No WMD? Can these people read?

[Neurotik]

While I’m seriously tempted to keep giving increasingly bizarre responses, Loopydude, but I’m worried I’ll be banned for trolling or something. But you were whooshed…I’ve been giggling insanely responding to your last couple posts.

[Chance_the_Gardener]

I’m stunned that this thread has been going on for so long. I have nothing to add to the majority of the comments except that I think calling someone an idiot does count as uncalled-for, but calling someone obtuse is not, provided you can back that assertion up.

All I really want to add is this: the DNC is running ads in Montana? How can this be? I figured Montana was a safe state for Bush. In fact, I figured that all the states that border Montana are safe for Bush. What does this mean? It means that either Invisible Wombat was out of state at the time, or doesn’t actually live in the state of Montana, or that the DNC sees Montana as much more vulnerable than one might expect, considering it went strongly Republican in 1996 and 2000. How exciting!

[jshore]

By the way, if we really wanted to have a complete accounting of Saddam’s WMDs back in the 1980s and early 90s, we would have to discuss who sold him the components to make those weapons and who looked the other way and continued to aid him while he used them, and that would sort of get ugly for Bush and the Republicans:

The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate’s committee on banking, housing and urban affairs – which oversees American exports policy – reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

…

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons “almost daily” against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi’ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld’s role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration’s knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq’s use of nerve gas.

…

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

I assume the OP is very shocked and dismayed that the Administration has misled the public by saying that Saddam had WMD in the past without saying that we helped provide the materials to him and didn’t seem to particularly mind his use of them! After all, that is potentially very deceiving.

How, about polling some folks and seeing how many know about this! (And, I have to admit that I myself was ignorant on the extent of this history until someone just pointed it out in another thread!)

[cheddarsnax]

Or maybe he watched it on the Internet, through the link he posted.

[PatriotX]

@InvisibleWombat

Just, “There weren’t any weapons of mass destruction.” That’s blatantly false.
I’m just saying that saying, “Iraq had no WMD” without qualifiers is misleading at best and lying outright at worst.

Oddly enough, it’s also blatantly true.
It is indeed hard for headlines, bumperstickers and soundbites to tell the whole truth. I agree.
The context of the message is the controversy surrounding the incvasion of Iraq. In this setting, the meaning is well understood by the intended audience. It seems a somewhat pedantic objection you’ve raised.
YMMV

[toadspittle]

Sorry, but that cite is obviously BS, jshore. After all, look what they say here:

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

Rumsfeld get embarassed? Not bloody likely.

[Loopydude]

@Neurotik

While I’m seriously tempted to keep giving increasingly bizarre responses, Loopydude, but I’m worried I’ll be banned for trolling or something. But you were whooshed…I’ve been giggling insanely responding to your last couple posts.

Ah-hah-hah, very frickin’ funny, you evil person you.

Boy do I feel like a :wally

In my defense: Some people, even here, have posted responses at least as asinine as Neurotik’s ersatz pubbie-sheeple bleating. The level of insanity has increased to the point I really have a hard time discerning biting satire from po-faced seriousness in text.

Whacked-out times, man.

All the same, yeah, ya got me good.

[Voyager]

@Neurotik

While I’m seriously tempted to keep giving increasingly bizarre responses, Loopydude, but I’m worried I’ll be banned for trolling or something. But you were whooshed…I’ve been giggling insanely responding to your last couple posts.

I think both of you should try to get a job writing debate responses for Bush. Your dialog was more rational than his last set.

[dropzone]

@Gaudere

[Moderator Hat ON]

This is NOT a Pit thread, so anyone wanting to talk about someone being “obtuse” or an idiot will not do so here. Understood?

[Moderator Hat OFF]

But would you say it is a debate? On the one hand we have InvisibleWombat, who is not demonstrating the undertanding of English grammar that a typical fourth-grader possesss, and on the other we have many posters repeatedly banging their heads against a brick wall, themselves showing less sense than that fourth-grader, who would have long ago wandered off muttering how stupid the whole exercise is. Is this worthy even of The Pit?

[David_Simmons]

@InvisibleWombat

Like I said in the OP, I’m not defending Bush, or the invasion of Iraq. I’m just saying, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and everybody knows it, so why are so many people lying about it?

I’m not sure why so many think this absurdity requires an answer.

[GorillaMan]

@InvisibleWombat

This TV commercial from the Democratic National Committee says, “No one can tell him he’s wrong, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction. The deficit has…” Nowhere does this ad state or imply that there were no WMD only during a certain time period. It says, flat-out, that they didn’t exist. That’s simply a lie.

The implicit timescale is George W Bush’s responsibility for American foreign affairs. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, began when he became president.

[DMC]

@InvisibleWombat

Okay - this thread isn’t about Bush,

Barbara, Jeb, George HW, Jenna?

and it isn’t about whether we should have invaded Iraq.

By “we” are you referring to Poland, Canada, the U.S., a single battalion of soldiers, or someone completely different. Which Iraq invasion are you referring to, the one when HW was president, or the one started by our current president?

It’s very simply and plainly about the people (gobear was the most recent I’ve seen here) that insist there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Were no weapons when?

What planet are these people on?

Which people are you referring to, this “Bush” person you mentioned above, the “we” who attacked Iraq during one of the two recent invasions there, gobear, the moderators, Wolf Blitzer, John Doe?

Did “Chemical Ali” (Saddam’s cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid) kill tens of thousands of people with tap water?

Which Saddam are you referring to here? It’s not a unique name. Did this Saddam person’s cousin kill people with tap water by making them drink so much they exploded? Why are you mad at this Saddam person if it’s his cousin that made them drink too much water?

Etc., etc., etc…

Is that really how you want all of your conversations to go, or can you work with a bit of implied context?

[Sevastopol]

@GorillaMan

The implicit timescale is George W Bush’s responsibility for American foreign affairs. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, began when he became president.

• sniff *

I said that, too.

[PatriotX]

@GorillaMan

The implicit timescale is George W Bush’s responsibility for American foreign affairs. Which, correct me if I’m wrong, began when he became president.

I agree that it may be that the DNC’s lying about there never having been WMD in the history of the world.
It also maybe that they’re talking about someone o ther than GWB. Maybe GWB just in the picture coincidentally. They didn’t say that they were talking about GWB. I mean, maybe they’re lying about that too.

@David Simmons

I’m not sure why so many think this absurdity requires an answer.

Fresh meat and an easy kill combined with the possibility that this may be a new Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backer spin.

[BillClay]

“Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there,” Bush said.

He didn’t qualify that with a time frame. Is GWB being deceptive, too?

[squeegee]

Invisible Wombat, George Bush and Dick Cheney said today that Saddam Had No WMD.

Are we done? Or are you going to call the President a liar?

[toadspittle]

@squeegee

Invisible Wombat, George Bush and Dick Cheney said today that Saddam Had No WMD.

Are we done? Or are you going to call the President a liar?

That depends. “George Bush and Dick Cheney said today that Saddam Had No WMD” … when?

[Frostillicus]

@InvisibleWombat

Try my experiment. Not with your politically-aware friends. Try it with 18-year olds. Try it with Grandma. Try it with the math-impaired folks buying lottery tickets at the 7-11. See what you find. I asked a bunch of people, and there are a lot of them that clearly believe there never were any WMD in Iraq.

I guarantee you that a lot fewer people believe that Iraq NEVER had any WMD as compared to those who think Iraq had a direct connection to 9-11. So I am sure that you are even more outraged at the lies told by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, and Dubya to steer America into a foolish war that has cost over 1,000 US lives and left tens of thousands of US soldiers horribly wounded. Or maybe you aren’t. :dubious:

[David_Simmons]

@SimonX

… the possibility that this may be a new Attack-Iraq-Bush-Backer spin.

I guess you’re right. Crap like this needs to be poleaxed whenever it arises.

Along with that thought, people keep harping on the report’s claim that Saddam’s intention was to get rid of the sanctions so that he could resume his various weapons programs. Somehow, the follow up report statement that the evidence is that Saddam wanted them for use as a defense, or an offense, against Iran gets left out.

So it would seem we are getting our people killed and injured and spending billions to protect Iran. How’s that for irony?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@GeeDubya Bush

Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

He’s still trying to weasel and shift blame to the intelligence. Has this asshole ever once accepted responsibility for anything in his life?