Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Mac1958]

,

So evidently the argument here is that Bush was right to go into Iraq, even with hindsight. That would mean that Bush would have gotten approval if he had gone to the American public and said the following:

"My fellow Americans: Saddam has sarin gas. Therefore, we're going to go into Iraq, get rid of Saddam and set up a democracy. It will cost us multiple trillions of dollars -- no, not billions, TRILLIONS -- that we'll need to borrow, but that's just the beginning. Thousands of young American soldiers will die; thousands more will be mutilated physically; thousands more will be mutilated mentally; thousands of young American children will no longer see Mommy or Daddy again. And, as an added consequence of taking out Saddam, we will eliminate the one mitigating factor in the region that is keeping Iran from running amok.

"But Saddam has sarin gas, so all of that will be worth it. So here we go. Thanks for your time."

And Americans from coast to coast would cheer. "Yeah, go get 'im, George. Here, take my son".

Right?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Methinks Rottweiler may soon be fired by Big Brother. His/her effort to fabricate a conclusion from ridiculous evidence violates rule number one at the Ministry of Truth, "Don't Embarrass Big Brother".

The OP succeeds in only embarrassing himself.

Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack

By Scott Lindlaw
ASSOCIATED PRESS

October 8, 2004

WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction…

Bush, Cheney admit Iraq had no WMD, take new tack | The San Diego Union-Tribune

And of course Bush wouldn’t lie about something like that.

 

[Wicked Jester]

But, enough of this.....I TIVO'd the memorial service for the late, great, Dr. Jerry Buss....Gotta go see what all my beloved Lakers had to say.....From what I hear, it was pretty awesome.

Laaaaaater!

His passing didn't really hit me until tonight when I watched the memorial speakers and it started sinking in how many people he affected and they all had their special "Jerry moments" to share. The one thing I will always remember, was whenever you saw him on TV, he would have a couple of babes half his age at his side.

When I first became a Laker fan, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor were their stars; they played at the LA Sports Arena and Jack Kent Cooke was their owner. In '67, he wanted the Collisium Commission to renovate the arena and put in luxary boxes. They told him, "If you want luxary boxes, go build yourself your own arena!" So he went and built the Inglewood Forum, moved the team there and changed the color of their jersey's to purple. But the weird thing is, he didn't like the word "purple", so he told Chick Hearn, refer to the uniforms as "forum blue". As soon as Buss bought the team in '79, the first thing Chick said was, "These uniforms are P-U-R-P-L-E!"

He will be missed.

Saw my first game in '72 at 8 years old.....17,505, packed house against the Knicks......I was hooked from that point forward....Had season tickets from the late eighties, until mid ninety's, when the prices just got to be through the roof.

The memorial was something else, particlularly seeing all the showtime Lakers present and speaking......Still the greatest team, man for man, position by position, EVER assembled.

 

[Billo_Really]

Saw my first game in '72 at 8 years old.....17,505, packed house against the Knicks......I was hooked from that point forward....Had season tickets from the late eighties, until mid ninety's, when the prices just got to be through the roof.

The memorial was something else, particlularly seeing all the showtime Lakers present and speaking......Still the greatest team, man for man, position by position, EVER assembled.

That's a true statement and history bears this out.

They have:

played more playoff games than any team.
more playoff finals than anyone else
more playoff games won than anyone else
more consecutive seasons making the playoffs more than anyone else
highest winning percentage of all-time
least amount of times not making the playoffs​

As they say, the Lakers don't rebuild, they re-tool.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

Methinks Rottweiler may soon be fired by Big Brother. His/her effort to fabricate a conclusion from ridiculous evidence violates rule number one at the Ministry of Truth, "Don't Embarrass Big Brother".

Soooo documented military events, eyewitnesses, and even left-wing media acknowledgement constitutes "ridiculous evidence" in your mind?

Just out of curiousity - what is your idea of "reliable evidence"?

Your record on this message board suggests - strongly - that you're too dumb to ever be curious. I read your link, I suggest you have someone read it to your and explain.

 

[rdean]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

What do you think Bush Sr. knew? And why? Think it thru.

 

[Freewill]

Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

I guess that makes Colin Powel one big fat liar.

 

[rdean]

Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

I guess that makes Colin Powel one big fat liar.

Or gullible for listening to a shitstains like Bush and Cheney.

 

[Saigon]

I have yet to see one conservative "ridicule" here (in fact, they've all agreed).

Oh please do name them!

In fact - I insist that you name them.

Isn't it interesting how you and your pals - who do a LOT of crying - can't provide one single link to dispute what I've said? I've provided links to MSNBC, Wikipedia, other web sites, and listed books and authors. A wide plethora of verifiable facts. In fact, the only person who finally added a link (g-string), was to an op-ed opinion piece which complained about Chuck Pfarrer's book while admitting that Iraq had WMD's!

All you've added is your whining little butt-hurt uninformed, uneducated opinions.

So you don't have any names, then?

Come on, man - let's see the list of all of these posters who "all agree!"

 

[Billo_Really]

Well, in post #61 you state (and I quote directly here): "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as: These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

As I stated in my previous post, minor injuries to two soldiers, does not constitute a "large-scale impact on people".

(end quote).

Now here's the problem my friend - North Korea just set of nuclear weapons in which no one was killed and there was no large scale impact on property or infrastructure.

So, by your definition (mind you, not the official definition but your definition that two people being affected by the Sarin Gas in Iraq are simply not enough people to make the Sarin Gas a WMD), then nuclear weapons are not WMD's as North Korea just set one off without an injury to a single person. Also, between the years of 1945 to 1980, the U.S. set off nearly 80 nuclear bombs in New Mexico and Nevada during testing - and again there was no one injured or killed (to the best of my knowledge anyway - and certainly not on a large scale).

Now, would you like to retract your position on what constitutes a WMD so we can have an honest discussion? Sarin Gas is a WMD - period. And Sarin Gas (along with other chemcial weapons) was located in Iraq. These are fundamental facts that cannot be disputed.

Very good! Your arguments are improving! But you're not there yet.

Maybe we should determine what is the definition of a "weapon"?

I think you're missing the spirit of a WMD. There is a difference between "testing" and "deployment". I think the FBI's definition was in regards to the latter.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you drunk right now? Go read post #61 and tell me you "agree with me". You've been bashing me through the entire thread claiming that sarin gas does not constitute a WMD

I was only addressing (and objecting) to my inclusion in your response to the guy who said there is "no clear definition" for WMD's, because I agree there is a "clear definition", which is something you provided.

If you want to include me in something, make sure it's related.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Fact of the matter is,.....Sadaam himself, admitted during his interrogation, that he purposely faked the scale of his weapons programs, and mislead the inspectors because he feared Iran, and didn't think Bush would actually invade....He expected a Clinton style bombing campaign, that he absolutley did not fear, after all, why would he?

Only one man is responsible for what happened, Sadaam Hussein himself......He was given every opportunity to come clean. He continually played games, and chose to continually rattle his sword...That sword was firmly planted up his ass, once and for all........GOOD!

If he was given "every opportunity", we would've allowed UN inspectors to finish their mission.

You people say the most dumbass shit!

Then history will prove that Clinton, Kerrey, Daschle, Levin, and many more Democrats were taken for fools by Sadaam. Just think of all those cruise missiles that Clinton sent into Iraq based upon his ideas of Iraqi WMD and of course Monica's BJ's. This includes the fact that Clinton and his crew misled the incoming Bush administration.

 

[editec]

If one uses US law (18 USC §2332a) WMD

"2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.

By that definition every weapon known to man is a weapon of mass destruction.

If you doubt me, follow section 921 and SEE FOR YOURSELF.

18 USC § 921 - Definitions | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

So just to be very clear here - you're claiming Sarin Gas is not a WMD? Is that correct?

You must have a real reading comprehension problem, amigo.

What I wrote is what I wrote.

You can, of course, comment on what you wish I'd written, but then you are basically debating with a straw man of your own device.

 

[Billo_Really]

Then history will prove that Clinton, Kerrey, Daschle, Levin, and many more Democrats were taken for fools by Sadaam.

Fooled them about what?

How come you don't say anything about him fooling Reagan?

Have you forgotten this famous pic?

Just think of all those cruise missiles that Clinton sent into Iraq based upon his ideas of Iraqi WMD and of course Monica's BJ's.

Clinton didn't send missles into Iraq, he bombed Bosnia.

There was no fighting between the US and Iraq from '93 - 2001.

Only the two Bush Presidents bombed Iraq.

This includes the fact that Clinton and his crew misled the incoming Bush administration.

Misled them about what?

Why are you trying to pin all this on Clinton? All he did was sanctions and sign that un-Constitutional liberation bill, he didn't authorize any military force against Hussein, like the neocons wanted him to. I will admit he did play a role in regime change, but it was a small one compared to Bush43.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Just think of all those cruise missiles that Clinton sent into Iraq based upon his ideas of Iraqi WMD and of course Monica's BJ's.

Clinton didn't send missles into Iraq, he bombed Bosnia.

There was no fighting between the US and Iraq from '93 - 2001.

Only the two Bush Presidents bombed Iraq.

.

I have to make a correction here.

Clinton DID order the bombing of Iraq. He ordered a bombing of the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry in 1993 after the attempted assassination of President Bush-41 in Kuwait.

List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He ordered a four day bombing of Iraq in December 1998 that happened to co-incide with the impeachment hearing in the house, known as Operation Desert Fox.

Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to excuse what Bush did. And there is an attempt by conservatives to excuse their screw-ups by pointing out they got REpublicans to go along with it...

 

[Billo_Really]

I have to make a correction here.

Clinton DID order the bombing of Iraq. He ordered a bombing of the Iraqi Intelligence Ministry in 1993 after the attempted assassination of President Bush-41 in Kuwait.

List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He ordered a four day bombing of Iraq in December 1998 that happened to co-incide with the impeachment hearing in the house, known as Operation Desert Fox.

Bombing of Iraq (December 1998) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to excuse what Bush did. And there is an attempt by conservatives to excuse their screw-ups by pointing out they got REpublicans to go along with it...

You're absolutely right! I forgot about those.

Thanks for the correction!

 

[P@triot]

So you support throwing away trillions in these wars and then blame Obama and democrats for it?

Only the left considers money spent on defense "waste" while money spent on waste, fraud, abuse, and pork in the U.S. to be "money well spent"

I think it depends on how you define waste.

Money spent on a bomb that is dropped, kills a lot of innocent people, creates people who otherwise hate us and turns them into terrorists... that's 'waste'.

But bridge or a school or a water filtration plant is "waste" in Conservatard Land.

And they wonder why they lose elections.

Show me ONE conservative who says a "water filtration plant", "bridge", or "school" is waste. Just one. I dare you.....

You're a communist (you admitted it). And like all communists, you have to lie because your ideology has already been proven to be a failed ideology.

 

[P@triot]

,

So evidently the argument here is that Bush was right to go into Iraq, even with hindsight. That would mean that Bush would have gotten approval if he had gone to the American public and said the following:

"My fellow Americans: Saddam has sarin gas. Therefore, we're going to go into Iraq, get rid of Saddam and set up a democracy. It will cost us multiple trillions of dollars -- no, not billions, TRILLIONS -- that we'll need to borrow, but that's just the beginning. Thousands of young American soldiers will die; thousands more will be mutilated physically; thousands more will be mutilated mentally; thousands of young American children will no longer see Mommy or Daddy again. And, as an added consequence of taking out Saddam, we will eliminate the one mitigating factor in the region that is keeping Iran from running amok.

"But Saddam has sarin gas, so all of that will be worth it. So here we go. Thanks for your time."

And Americans from coast to coast would cheer. "Yeah, go get 'im, George. Here, take my son".

Right?

Ah... so this is the new narrative? Now that we can no longer scream "Bush lied", we have to move the goalposts and claim "it wasn't worth it".

It's so easy to play the coward, isn't it Mac? So much easier to bow to and appease your enemies, rather than stand up and punch them in the mouth.

Why do the right thing that is so hard, when you can play the coward - which is so easy, right?

And when that Sarin Gas and other WMD's were unleashed on American's, it would be the liberals, the libertarian's, and people like Mac here who would scream the loudest that government "did not protect my son". Just like 9/11. In one breath, the cowards (liberals and libertarians) scream that Bush is a "war mongering maniac" with blood dripping from his teeth, just looking for a fight. In the very next breath, they claim that he sat back, did nothing about Al Qaeda (in the whopping 8 months he had and working under Clinton's depleted defense budget), and allowed 9/11 to happen.

That's the thing about cowards. Their arm-chair, hindsight strategists who will bitch no matter what you do.

 

[P@triot]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

An indisputable fact. That fact has been confirmed by none other than the radical left-wing propaganda machine of the dumbocrat party - MSNBC (see link below which was initially on MSNBC's website and has since been migrated to the NBC website since the split). It has also been confirmed by WikiLeak cables! It has been confirmed by former special forces operators, authors, reporters, and more. How the left can continue to deny the world is round, the sky is blue, and the sun is hot is simply absurd. They have ZERO credibility left when they try to deny fact.

From Chuck Pfarerr's book, Seal Target: Geronimo

It is a chilling fact that thousands of chemical weapons have been uncovered in Iraq. These weapons have been used by Al Qaeda against coalition and NATO forces on dozens of occasions. This has been confirmed by countless sources, most recently in the released WikiLeaks cables.

So why haven't the American people been told of the stock-piled caches of chemical WMD's uncovered in Iraq or of the chemical weapon attacks by Al Qaeda?

The Republicans won’t touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralize the danger of Iraqi WMD (instead of preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq has accelerated the acquisition, manufacture, and use of chemical weapons by Al Qaeda).

The Democrats won’t touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment. And the press won't touch it because they had already convinced themselves, and most of the American public, that Saddam Hussein didn’t have any WMD's. The media turned a blind eye to continued reports of chemical weapon attacks because its own credibility was threatened. Several major outlets were deeply invested with the story line of an “unjustifiable war". Not many people can bear to admit they were wrong, especially in print, and especially if they have been very wrong for a very long time.

Sarin-loaded bomb explodes in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story

The OP succeeds in only embarrassing himself.

The only thing embarrassing is when you open your mouth. All I did was post a link from MSNBC where they openly admitted that WMD's were no only located, but used against our troops.

Now it's your job to decide whether MSNBC are liars or whether Bush was right and justified all along. So which is it - is your precious propaganda machine MSNBC untrustworthy, or was Bush right and justified all along? Waiting for an answer.

Hell of a position for a radical asshole like you to be stuck in, uh?

 

[Saigon]

Rottweiler -

So how many names are there on this list of posters who agree with you?

Would 0 be about right?

Dude, this is embarrasing for the right and for Bush - and smarter people than you realise this.