Bush and WMD's

**4G63** · 01-01-2009, 11:27 AM

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I'm just going to put this here and you guys can think about it. This MiG-25 was buried in the sand by the Iraqis with sophisticated electronics from the Russians and French on board, in violation of UN-treaties. Its a freaking 70-foot long JET FIGHTER!! What makes you think that the same thing couldn't be done with WMD's? Seriously....think about that for a second and make an objective decision......and don't tell me Saddam never had WMD's either because history tells us otherwise.

http://www.rb-29.net/html/03relateds...mirqmigdig.htm

**HoustonRaven** · 01-01-2009, 04:36 PM

For anyone who thinks there were never chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, I invite them to then drink from Euphrates River since they are so confident.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-02-2009, 05:22 PM

seriously folks...it has been over five years now. psssttt...they haven't found any WMDs...there aren't any. it was a ruse. its time to move on. O8

**4G63** · 01-02-2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

seriously folks...it has been over five years now. psssttt...they haven't found any WMDs...there aren't any. it was a ruse. its time to move on. O8

Ha ha ha.....got ya!!

When confronted with photographic evidence that something as large as a jet fighter (there were more, this just shows 1) could be buried in the sand and hidden from the US forces, you respond with a "tin foil hat" joke. I'm not surprised though and to be honest G7, I expected as much. Democrats, when confronted with evidence that shows the "possibility" that Bush was right all along, resort to childish retorts. What category would that person fall under while you're treating them?

Oh, and I guess what Saddam did with the Kurds up north in the 80's was done with pepper spray, huh?

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-02-2009, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by 4G63

Ha ha ha.....got ya!!

When confronted with photographic evidence that something as large as a jet fighter (there were more, this just shows 1) could be buried in the sand and hidden from the US forces, you respond with a "tin foil hat" joke. I'm not surprised though and to be honest G7, I expected as much. Democrats, when confronted with evidence that shows the "possibility" that Bush was right all along, resort to childish retorts. What category would that person fall under while you're treating them?

Oh, and I guess what Saddam did with the Kurds up north in the 80's was done with pepper spray, huh?

that picture has been online for 5 years now. it means nothing. your argument is as illogical and meaningless as HR saying that global warming is a farce because one volcanic hiccup is greater than all man made co2 output in history. it is just silly stuff.

the fact that they found an airplane hidden under the sand and have found nothing else resembling wmds ,if anything, shows they have the ability to find such objects and since they have not found wmds, it only further solidifies this war was nothing about wmds. but of course most of the world already knows that but keep believing. 1-20-09

**Rochardrik** · 01-05-2009, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

For anyone who thinks there were never chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, I invite them to then drink from Euphrates River since they are so confident.

Of course there were biological weapons.. He gassed the Kurds, did he not? But We knew that in '88! ANd Raygun interceded on his behalf when the rest of the world wanted to sanction him, for doing so, because we needed an ally after supporting the criminal Shah of Iran, and being out on a limb when the Ayatollah ousted him! As Fat Rush said, "so, he gassed a few Kurds"..... It was fine then, but, now they are weapons of mass destruction? What changed? NOTHING. Bush needed an excuse. This was HIS war, and as such he should be remembered as a man who killed over half a million people just to avenge the alleged plot against his daddy! Effing PATHETIC!!!!!! And Cheney, after the first gulf war said," We cannot go into Iraq and overthrow Sadaam, it would cause a civil war"....What changed?...Again, nothing!
Your blustering rings hollow! So do all the lies the admin told to convince Congress to act. There should be NO Bush supporters on this issue! His actions were nothing short of criminal!!!... and it's time to stop spinning it and get on with fixing what we screwed up!!!!!!

**HoustonRaven** · 01-05-2009, 07:56 PM

Oy.

Roch, why is it always one side being 100% at fault while the other side is gloriously innocent. Life doesnt work that way yet somehow it does in politics?

For the record, I was against the Iraq invasion. However, EVERY member of the UN Security Council was saying Iraq had vast amounts of WMD's. EVERY MEMBER. That's 13 separate countries, all with their own intelligence services, all saying the exact same thing. But then you turn table and say it was revenge plot. And didnt you once also say it was for oil?

You're pissed. As am I. As a conservative, I am always irked when a President acts in such a narrow-minded way. I hated it when Bush 41 did it, when Clinton did it (twice) and I hated it when Bush did it in Iraq.

But call a spade a spade my friend.

Where is Bush's crime?

**RustonRifle** · 01-08-2009, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by 4G63

Not sure if this has been mentioned but I'm just going to put this here and you guys can think about it. This MiG-25 was buried in the sand by the Iraqis with sophisticated electronics from the Russians and French on board, in violation of UN-treaties. Its a freaking 70-foot long JET FIGHTER!! What makes you think that the same thing couldn't be done with WMD's? Seriously....think about that for a second and make an objective decision......and don't tell me Saddam never had WMD's either because history tells us otherwise.

http://www.rb-29.net/html/03relateds...mirqmigdig.htm

Now there's a reason to invade a nation and kill tens of thousands of people.

It's okay for bush policy to kill , maim or disfigure but not Saddam?

**Rochardrik** · 01-08-2009, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Oy.

Roch, why is it always one side being 100% at fault while the other side is gloriously innocent. Life doesnt work that way yet somehow it does in politics?

For the record, I was against the Iraq invasion. However, EVERY member of the UN Security Council was saying Iraq had vast amounts of WMD's. EVERY MEMBER. That's 13 separate countries, all with their own intelligence services, all saying the exact same thing. But then you turn table and say it was revenge plot. And didnt you once also say it was for oil?

You're pissed. As am I. As a conservative, I am always irked when a President acts in such a narrow-minded way. I hated it when Bush 41 did it, when Clinton did it (twice) and I hated it when Bush did it in Iraq.

But call a spade a spade my friend.

Where is Bush's crime?

First of all, those 13 countries were relying mainly on our intelligence... and that's a fact!!!!!
I don't really know why he was so intent on invading Iraq. I should have qualified that. It may have been the assasination plot revenge, it may have been oil, it may be that he actually thought it was a good move. What I do believe, is that the WMDs was entirely an excuse. They effectively stonewalled every reasonable opinion.... CIA director, Clark, Colin Powell... with obviously faulty intelligence, ignoring all evidence but what they wanted to believe. Then came a systematic discrediting of all info, and personell which indicated otherwise.
This was his crime. Intelligence was accepted from basically one source.... a member of the Iraq group who wanted to oust Saddam... and this source was already known to be a liar, a fact which has been well proven. It was the ONLY source that indicated the presence of WMDs while ALL other sources refuted this info.
His crime was manipulating intelligence, then presenting it as gospel to Congress and the American people.
With the fear-mongering propaganda, it was an easy sell.
If this is not an impeachable offense, I don't know what is. I personally think Cheney was the driving force behind it all, but as Truman said, "The buck stops here." I don't know about you, but I would personally prefer my president lied about where his cigar had been than needlessly causing the death of half a million people, including a multitude of American citizens fooled into believing they were protecting their fellow Americans!

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-08-2009, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Rochardrik

First of all, those 13 countries were relying mainly on our intelligence... and that's a fact!!!!!

Don't try to turn this into a logic exercise Roch! HR might have to examine the notion that we frosted our intelligence to make it tastier as many have pointed out. Then the silly premise that all 13 countries knew there were WMDs kinda falls apart... ooops.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-08-2009, 05:21 PM

Russia was relying on our intel?

China was relying on our intel?

The UK was relying on our intel?

France too?

Careful boys. I guess when you read a bumper sticker enough you start believing it to be true.

Passionate post, Roch but I don't see a high crime anywhere in it. Horrible judgment on W's part? Yes. High Crime? Not even close.

You all want to even the score with Slick Willy's lies. I get that. But maybe you ought to hang your hat on something tangible and real -- like the extensive over-reaching of the Executive branch after 9-11 ala fund seizures?