Or even were stopped a decade ago - as is the case with virtually everything we’ve been offered here.
Does Carl Rove write your posts?
No one said that GW claimed Saddam had a role in 9/11 attacks. That’s called a straw man argument and using it just wastes memory in SDMB’s site. And it is amazing effrontery to try to turn the current plethora of statements about the justification for preemptive war into an asset.
GW and is crew remind of the guy who skipped work to go to a baseball game. He told his boss that his wife was sick, his grandmother died, he fell down on his way to work and broke his ankle, and besides he had done all his needed work the day before and wasn’t really needed on the day he missed.
However, as this link clearly shows, various people including GW asserted, without evidence, that there is such a link. And subsequent polls show that many in the US now believe that Saddam either had a big part in or was actually responsible for those attacks.
I have a strong suspicion that Rove and other of GW’s strategists know Lincoln’s epigram about “fooling all of the people some of the time.” And if you keep the ball rolling with other events you can always claim that those who call you to accounts are, “Living in the past and it is time to move on.” Or else, “They are dealing with old data, that problem has already been corrected.” These are two favorite dodges of those who have something they would like to have forgotten.
Stealing a technique from Doonesbury and another poster; [rummyspeak]Do I think GW is a liar? You damned right I do.[/rummyspeak] But what really worries me is that he has been doing it an getting away with it for so long I’m not at all sure he realizes it.
And to answer the OP question as to whether the tactic will work of saving a lot of snips and snails and puppydog’s tails of weapons “evidence” for one grand grand finale - I suppose it will with a number of people. Hitler’s statement about people not believeing that something could possibly be untrue is the lie is great enough was right on target.
Nitpick. could/would/does
Enjoy,
Steven
And not just Afghanistan - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, from what we hear. Except they’re on the list of our allies for some reason, in tighter with Bush than even “Old Europe”.
good point
december:
1 - No.
2 - Punishment for past misdeeds. Clearly, it was a family vendetta. This is the culmination of allowing the Executive to have free rein over the military.
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
I must have missed the bit that says anything at all about humanitarian concerns. All there is is (1) WMDs and (2) a link terrorist organisations.
There is no evidence of either of those things now, and there wasn’t before the war started, either. All of it was lies. Thank you and goodnight, december.
I am not sure I agree with your argument here. Vietnem has been on or off (for centuries) one nation as it is today, though has been invaded many times and has had vicious internal wars. The splitting into N&S Vietnam was done in the 50’s after the french left. There were supposed to be free elections which were to reunify the country, but the SV governmet of Bao Dai refused to let them happen. The VW initially started as an indiginous (though NV sponsored) guerilla uprising by native SVs, but in the end was suported directly by NV troops.
I mean you don’t call the American Civil War an attack by one sovereign power on another (unless you come from the deep South perhaps)
That’s becaue you werer looking in the worng place. This is Congress’s formal resolution authorizing action. If you go back and review comments made by Bush and his administration you’ll find it.
There never was any evidence of Iraqi WMDs? 
Go back and review the findings of the UN qnd the admissions of Iraq before the UN inspections ended in 1998.
Well, Sam, it looks like I might have to eat crow after all:
Imagine letting a black magician like Hussein run an entire country! No wonder the Bush administration was so eager to oust him, but had such difficulties revealing the “top-secret” evidence it had against him.
I guess I was wrong to oppose the war after all.
If we go back prior to 1998, say 1988, we find actual evidence of use of WMDs. If we go back to, say, 1995, we find actual evidence of the destruction of WMDs. If we go back to 2002, all that we find actual evidence for is fabrication on the part of the Administration.
This just in:
O.J. Simpson announced to reporters today that he is developing some “important leads” in his search for the “real killer”.
“In about six months, some people here are going to be really surprised. But I’m going to keep it all quiet until I have accumulated overwhelming evidence.”
Reporters noted the self-confident smirk Mr. Simpson displayed, leading to speculation of two basic varieties: one, that Mr. Simpson did, in fact, have incontrovertible proof that he was witholding for some future date, or, second, that he was totally full of shit.
I guess he means this year. I hope that this is good.
I’m idly curious…why weren’t saddam’s tens of thousands of pages of documents regarding the LACK of WMD’s impressive? If memory serves, he served up some sillybig pile 'o paper explaining and identifying exactly what he did and did not have, and it was dismissed viritually * instantly * as being an iraqi version of “baffling them with bullshit”. Could youhave been among those who pooh-poohed the pile?
Why is this pile so much more impressive? Do the piles shift from bullshit to valuable information when their excessiveness is expressed in miles vs. pounds? Is there some standard formula?
A very interesting question. One that in recent weeks has been much on my mind.
A) One is the word of the world’s worst dictator. The other is evidence from your own elected representatives. I could turn the question around on you - WHY were you so willing to accept Saddam’s ‘report’, while instantly dismissing any evidence your own government might provide you?
B) One is positive data, the other is negative. You can’t prove a negative. If Saddam provides 1000 pages of declarations showing where weapons AREN’T, it means nothing. If we show documents showing where the weapons ARE, then presumably that can be corroborated, either by finding the weapons themselves, evidence they were there, the facilities for making them, etc.
C) The scientists were under threat of death from Saddam, and could not be trusted to give us the truth. Now, we can be much more comfortable that what they are telling us is accurate. Unless you want to believe that your government is threatening them, I guess.
But point A) is the most interesting, because I remember lots of people pointing to Saddam’s declaration and saying, “See? He’s telling the truth!”. These same people are going to assume that Bush’s declaration will be a pack of lies from front to back. I have to wonder - why would Americans put instant faith in a brutal dictator, and dismiss everything their own President says as a lie? How distorted does your political viewpoint have to be before you see this as reasonable?
Or how about “One is the word of the world’s worst dictator. The other is the word of an unelected official who has numerous overt motives to invade the dictator’s country for personal and financial gain”?
Unless I missed a major news update over the weekend, but AFAIK we still haven’t found any proof that the weapons were there, that Iraq had the facilities for making them, etc. etc. etc. Bush’s “proof” is still as unproven as before.
Yeah, and they’re still telling us there ain’t any weapons.
Sir Colin has all these old tubes,
More useless than Miss Condi’s boobs.
He schemes, “They’re titanium,
But I’ll claim they’re uranium,
And use them to fool all the rubes!”
rjung said:
You know, if December said anything this inflammatory from a right-wing perspective, he’d be pitted for it. But you can say wingnut stuff like this on the left, and your fellow members of echo chamber just go, “tell it, brother!”
For the record, one more time:
-
Bush was duly elected under the laws of the land. We get that some of you don’t like it.
-
The notion that Bush went to war for personal financial gain, or to help out his cronies, is just left-wing paranoid nonsense. No evidence of such an arrangement has ever been shown. We get that you desperately want to believe it, but that doesn’t make it any less crazy.
Correct. And we haven’t seen the documents yet either, have we? So before we declare it all a forgerybyanunelectedofficialtryingtomakemoneybyoverthrowingan
othercountryandlyingtothepeopletowageawarofaggressiontogetreelected, why don’t we wait for, oh, the evidence?
You haven’t been paying attention. David Kay says that he HAS been getting cooperation. Lots of it. The major store of documents they got, in fact, were brought to them by a ‘walk-in’, someone they weren’t even looking for but who showed up on his doorstep and said, “You might find this interesting.”
Why don’t we wait and see? September isn’t that far away.
[Edited to fix sidescroll --Gaudere]
Do you have any sort of validation for your claim that lots of people gave instant validity to the documentation and to Hussein. For me, I tended to believe that Bush had something until the second or third time that I heard one of his or his administrations claims had been refuted. In fact, I was dubious because of several lies that had been exposed before he even began spouting them about Iraq (“60 strains of stem cells,” for one).
I just wonder how many debunked claims you will require. It seems interesting because I remember your blind faith in Bush wavering for a time there when the imminent threat of doom of WMDs didn’t pan out during the invasion. What happened, did you get a visit from party faithful? A vision? A check for $800?
If we wait until September, and nothing is forthcoming then, then what? How many deferrals are you going to ask before you agree to pay the butcher’s bill?