Well I’m pretty sure that Saddam was in league with the mole-men, and was therefore able to hide his nefarious arsenal under the sands in vast bunkers that will only be accessible if you are able to repeat the secret passwords of the ancient egyptians, who were under the mind control of alien powers that helped them build the pyramids.
I mean, it’s obvious if you just think about it.
Or he could have them hidden on the dark side of the moon. I mean, who would think of looking there?
I try not to indulge my morbid curiosity, but this one has got me. How?
What happened, Saddam just sent somebody down to the local U-Haul to rent a fleet of trucks? Boy, you’d sure want to check the brakes and stuff, huh? It would really be a stone drag if one of those loaded with thermonuclear anthrax was to crash and spill on the highway just south of downtown Damascus! Talk about your radio traffic reports!
“If your driving south from Damascus, you may want to detour by way of Greece, a cloud of neurotoxins is complicating traffic flow…”
Why would the Syrians take such a risk for Saddam? And why would they risk pissing off the Americans massing for war? Sure, the Syrians maybe didn’t hate Saddam as much as most everybody else did, but did they love him?
And even if they could be persuaded to take the bad-ass mojo, where would they put it? Rent a warehouse, put on a padlock, cross your fingers and pray nothing ever goes wrong? Sure, nothing goes wrong, everything’s fine, something does go wrong, everything is fucked up in a big ass hurry.
Be best to have an ultra-secure, very high tech storage facility out in the middle of the Godforsaken Desert. They had one of those, to your knowledge? 'Cause if they did, that would mean they had their own aerosol rabies bombs, why would they want his?
You and Mr. Clancy need to work on the plot a bit on this one. Bit thin.
Jeez elucidator, try to preview eh? MOLE - MEN!
It’s obvious.
It is interesting to make this point. Yet the statements of the Bush administration did not reflect the reality you outline. Rather the statements were adamant as to the presence and threat. The statements exclude any possiblity of doubt.
These statements of certainty are irrebutable. Often they are tacitly regarded as lying of a technical and petty kind. The more interesting question is not *whether * there was lying but why the emphasis on certainty? The answer is in the policy alternatives. Had the Bush administration spoken with candor and honesty, then a policy of further inspections could not be resisted. Adamant certainty was presented by the administration to forestall those inspections. With those inspections there would be no war.
IOW :
Your point, sir? :dubious:
Not in isolation, as you presented it. It couldn’t.
IOW, yes, you copied that from some Freeper post, and have never actually seen or read any of the speeches or writings they were cherry-picked from.
You know what you were challenged to do in order to prop up your case. If you can’t, it would be better to just say so. If you’re still under the impression that “Yeah, but Clinton, so there!” constitutes an argument at all, much less one of seriousness appropriate to a discussion about starting a war, you’d better think again.
Responsibility, my friend. Responsibility. Not easy, but necessary. Try it.
:rolleyes: You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention. I made a claim and provided a cite that supports that position. I provided a cite to the CNN website where the speech resides. I quoted enough of the speech to give plenty of context and even provided a link to the whole speech.
:rolleyes: You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention. I provided zero—ZERO— lists of anything. The only lists in my posts were ones provided in the very thread by OTHER PEOPLE. People on YOUR side of the debate. Go ask them where they copy and pasted them from. Sheesh.
:rolleyes: You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention. That is not an argument I’ve made. The argument I’VE been making is that I see no evidence that Bush lied—that I think the charge is unprovable. As far as the specific charge concerning Iraq being an imminent threat, I provided an actual cite where Bush actually acknowledges that Iraq is NOT an “imminent” threat.
:rolleyes:**You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention. **Try taking responsibility for digesting the words on the page.
Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
What, we aren’t comparing Bush to Clinton re Iraq statements? Glad to hear it. I’m quite willing to drop that subject if you are. I was only addressing it because it seemed that you were bringing it into play.
However, the question of due diligence and its relation to dishonesty would still stand. The fundamental implication is that when a President addresses serious matters such as this in what appears to all the world to be an extremely serious manner, he has done his due diligence. If he, with access to sources of information that the voting public doesn’t, has only considered those sources that pleased him, and has decided to take us to war on the basis of such a slanted look at the evidence, he has not done his due diligence. And I would certainly regard that as a lie, in and of itself.
Even more so when his argument was, in part, that he knew more than the rest of us did, and that secret knowledge emphatically tipped the scales towards justifying an otherwise unjustifiable war.
Yeah, I know: having to respond to a critic the first time he responds to what you’re saying is tedious. :rolleyes:
Everything except relevance to the topic of what Bush knew and what he refused to know. Remember, HE started the war. Clinton did NOT. That keeps eluding you somehow, I know, but do make an effort.
But that would be the only reason to bring up Clinton one-liners, wouldn’t it? The fact that it’s blown up in your face does not mean you haven’t been reduced to nothing more than “Yeah, but Clinton, so there!”.
Horse, water. :shrug:
Exactly. Comparing Clinton’s and Bush’s record on Iraq is like comparing Eisenhower’s and Johnson’s record on Vietnam. What Clinton and Eisenhower may have considered doing is not the same as what Bush and Johnson actually did. If anything, it just puts a greater burden on Bush and Johnson apologists by acknowledging that their actions were not inevitable - other Presidents, faced with similar situations, made different decisions.
You. Are. STILL. Not. Paying. Attention. Why do you keep bringing up Clinton? I mentioned him only in RESPONSE to quotes that were provided. Maybe you’re confusing me with someone else. If not, you’re just confused.
You. Are. STILL. Not. Paying. Attention. What one-liners? There is a “one-liner” in Post 164, but it is not of the flavor that you suggest. It was a zero-snark response to what was posted by OTHERS. I have not done anything NEAR what you suggest. WHAT the FUCK is your problem? How about responding to what I actually DID post? Reread the page, and maybe take notes or something.
Horse, ass. ::shrug::
Who is doing that? Not me. The question of the thread is Bush’s alleged lying. That is what I’ve been commenting on. People present some lists and I respond to their alleged “proof”. In my mind, Clinton need not be part of this discussion at all. Whether he did lie or not is immaterial to the charge the Bush lied.
You can lead a horse to ass, but you can’t make him ??? 
Felch ? Or is that just goats ?