You see rhetoric and I see concerned citizens addressing a new statement by the President. If there were nothing new, I could understand your objections.
What evidence has Bush offered that the WMDs were looted? Let me guess. It a matter of national security and the evidence must remain a secret.
To me it seems that Bush is bashing the very essence of his office.
I probably overstated my objection to political observations generally. Not trying to put a damper on the touchdown dancing as George wobbles around.
Seriously, how would the weapons having been looted from known weapons sites excuse the president, his staff, DoD, anyone from responsibility? If it’s a cover story, it’s a lousy one. If he claims that they were destroyed in place there would be physical evidence to examine. He’s hitching his wagon on them being spirited away? What a truly shitty lie.
Tuweitha’s yellowcake uranium was looted after the US troops bypassed it. The invasion was as much about philosophy as it was about regime change and WMDs. The philosophy trumped the WMDs, and now we have a better chance of finding out about Iraqi WMDs when they turn up in a dirty bomb or subway gassing in the US.
If there were no WMDs, he misled us into a war. That is serious. If the WMDs were looted, then he bungled our national security. That should petrify us. I don’t know what Bush will gain playing the “WMDs were looted” card.
You do neither. You post a silly title, with a link, and and a stupid, ‘OMG CAN J00 BELIEZ IT!?!?!?!?’ comment. No substance, no point. The Drudge Report already posts links to stories. We don’t need a poor imitation doing the same.
We need to keep hammering the message home, there should be calls for impeachment here.
There were plenty of racist French bashing threads here, pathetic stories about how stupid dumb and wilfully ignorant US citizens were going to boycott French products.
Not all the US is so dumb, and plenty of UK folk are dumb.
We were called to arms on the back of lies, fabrication, misdirection and looking at the way certain contracts have been awarded, sheer greed.
This is incredibly serious stuff Brutus, unless you have some evidence that the reasons for war according to the blessed Bush are valid.
Every day something else emerges, maybe you just do not want to see it, let’s tuck it all away in one thread you can conveniently ignore whilst you go on surfing with nothing to bother your serenity, no awkward questions to trouble your mind, no calls for accountability, no assessment as to wether the world is any safer.
The only danger to the world it would seem is uninformed Westerners allowing their governments to declare war whenever it suits their purpose.
I have already stated elsewhere that I don’t particularily care about WMD in Iraq. I am far more concerned with Pakistani or North Korean WMD than with whatever Iraq could have scraped together.
I am still waiting for the cite where GW declares that the one and only reason we are attacking Iraq is their WMD. As far as I know, he always threw in a little something about freeing the Iraqis or whatnot, but some people only hear what they want to hear. (Or what it suits them to hear, as seems to be the case here.)
This is a blatant strawman. No-one is saying that WMD’s were the only reason to go to war. However, they were the reason that was touted the loudest. They were the main focus of Colin Powell’s speach to the UN. They were pretty much the sole focus of both Blair’s dossiers. Hence they were the main reason.
Now it is coming to light that the main reason for going to war was a dubious construction of half truths, obfuscation and out and out lies. In spite of the fact that there were other reasons for this war (namely oil even though no-one likes to admit it), the people still have a right to be angry about being lied to and deceived.
WoMD were the reason we were given as to why the war couldn’t wait- why we couldn’t wait, as many other members of the UNSC wished, for UN inspectors to finish their job.
While other reasons including the egregious horrors of the Hussein regime were mentioned, the reason that Iraq posed a serious threat to the US was the threat of the distribution of WoMD to terrorists. W/o this part the whole idea of a threat to the US falls apart. W/o a threat to the US the war on Iraq becomes an elective war to change a regime that we don’t like, ( for reason of its horrendous atrocities).
If you look at the
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002
it clearly states that:
These two things are what Bush was authorized to use force for. The reason that we couldn’t wait for the UN to enforce its own resolutions (2) was because of (1) the threat to the US.
How did Iraq pose a threat to the US?
Despite there being other objections to Iraq’s behaviors and other reasons for going to war with Iraq, this war was sold on the threat that Hussein WoMd posed to the US**.**
Conservatives don’t seem to like it when you go toe to toe with their leaders, calling bullshit each and every time bullshit is thrown. Unfortunately, nobody on the national level is doing this. Most Democrats are failing miserably at this - Evan Bayh gave an interview on Thursday or Friday morning on NPR. I thought he had switched parties, he was providing so much cover for Bush.
I very much hope that there is a novel thread for every novel cow chip spewed by Bush. Unfortunately, I fear that elucidator is correct - Bush will escape justice, people won’t care, and the truth will be relegated to page 15, under the fold, just like Airman Doors prefers.
Actually, if you think there’s enough for impeachment, then have at it. Otherwise, this is just a liberal circle-jerk.
Oooh, have you seen the latest stupid thing Bush did?
Oooh, look at what a dirtbag he is.
Oooh, Bush farted in church and I have proof, everybody look!
You’re like the little tattletales in grade school. Eventually nobody’s going to listen to you. And that’s a shame, because I think you might have a few good points. However, if you keep posting this stuff every day like december does people will start to ignore you.
You’re quickly becoming the liberal december, Reeder. Don’t be that guy.
Airman Doors, do you have any comments about the subject raised in the thread? If not, maybe your personal comments on Reeder might be better suited to the pit. IMHO, or course.
While I agree with you in principle, Airman Doors, I think there is a palpable sense of desparation here, which IMHO is not misplaced or unfounded.
Bush (take your pick) misled us/sold us a war on bad intelligence/tried to brainwash us into thinking this had to do with terrorism/etc and Americans don’t seem to care. Even the liberal pundits and Demcratic candidates don’t hit the issue hard enough: http://slate.msn.com/id/2084602/
The media has fallen into lockstep with the administration since 9/11. So has the political opposition, by and large. But many of us on the left find more reason to be displeased with this administration every day. Not trivial reasons, but serious reasons which we feel are undermining what it means to be an American.
So we raise a stink. If the media won’t, if the bloggers won’t, if our Congressmen and political candidates won’t, then somebody has to. Somebody has to make the bulk of Americans notice. It is about getting the word out in every possible field. Talking to your friends online and IRL, talking to people at work, arguing with the family. If I get someone to feel 1/10th as outraged as me, if I can make just a few moderates open their eyes, then I have succeeded.
Yeah I’m on my pulpit. We all should be. This should be the story of late 2003 and 2004. This should dwarfs economic concerns, it should dwarf bungled drug plans (which are both huge issues). I want this to be the issue of the campaign, because I believe the American public was misled into war by the White House. For me, that “demeans the office” thousands of times more than a blowjob in a closet.
Give it a little time, the investigations are just beginning. Of course the Bush people and it’s backers seem to be an impatient crowd and appear to make decisions based on incomplete or erroneous information.
Hopefully this time the American public will demand complete and truthful information. Not just a sheepish “it must be so, the President wouldn’t deceive us”.
I agree with everything you said except the use of the verb “looted.” Saddam’s loyalists (led by Saddam, still alive), foreign fighters, and terrorists might have systematically retrieved the ‘weapons.’ At Tuwaitha, it appears (Who really knows? Farging media.), that much of the yellow cake was fortuitously dumped on site by the Iraqis retrieving the barrels, to store water.
Or, that’s the latest story. Not securing the #1 NUCLEAR
SITE in the country?! :smack:
And who exactly is making you open this thread? As i understand it, the OP is about something President Bush said in his weakly radio address. The Op thinks it is very weakly indeed. If you have any comments on the subject maybe you can share them but if all you have to say is that you are tired of these threads then I recommend you write the White House and tell them to stop doing things which cause these threads. Or just stop reading them.