure as hell we never all agreed on that.

 

Well you pick your battles wisely I'll say. No matter what level of consensus I can prove you can always say you know a guy named Fred who lives in the outback and has no connection to the world other tan a few conversations he has once a month when coming in for supplies. And you can recall the specific conversation you had when he said verbatim "I do not believe the so called thousands of tons of chemical agents that the inspectors saw were actual agents. My theory is that their test equipment was bad and gave false readings."

Yep there we have it no world consensus.

 

Joe, there's a big difference between "chemicals" and "chemical warfare agents".

I've got a few tubs of chlorine out near my swimming pool. Does that give me WMDs?

Bearing this in mind, I wasn't referring to some hayseed redneck whose TV is on the fritz. I was referring to nations. Nations like Russia, France, most Middle Eastern countries, Canada, etc.

I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, but I don't recall unanimous agreement that Iraq was harbouring "chemical warfare agents".

 

Do you mean in a practical sense? Or are you being philosophical?

 

How is he doing that? He (and I) would be the first to agree there is media bias , just not the sort you state. I thought you said there was a 'liberal / left media bias' in the U.S. who were responsible for downplaying America's 'success' (sic) in Iraq and elsewhere? Surely if that was the case, then Newsweek would have run the 'Losing Afghanistan' story in the U.S edition? Like to have your (yellow)cake and eat it do you, you ignorant, bent tool?

 

Well if you’re that lame I'll spell it out for you Newsweek is posing.

A left wing liberal bias mag posing as if not.

They could not even do a good job of it they were concerned that they might miss the opportunity to discredit the U.S. so they could not resist putting the world covers on the front page. This undermining their own credibility and making a stronger point much to the chagrin of the Nursey types.

They hope to gain more credibility before the next election cycle when one of two things will happen. They will go on an attack of the election process if the republicans keep the legislative branch -or- their will be blatant abuse of the system as is typical on the Democratic side and they will go into their "the system works mode". Either way they are strategically positioning themselves. It is a game of chess type strategy not shoots and ladders you are not likely to understand.

 

So, you are saying that they are posing as a right wing paper in order to gain 'credibility' with the American right by not publishing the same damning stories in the U.S as they will in other countries, and cunningly making this apparent by showing all the international front pages on their website (as they do with every other edition previously) the purpose being to discredit the U.S. even if it undermines their own integrity? I think, as in the principle of 'Occam's Razor', the answer is a little less convoluted...

...and seeing as the rest of the world isn't subject to the same level of pro-war propaganda as the U.S., i don't think they'd sell much if they didn't provide a more realistic view of the situation.

 

Sure they have their own interest at stake. There is no doubt about that. There is no harm to themselves to publish anti-American rhetoric to a world increasingly jealous of the U.S. by the day. Hate breeds hate also so if propagates it's self and becomes self-fulfilling. More hate = more hate money to be made.

It is easy to see however that America is the world’s most compassionate country. So the facts do not mate with the rhetoric being disseminated by these publications around the world. They would pull the same stunt here in the states if they could get away with it.

The world in turn pictures America as the fabled Goliath and any adversary of the U.S. as little King David with his sling and stone. This is a ridiculous assumption.

 

Oh and Chester lest I forget:

Chemical

Nuclear

Biological

Missile

I hope you have PDF its ironic how the news publications were building a case to help support Clinton in any action he might take against Iraq. They did a 360 after Bush took office

Section 2 of the same once again in PDF

GW was supposed to write this off as mere coincidence?

The dirty little secrete is that dirty bombs would have nearly as devastating an effect as a nuke. The psychological effects would last lifetimes. This at a time when Islamic radicals are employing the strategy of using proxy terrorist groups to accomplish the means to their objective without ant political repercussions. Eg; Hammas, Hezbollah. Al-Qaeda.

I would hate that you not read any of this however this specific and particular artical is very telling indeed. Make an effort to look at this one if it is truth you are after.

The stratagy of using inspections to buy time. As well as use the oil for food program (Millions of Americas own relief money to be earmarked for the Iraqi people) to but politicians. Surely to do not dispute that U.N. officials were being bribed do you?

Hans Blix I happen to know of your beutifull and cherrished grand daughter as well as her friend Inga. They do still like to hang out on thursdays at that quant little dinner/soda shop thats popular with the kids these days doesn't she. .....But of course she does my agents have been watching her to be sure. Now please do procede with your inspections. Oh and by the way your toothbrush did not taste funny did it? I'm sure your belondings are being safe guarded by my intelligence officials no need for you to worry one bit.

UNMOVIC, UNSCOM, IAEA, as well as UN official documents

Government documents. That’s documents of 30 different governments throughout the world

So please do tell when and where did George Bush Lie?