Bush admits defeat: NO WMDs

[Gonzalo el Silenciado]

www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html

---

: Gathering - Souvenirs

---

[SethFWF]

It's no problem to admit defeat and move on to more rush to judgements now. Can't hurt him.

But I'm still trying to take a wait and see approach to this next term. Hopefully he may have learned a few things and be a little more careful not to polarize the country further.

We'll see...

Seth

[Shark Black]

So you all think we'd be better off with Saddam in Power.
Do you think the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam in Power.
He defied the world for more than a decade. The whole world was hoodwinked by thus mass murderer. Good riddance and Right on Mr. Bush! 50 Million freed from oppression.

[Prymary]

Just a question for everyone... do you think if this happened before the election, the result (of the election) would've been the same? Just wondering what y'all think.

Sean

[SethFWF]

Bush would have won either way IMO. Kerry just wasn't a good enough alternative even though it was fairly close. I'm sure many voted for him just for their dislike if Bush, but that generally won't win an election.

Of course I do think the world and Iraq are better off without Saddam. I still think the route taken to accomplish this was the wrong one. Patience and better scrutiny of the intel may have saved many lives and $$.

Seth

[IOfTheStorm]

Shark Black: A LOT more people in Iraq died (and dies everyday) by Bush's actions, rather by the (horrific indeed) Hussein's government.

[Shark Black]

That's so untrue.

Hussien killed Hundreds of thousands of people in his country and Kuwait and dumped them into mass graves. And that's just what is known. Iraq is big graveyard. His government cut peoples tongues out, chopped off hands, They threw people of 4 story buildings. His two sadistic sons killed and raped at will. The Iraqi government was one of the worst in the history of humankind. You can't convince me that bringing freedom to those poor people is a bad thing. Yes it has it's costs. If Bush didn't do what the world was afraid to do Saddam Hitler would still be in power and allowed to continue his ways. And I find that bizzare to think that that is a better option at this point.

But if you watch the news, the people who are doing the killing are still Hussien's henchmen and foreign terrorists. Not George Bush and his actions.

And the ones that the awesome US military are going after are those doing the killing. As usual the US and several other brave countries have the cojones to actually do something about it, while the rest of the world sits on the sidelines willing to allow a man like Hussien do his thing. Do you believe that by slapping him on the wrist while he continued to defy the United Nations and the world that he would eventually change his colors?

So Bush's Actions have brought freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and made flying a kite or listening to a radio legal there again. Libia has disarmed and Iraq with no help from the naysayers will have democracy too. Without George Bush's clarity of the situation none of this would be true.

Have a nice day. ;D

[BenMech]

Brett:

I disagree with you on your points, but I don't want to take up too much space in this thread.

I'll say this: What you see and read from TV "news organizations" and Print media has been heavily edited by both corporate committees, and Bush's own Public Relations bullies.Of course, those two groups overlap too easily.

So, you might ask, "Where does the correct truthful newsfeed come from, if we're only seeing propaganda displays?"

On that note, I do not have an answer. The Noise against Signal ratio of news-sources online is pitiful, but not altogether laughable, AS LONG AS YOU CLEARLY UNDERSTAND the editorial slant of the "publisher".

[Shark Black]

So you disagree that Libya Disarmed, That Aghanistan went from Tyranny to Democracy, and that the forces of democracy are not fighting the forces of tyranny in Iraq.

OK
;D

[IOfTheStorm]

I really hope that you are joking
if you are not then i feel sorry for you

[marvthemailman]

my avatar says it all, Big deal Bush admits no WMDs, what's he got to lose? Maybe He can come clean about some of his other F*&^ups? like the economy, evironment, rights of American workers??

[Shark Black]

IOfTheStorm said:

I really hope that you are joking
if you are not then i feel sorry for you

Show me the error of my ways...
Are you denying the above?
And if so give me some book learnin' without falling into some conspiracy theory. Yuk Yuk

[IOfTheStorm]

Just try to see the whole thing presented from any non-usa media (and non-england of course). Welcome to a new world for you.

[Shark Black]

And they will tell me what..
I give you facts, you give me words
Tell me what you're NON USA media tells you

[Gonzalo el Silenciado]

Hold on there, Brett brotha. What's this silliness about 'you opposed the war, therefore you hail Saddam?' I'll grant that no one is bleeding for Saddam, but the whole deal about Iraqi WMDs being a severe and imminent threat to the US and democracy-embracing freedom-lovers everywhere was the prime motive behind the war. All the other reasons to do so - he brutalized his own people, etc - were not mentioned by the administration until it became obvious that no weapons would be found. Said 'backup justifications' mostly took place when a certain US president who was in power during most of the 80s (his initials were 'R.R.') called Saddam an ally, armed him, sent envoys and military/ intelligence officials to him, and pretty much called him a friend simply because Saddam called Iran his enemy. The most infamous of Saddam's now-reviled atrocities - the massacre o' Kurds - took place in April 1988, while Herr Reagan was still in power.
Reagan did nothing.

Bush the First did do something about him, even though it took the invasion of a small, oil-rich country to get him to do it. I seriously doubt the US would have intervened if this had happened in some 100% impoverished, oil-less shithole like, say, Sudan. Still, Bush the First drove the Iraqi military out of Kuwait quickly and with minimal casualties to US troops and Iraqi civilians. And, as he wrote in his bio in the late 90s, he recongnized that to topple the Hussein regime would have been far too costly and troublesome an effort to undertake. Hence the sanctions and routine inspections.

'So,' you say, 'you ackowledge that Saddam was an ass and yet revile Dubya for ousting him?' Not quite. We must first recognize that Reagan's primary reason for ignoring Saddam was the cold war, when those evil socialist-commie forces emmanating from Russia were a much graver danger than any lunatic leader who axxed his own people. In other words, he was too busy paying attention to stupider things.

While he was cheering for war, Bush himself was paying attention to stupider things, but in this case, Saddam was the culprit. Were this 1988, then I might not have had a problem with it, but these days, the President should have MUCH more important things to worry about than avenging his daddy, which was always what I believed the real reason behind the war. I mean, come on, WMDs? First off, if the Pentagon were actually fully convinced that Saddam DID have them, the administration would not have been so foolish as to say 'okay, Saddam, we're giving you two weeks now. Okay, 13 days... come on, if you don't hand 'em over, we attack you on March 3rd..." because SADDAM WOULD HAVE USED THESE WMDs AGAINST THE US AND ITS ALLIES.

And think of the ridiculous things the admin. said during the runup to the war. "This here's the flatbed trailer Saddam's goons made warheads in while traversing unpaved desert roads. This abandoned pharmaceudical factory is where they process their plutonium. Saddam was behind 9-11." I mean, get real man.

Then there's the fact that Middle Eastern resentment against the west in general and the US in particular has grown considerably, and that terrorism in Iraq has grotesquely increased, that Iraqi political parties won't even announce who their candidates are for fear of assassinations, and that at least two major cities are too fucked up to be able to partake in the election, and that the US military is still a considerable presence in a country purported to be its own sovereign state again, and a bunch of other shit ad infifuckingnitum.

The US has spend untold hundreds of billions of dollars financing the war and the search for weapons, all the while underarming and understaffing the troops who were supposed to have been welcomed as liberators. Well over 1000 US troops have been killed there. Several hundred died searching for weapons I'm convinced the higher-ups knew WERE NOT THERE. It would be one thing if they had died doing something constructive. But they didn't. They died in vain. NOT cool.

Meanwhile, the admin is cutting taxes for those who need them least while cutting funding for social programs that benefit people who DO need them, underfunding the troops while spending shitloads on the war itself... all this INSTEAD OF FIGHTING TERROR.

Sense making?

NP: Marillion - Radiation