Impeach Bush : NO WMDs (Weapons of Mass Disappearance)
- Thread starter TigerO
- Start date
nor a Liberal there is no president more associated with lying than clinton, and deservedly so. clinton's lying is irrelevant to the justification for a preemptive war.
even stipulating, hypothetically, that saddam had lots and lots and lots of weapons, would that lead to the conclusion that iraq was an immediate, imminent threat to the US?
Through terrorist groups??? of course......However, Im not going to sit here and tell you and others that im NOT disappointed in the fact that they have come up empty in terms of missles and chemicals, although some of the othere things they have found, including 30 Migs burried and the mobile labs buried in the samd are enough of a clue of the fact that they are hiding weapons...However, Im still pretty sure they are going to find more.....what always puzzled me was some of the very obvious powders and toxin suits they found early on...the News would report them as a FIND...yet the army would quickly test and dismiss them as anti toxin or other things....which had me wondering why they didn't just say yes they were.....i think they know what he had and they will find them...unfortunately, they may be in another county's hands right now.
Quote from ElCubano:
So what we tried to stop from happening actually may have happened because we went to War...Is that want you are saying???
P.S. which "county" do you think has them??? Dade or Broward....
Id dade had them they would certianly use them on broward to try and get the fins back to the orange Bowl LOL!!!
I don't know if in fact that has happened...syria comes to mind but i don;t know...like i said, Im not happy about this and i am a little miffed that they have not found them becuase that was a central goal going in, clearly...but im miffed becuase god knows where they can be now.
There is an urban myth going around the Democrat campaign circles that the justification for the war was an "imminent" threat from Saddam's WMD. I may be wrong, as I haven't researched every speech, but I don't think this was ever given as a justification. Rather, the threat was that Saddam had ongoing programs for developing WMD. At some point he could deploy them with little notice, much as the Koreans were able to hoodwink the naive Clinton administration, which was more interested in securing Haiti for Washington lobbyists and Kosovo for CNN.
I'm reasonably convinced that there was some sleight of hand performed by administration officials to conceal the neo-con agenda of remaking the middle east, but the charge by buffoons such as Kennedy and Bob Graham that it was some sort of massive fraud is baseless.
The order of business now is to repudiate the massive debt run up by Saddam, then redevelop the oil fields, using OPM. I continue to believe throwing US taxpayer money into Iraq is a good way for Bush to find himself as a one term President.
I'm reasonably convinced that there was some sleight of hand performed by administration officials to conceal the neo-con agenda of remaking the middle east, but the charge by buffoons such as Kennedy and Bob Graham that it was some sort of massive fraud is baseless.
The order of business now is to repudiate the massive debt run up by Saddam, then redevelop the oil fields, using OPM. I continue to believe throwing US taxpayer money into Iraq is a good way for Bush to find himself as a one term President.
Reasons we went in:
70% ...that saddam was a threat to us ( WMD or by whatver means)..yet when he needed to be a threat he wasnt...I dont get that part to this day i still dont get it.....tripleA please let me know why he didnt use them
20% ..to free the people...why not free me Cubans?? or could Fidel be next
7% ... His defiance that he had no weapons
3% ... for Oil
In the end it will turn out to be:
99.9 % ... for Oil..which may in fact be a whole other story.
.000001% free the people.
.0000000001% Saddam was a threat
The key phrase is "imminent threat from WMD". Of course there was a lot of talk about WMD's, but it was in the nature of programs to develop WMD's or hidden WMD's. No one can honestly dispute that Saddam had WMD programs, had large quantities of chem/bio weapons at one time, had a nuke program and even used chem weapons. As you point out, even Clinton agreed on that. The Dem's are running around claiming the excuse for war was that we were under an imminent threat of WMD, which is what I was focusing on. I don't think you will find that Bush said that.