Bush's new speech - Wow! AKA "If I say it, it must be true"

[Giraffe]

@UncleBeer

You should be more careful, or one might being to think you’re posting obvious stupidities because you’re a fucking troll.

UncleBeer, it’s against the rules to call other posters trolls. So, you know, don’t.

[kaylasdad99]

ElvisL1ves, I’m not certain what you may be implying about [your perception of] UncleBeer’s positions at this time, but according to this, he’s not a Bush Defender, and according to this, he’s not a supporter of the Iraq war.

Admittedly, both are relatively recent samplings of his politics. As such, they do not in and of themselves render the “born-again virgin” crack inaccurate, but, as has been pointed out in the past, if we don’t make an effort to get along with the folks manning the barricades with us, our efforts and resources are not going to be used to their most effective potential.

[TV_time]

@Neurotik

She fell down the stairs. Besides, you don’t understand. I’m different when I’m sober. And she can change me.

yeah…and ah…it was Clinton’s fault.

[stpauler]

@Bush

…Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power.

Excuse the ignorance…but what was the actual threat of Saddam? (I’m not being snarky at all.) If the faulty intelligence showed that there were WMDs when there were none, the WMDs were the basis of the threat, then what part of this syllogism am I missing here?

[SteveG1]

@stpauler

Excuse the ignorance…but what was the actual threat of Saddam? (I’m not being snarky at all.) If the faulty intelligence showed that there were WMDs when there were none, the WMDs were the basis of the threat, then what part of this syllogism am I missing here?

I don’t know, the reasons kept changing.

[bup]

@stpauler

Excuse the ignorance…but what was the actual threat of Saddam? (I’m not being snarky at all.) If the faulty intelligence showed that there were WMDs when there were none, the WMDs were the basis of the threat, then what part of this syllogism am I missing here?

Good question. One could argue he’s a threat to Middle-East peace, but hey, who isn’t?

I think he was giving money to families of suicide bombers in Israel, unless that was more falsehoods spread by the Rendon group.

But a threat to the United States? I don’t know of any.

[Twin]

@ElvisL1ves

Looks like tomndebb was right about defenders of this administration not having anything to contribute.

There isn’t anything to defend. Bush is exactly right.

As the president said, we ARE in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS the right decision. Saddam WAS a threat and the American people and the world ARE better off because he is no longer in power.

Statements that we only went to war because of WMDs and that there were no other reasons is revisionist history.

[stpauler]

@Twin

There isn’t anything to defend. Bush is exactly right.

As the president said, we ARE in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS the right decision. Saddam WAS a threat and the American people and the world ARE better off because he is no longer in power.

Statements that we only went to war because of WMDs and that there were no other reasons is revisionist history.

The reason we went into Iraq was because they failed to disarm their WMDs before the deadline.

@Bush Whitehouse.gov 10/7/02

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.
**The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself – or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. **

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait – and that’s an option. In my view, it’s the riskiest of all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I’m convinced that is a hope against all evidence.

@Bush Whitehouse.gov 3/17/03

**For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991. **

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

It is too late for Saddam Hussein to remain in power.** It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.**

So, it sure looks like the reason to me was to go in and disarm Saddam from these WMDs that turned up to be non-existant. These WMDs which were the immediate threat to the US. The coalescence to the fact that there are no WMDs and that the info was faulty would therefore mean that the threat that we went in there for never existed.

[SteveG1]

@Twin

There isn’t anything to defend. Bush is exactly right.

As the president said, we ARE in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS the right decision. Saddam WAS a threat and the American people and the world ARE better off because he is no longer in power.

Statements that we only went to war because of WMDs and that there were no other reasons is revisionist history.

May I be the very very first, to cal you a god damn liar?

[Twin]

@stpauler

The reason we went into Iraq was because they failed to disarm their WMDs before the deadline.

That was a reason. It was not the only one. In Bush’s State of the Union Address, he also points out that Iraq was part of an axis of evil and supported terror. These were also reasons why we went to war.

SteveG1, if it makes you feel better, you can callme whatever you want.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Twin

Saddam WAS a threat.

Let’s start with that one. In what way was Saddam a threat?

[Twin]

call me, even.

[astro]

@Twin

There isn’t anything to defend. Bush is exactly right.

As the president said, we ARE in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS the right decision. Saddam WAS a threat and the American people and the world ARE better off because he is no longer in power.

Statements that we only went to war because of WMDs and that there were no other reasons is revisionist history.

IIRC 99% + of the original premise of the NECESSITY of invading Iraq was that Saddam

1: Had an elaborate arsenal of WMD’s and was ready to use them
2: Actively supported terrorists and terrorism plots against the US

Both these justifications have been shown to be largely groundless.

If you want to latch onto that remaining 1% and conflate a justification for this colossal, pointless, tar-baby, cluster-fuck of a war by offering some vague notion that we should be ready to implement regime changes when bad guys annoy our democratic sensibilities sufficiently, I think that’s a pretty weak rhetorical plank to justify the loss of 2000+ young American lives and 30,000 + Iraqi lives.

[Revtim]

@ElvisL1ves

Let’s start with that one. In what way was Saddam a threat?

He thought about having the desire to want to plan to start a program to make WMDs.

[SteveG1]

@Twin

call me, even.

OK, I will call you a liar. Talk about revising history.

[Fear_Itself]

@Twin

As the president said, we ARE in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein WAS the right decision.

So why is Bush avoiding his responsibility to remove Kim Jong Il from power in N. Korea? By any measure, he has brutalized his country far more than Saddam ever could, and he actually has WMD (nukes anyone?). If invading Iraq was not only justified, but IMPERATIVE, don’t you think Bush is endangering America by allowing KJI to remain in power?

[Banquet_Bear]

@Twin

That was a reason. It was not the only one. In Bush’s State of the Union Address, he also points out that Iraq was part of an axis of evil and supported terror. These were also reasons why we went to war.

SteveG1, if it makes you feel better, you can callme whatever you want.

…who gives a shit what Bush said in his State of the Union Address? The United States came to the United Nations and laid down a clear-cut case for war: it detailed:

• Hiding equipment
• Thwarting inspections
• Access to scientists
• Biological weapons
• Chemical weapons
• Nuclear weapons
• Prohibited arms systems
• Ties to al Qaeda

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/

This, despite your lovely attempt to rewrite history, was the United States Case for War that was presented to the International Community. Sound bites for domestic consumption means bollocks to me, and it means bollocks to most everybody else. If you’d like to point out which part of Powell’s presentation weren’t either lies, faulty intelligence that was pointed out to the Bush administration before the release of the report, or strawman, and if you could point out how 7/8ths of a report devoted to WMD’s is not all about WMD’s, I would be glad to read it. Seriously,

[Banquet_Bear]

@Banquet Bear

…who gives a shit what Bush said in his State of the Union Address? The United States came to the United Nations and laid down a clear-cut case for war: it detailed:

• Hiding equipment
• Thwarting inspections
• Access to scientists
• Biological weapons
• Chemical weapons
• Nuclear weapons
• Prohibited arms systems
• Ties to al Qaeda

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/

This, despite your lovely attempt to rewrite history, was the United States Case for War that was presented to the International Community. Sound bites for domestic consumption means bollocks to me, and it means bollocks to most everybody else. If you’d like to point out which part of Powell’s presentation weren’t either lies, faulty intelligence that was pointed out to the Bush administration before the release of the report, or strawman, and if you could point out how 7/8ths of a report devoted to WMD’s is not all about WMD’s, I would be glad to read it. Seriously,

…ummm, ignore the seriously bit at the end. Seriously.

[Hampshire]

I think Bush led us into a war that was motivated by an assumption that he may or may have not believed and many others didn’t believe. That after 9/11 it was evident that there were terrorists out there that wanted to inflict harm on the U.S.
He knew the original Bin Laden group wasn’t in Iraq or even attached to them. But for some reason he felt that Iraq left as-is would be a safe haven breeding ground for these type groups. Was it? Would it have been? Who knows. But he believed it to be so while many didn’t. And believing in a what-if doesn’t justify invading a country. So he needed a convincing motive. WMD.
He pushed this angle hard and fast. He knew he had to put an “urgency, act now” stamp on it otherwise once people looked into it they’d know it was bogus.
Remember the weeks leading up to the war. Bush & Co. didn’t want to analyze it or give the U.N. any time to mull it over. The whole message was “must act now”.

Problem with all of this is he never had a plan that went past “out Saddam” and “occupation”. And even though he got some support from other countries no one was ever completely sold on the idea. They saw through it.

So, now here we sit, occupying a foreign nation in the name of democracy until who knows when (remember, deadlines are a bad thing, we work until it’s done. Try telling that to your boss next time a projects due.) And from the looks of it, these people may not even want democracy. It’s not like the U.S. where if your candidate doesn’t get office you just sit back and bitch for 4 years. If their candidate doesn’t get office they start a civil war. It’s just how they do things over there. Trying to change that is a loooooooong road that they’re not even sure exsists.

[UncleBeer]

@Giraffe

UncleBeer, it’s against the rules to call other posters trolls. So, you know, don’t.

Okay. I’ll refrain. Difficult tho’ it be when I run across that particular idiot.