Impeach Bush : NO WMDs (Weapons of Mass Disappearance)

Sorry, I hate Bush BUT I HATE ALSO THIS #@&!% SADDAM ! Bush in fact has been allied to Saddam in Business for hundreds of millions of dollars in a petroleum contract among others that's what journalists from Times were uncovering before 11th September and I guess that they don't want this to be known and need now to make appear Saddam as an ennemy of Bush !

So saying that Saddam wasn't a threat, sorry this is a lie as Bush lies ! What nobody seems to see is that they are dispersing people between two extreme camps so as nobody cares about the truth !

As for Bush see

John Loftus, Justice Department prosecutor, in his "Secret war against the Jews"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22607

and
How the Bush family made
its fortune from the Nazis
http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/bush_nazis.html

Quote from TigerO:

[color=red
Saddam Hussein was NOT linked to 9/11, had NO ties to Al Qaeda, and did NOT pose a threat to the USA !
[/B]
More...
 
Nice post, TigerO. Reading some of your earlier posts, I see it was right about this time last year you were a leading anti-war proponent; your arguments make just as much sense today as they did a year ago.



For those of you who toe-to-toed it with me earlier this year, Hey, can I throw in a big fat TOLD YA SO, too? :D


As for whether "the world" will be better off with Saddam gone, it's obviously far too early to tell, as this thing is likely to have repercussions for years, if not generations. Sure, in the long term -- but not right now -- life will be better for Iraqis, but for the rest of the World (as opposed to the USA, although Americans constantly fail to recognise the difference)? Who knows.
 
Oh God, He's coming!

The "President" of the United States, one George Walker Bush, has accepted an invitation from the Queen, to pay us a state visit in November.

Aside from the questionable taste on Her Majesty's part that this demonstrates, has anyone got any ideas as to how we could give him the welcome he so richly deserves?

---

"Surely it's a trap. He'll be arrested by the British police as an international war criminal as soon as he gets off the plane. After all, he started an illegal war on a pretense (that Iraq presented a threat), and killed many people for no good reason."

---

more at Guardian Talk International http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?50@@.685e8fce/0
 
Quote from TM_Direct:

.....On the other hand, I would challenge anyone to tell me ( assuming there will never be wmds found which i highly doubt) if the world is not a better place with him over thrown??? ./..and he should have been thrown out by Bush I...I mean.....how many more stories of brutality must you hear? how many more mass graves?...if you are cool with it..fine....me, i thought we shold have taken him out a long time ago...and like i keep saying, if i ha my way....there would be cross hairs on iran , syria , yemen and libya rioght now....anyone want to make an argument that we shouldn't just finish it off now?????
More...

IMO, your thinking is way off base. If Saddam had been a supporter of the US, he would still be in power, despite his brutal treatment of his population. We have a long history of supporting despots, so long as they tow the U.S. line, and we feel it is in our national interest.

It is very arguable if the world is a better or worse place now. We have put our troops in a very difficult position, we have alienated our key western allies and most of the world with our arrogance, and we have but a huge dent in our national budget.

And for what? What have we really gained? If Bush had taken the UN's offer to put permanent inspectors in Iraq before he attacked, we would have gotten EVERYTHING we were looking for, and it would not have cost us NOTHING.

I only hope that eventually he will pay the price for his stupidity.
 
Quote from lindq:



IMO, your thinking is way off base. If Saddam had been a supporter of the US, he would still be in power, despite his brutal treatment of his population. We have a long history of supporting despots, so long as they tow the U.S. line, and we feel it is in our national interest.

It is very arguable if the world is a better or worse place now. We have put our troops in a very difficult position, we have alienated our key western allies and most of the world with our arrogance, and we have but a huge dent in our national budget.

And for what? What have we really gained? If Bush had taken the UN's offer to put permanent inspectors in Iraq before he attacked, we would have gotten EVERYTHING we were looking for, and it would not have cost us NOTHING.

I only hope that eventually he will pay the price for his stupidity.
More...

But is it really stupidity....I cant believe they could be this stupid... Arrogance perhaps?? stupidity??? I think not... OIL baby, its all about OIL.....
 
I know he's a SOB. But at least, he's <b>our</b> SOB.

bush,7.jpg


:D
 
Quote from Nolan-Vinny-Sam:



AAAinthebeltway WROTE: ..an imminent threat of WMD, which is what I was focusing on. I don't think you will find that Bush said that.

HAHAHA man you've lost it completely. Are you that stupid? clinging on your dumya:D :D

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html
More...

I admire your research skills. But so far all you have found to rebut me is a newspaper header and a speech by an obscure congressman from Pennsylvania. Obviously if the actual President had said it or implied it, you would have found it by now, so I feel better in repeating my original claim: Bush never said there was an "imminent threat"--meaning immediate threat-- from WMD. He did say there was a threat that Saddam would obtain WMD and be in a position to threaten us without warning, much as the North Koreans were able to do because of Clinton's criminal lack of attention.

As far as I can tell, the "imminent threat" language was first used by Kennedy, who demanded a resolution that we would attack only if there was an "imminent threat" from WMD. Of course, that was a typically lunatic idea, since if there was an imminent threat from WMD, we'd be in the same spot we are with the N. Koreans, afraid to attack because of reprisals. A couple of weeks ago, Kennedy dug up this language again and triumphly declared that Bush had lied because there was no imminent threat. Apparently no one told him his original "idea" had been unceremoniously ashcanned.

I fully understand that lib's/media/Dem's never let accuracy stand in the way of a demagogic attack on a Republican, but I think any reasonably open-minded person has to agree that Bush never used the "imminent threat" language that is being ascribed to him.
 
AAA did you miss this post: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22568&perpage=6&pagenumber=7

PLEASE READ AGAIN CAREFULLY



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

The article said that, Bush did not. Show me where HIS WORDS said that. In fact, he said the opposite. He said we can't allow this threat to ARISE, which clearly means it is not imminent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



right right, how dare they put false words in your hero's mouth.. right? Lying sobs..

An actual tape recording would do it, surely you will ask for authentication. Not good enough though. So how about a video tape? Hmmmmm not good either.. it can be digitally doctored just to fool AAAinthebeltway.

Hmmm what can we do next? AAA in the same room as dumya?not good... I bet ya you'll come out saying that there was something wrong with your ears

Sooooo, how about the actual Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq????????


Provided by the whitehouse signed by your hero... counterfeit signature you will say I'm sure

Vote for Resolution Authorizing U.S. Military Action Against Iraq
Sees ‘Imminent Threat’; Says Resolution Strikes ‘Appropriate Balance’


[one of the many excerpts:]

.... The President has maintained that this resolution is necessary at this time based on his assessment of the imminent threat to the United States posed by Iraq. If the President believes based on the intelligence that he has received that an imminent threat exists, then it is my belief that we must support him.

....As the President pursues diplomatic negotiations to end this imminent threat, it is

....He [GW] now seeks Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq based on his assessment of the imminent threat presented by the untrustworthiness

http://www.house.gov/kanjorski/02_1...War_Release.htm



Surely enough I'm expecting you to come back with another bull answer like Bush never said or thought or tried to convince congress that the threat was imminent! blah blah blah....

BTW the resolution passed, key was the dumya lobbying congress with the "imminent threat" argument. The only way to get around UN approval and act unilaterally.. but we knew that already




Give it a rest bro, take your pills, face reality.. we all do.. the sooner the better Whatever...
 
AAA... If Ari Fleisher said it, would that count?

He is the press secretary, and is in charge of keeping the press informed as to the feelings and views of the administration... namely Bush.

Let's say a whitehouse correspondent asked Ari... "Does the administration believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the national security of the United States?" and lets just say that Ari says "Oh, Absolutely. In light of the 12 years of UN defiance and Saddam's inability to prove that he is rid of his WOMD,.... the president believes that the time for diplomacy is over.", would that be enough in your book?
 
Well, obviously AAA is intent on protecting Bush, personally, but that's more of a side issue. The fact is that the War campaign focused very much on the imminency of the threat Iraq posed. The British were quite specific about it, saying Iraq had the capability to launch an attack within 45 minutes.

If you hark back to when the war began, there was a bit of surprise, on the side of the antiwar crowd at any rate, just why the attack had to take place RIGHT NOW, couldn't possibly wait another week. Forget prolonging the inspections people (hmm, I wonder why?), we have to attack NOW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top