What if...

[conserv.pat15]

What if we found a large stockpile of WMD in Iraq... would you liberals support this war?

 

[Kandahar]

What if we found a large stockpile of WMD in Iraq... would you liberals support this war?

If we found stockpiles of weapons at this point in time, after nearly three years of not finding anything? Not only would it be painfully obvious that they were planted there, but one stockpile of weapons is hardly an imminent threat to the United States. So in short, no.

Face it, George Bush LIED to you about there being WMDs in Iraq, and you bought it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What if we found a large stockpile of WMD in Iraq... would you liberals support this war?

Those that hate Bush first and ask questions second would do whatever they could to reduce the significance of the find -- 'it was planted', 'so what, he was contained', of course he had them, we gave them to him', etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

At this point in time? Not only be painfully obvious that they were planted there, but one stockpile of weapons is hardly an imminent threat to the United States. So in short, no.

Face it, George Bush LIED to you about there being WMDs in Iraq, and you bought it.

I rest my case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not only would it be painfully obvious that they were planted there

Why?
And, think:
What's worse for the administration at this point - not finding WMDs or the public discovering we planted WMDs?

but one stockpile of weapons is hardly an imminent threat to the United States.

W/o any knowledge of whats in the stockpile, how can you say this w/ any degree of certtainty?

Face it, George Bush LIED to you about there being WMDs in Iraq, and you bought it.

The "lies", if any, began long before GWB, and the list of "liars" estends well past the shores of the United Sates

 

[conserv.pat15]

If we found stockpiles of weapons at this point in time, after nearly three years of not finding anything? Not only would it be painfully obvious that they were planted there, but one stockpile of weapons is hardly an imminent threat to the United States. So in short, no.

Face it, George Bush LIED to you about there being WMDs in Iraq, and you bought it.

Did Kerry lie? Did Clinton lie? Did other nations around the world lie? Everyone was saying the same thing Bush was saying before the war... So why do you only say Bush lied?

 

[Kandahar]

Why?
And, think:
What's worse for the administration at this point - not finding WMDs or the public discovering we planted WMDs?

It would be obvious that they were planted because our troops have had total access to Iraq for nearly three years. It would be like finding a WMD cache in Nebraska.

The public discovering the US government planted them, obviously, would be more harmful than not finding them. What's your point? I'm not the one claiming that this is likely to happen, I was simply answering the hypothetical situation.

W/o any knowledge of whats in the stockpile, how can you say this w/ any degree of certtainty?

When I think of "stockpile" I think of maybe a warehouse full of stuff that could potentially be used on local troops or people. If your definition of this hypothetical stockpile is 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at the United States, then that's a different situation.

The "lies", if any, began long before GWB, and the list of "liars" estends well past the shores of the United Sates

There were plenty of reasonable people saying that the intelligence was flawed prior to the war, and several people saying that it was being intentionally hyped. You have a very short memory if you remember otherwise.

 

[Kandahar]

Did Kerry lie?

Yes. But mainly because he's a spineless *****, not because he wanted to invade Iraq.

Did Clinton lie?

Clinton didn't have access to the intelligence just before the war. Iraq may have had WMDs under his watch; I don't presume to know this.

Did other nations around the world lie?

A few did. Many saw through the ridiculous assessment of the threat.

Everyone was saying the same thing Bush was saying before the war... So why do you only say Bush lied?

No, everyone was NOT saying the same thing Bush was saying. That's the main reason that this war has always had a significant amount of opposition, at home and abroad. Do you really think that everyone believed Saddam was an imminent threat to the safety of the world but opposed getting rid of him anyway? That's ridiculous.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Kandahar, you still haven't proven that Bush lied. Also, many nations opposed the war because of Saddam's bribes(Oil for Food scandal). The U.S. followed U.N. resolution 1441... those countries that did oppose the war(France, Germany, ect) did not follow the resolution that the U.N. Security Council voted for and all agreed on.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It would be obvious that they were planted because our troops have had total access to Iraq for nearly three years. It would be like finding a WMD cache in Nebraska.

Iraq is big.
It couldn't possibly be that the cache is question was just THAT well hidden ot it just took THAT long to find -- it HAS to be planted, eh?

The public discovering the US government planted them, obviously, would be more harmful than not finding them. What's your point? I'm not the one claiming that this is likely to happen, I was simply answering the hypothetical situation.

Actually, you're describing why its unlikely that any such cache would be planted. The Administration has too much to lose to plant any such cache -- and little, if anythig, to gain.

When I think of "stockpile" I think of maybe a warehouse full of stuff that could potentially be used on local troops or people. If your definition of this hypothetical stockpile is 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at the United States, then that's a different situation.

You dont need a "warehouse" full of NBC weapons to affect a devastating attack. You're artifically setting the bar too high.

There were plenty of reasonable people saying that the intelligence was flawed prior to the war, and several people saying that it was being intentionally hyped. You have a very short memory if you remember otherwise.

How does that mean the people arguing that Iraq had WMDs, and that Iraq was a threat, lied?
Can you show that the vast multitude of people making that argument, including any number of foreign governments, KNEW what they were saying was wrong?

 

[Kandahar]

Kandahar, you still haven't proven that Bush lied.

How is it logically possible to have slam-dunk evidence of a WMD program, yet not know exactly where the weapons are? It's not even like our troops rushed to secure the suspected stockpile sites in the days following the defeat of the Iraqi Army; they just wandered around looking for them for months. And if the WMDs were moved abroad, why did no one anticipate this prior to the war and keep track of them?

Also, many nations opposed the war because of Saddam's bribes(Oil for Food scandal).

You're telling me that a grandiose third-world dictator has enough money to buy the governments of our allies? Seems quite implausible. With the exception of a few disgusting individuals like George Galloway, Saddam had little influence in the West.

The U.S. followed U.N. resolution 1441... those countries that did oppose the war(France, Germany, ect) did not follow the resolution that the U.N. Security Council voted for and all agreed on.

That resolution was voted on with the understanding that it did NOT authorize military action. If it did, it never would've passed the UNSC. I love how you justify an American violation of the UNSC by claiming it was necessary to enforce the UNSC's resolutions. I'm not a big fan of Security Council in any case, but your hypocrisy is obvious.

 

[Saboteur]

What if we found a large stockpile of WMD in Iraq... would you liberals support this war?

I can't speak for all liberals, we do run the spectrum btween black and white, right and wrong like everybody else does. I am a liberal and I already support the war without the WMD stockpile.

I do not support the President because he lied about the WMD stockpile. It doesn't exist and when it did it consisted of weapons GHWB Sr. gave to Iraq to fight Iran.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I certainly would call it bullshit. It's a personal responsibility thing,

Oh, I see.
You'd call Bullshit, no matter the particulars of the find.
Thats very rational of you.

Well I have to beg to differ.

Beg to differ all you want.
Right now, there are no WMDs, and Bush was re-elected. Right now, finding WMDs get him nothing.
Find out that he planted them, and he'd be impeached - by his own people.
Knowing this, and knowing that there is a VERY good possibility he;d be found out, there's no reason for him to do it.

True, but does that really justify war in the first place? I mean, are we gonna go around attacking everyone with a few WMD's?

The UK has nukes, and yet we have no problem with it. Why?
There's more to a threat that posessions of WMDs.
Iraq had shown itself to be willing to use these weapons on its enemies and its people, as well as a willingness to aggressively make war on its neighbors. That, combined with posession of WMDs, creates the threat that justifoed war.

To have a warehouse full of them wouldn't seem like enough, since I assume that there are many nations that like us a LOT less than Iraq did who have more WMD's than A warehouse.

As you know, a single 200kt nuke would destory any US city.
But we dont need to tyalk about nukes -- various chemical and biological weapons, in small quantities, can kill millions of people if used in a densely populater area. You dont NEED a warehouse full to have "enough".

No, I can't.

So, you actually mean to say you THINK they are liars, though you cannot actually PROVE they are liars.

 

[AndrewC]

I would not support the war in Iraq even if WMD were present. I think the United States should lead on the nuclear issue by first disarming its self.

 

[aps]

Kandahar, you still haven't proven that Bush lied. Also, many nations opposed the war because of Saddam's bribes(Oil for Food scandal). The U.S. followed U.N. resolution 1441... those countries that did oppose the war(France, Germany, ect) did not follow the resolution that the U.N. Security Council voted for and all agreed on.

Would you be willing to provide evidence to show that Bush did not lie? Bush claimed there were WMDs and that Saddam Hussein had the capabilities to make a mushroom cloud. As it stands now, we have no evidence of such. So, show us how he didn't lie to us.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Would you be willing to provide evidence to show that Bush did not lie?

Prove a negative, anyone?
Those that claim he lied are responsible for supporting their claim.

We all know he (and everyone else) was wrong.
Prove that he (and they) knew he were wrong and made the claims anyway.

 

[aps]

Prove a negative, anyone?
Those that claim he lied are responsible for supporting their claim.

We all know he (and everyone else) was wrong.
Prove that he (and they) knew he were wrong and made the claims anyway.

I made my case above. He made allegations, they have been shown to be untrue and hence, I believe he lied.

Seriously, Bush knew that the intelligence being provided had serious holes in it, and he chose to ignore them and keep pushing the "Iraq has WMDs and we have to remember what happened on September 11th and how we cannot go through that again, etc." It was bogus, and he knows it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I made my case above. He made allegations, they have been shown to be untrue and hence, I believe he lied.

That he was wrong in no way means he lied.
You have to show that he knew he was wrong.

Seriously, Bush knew that the intelligence being provided had serious holes in it,

You know this, because...?

and he chose to ignore them and keep pushing the "Iraq has WMDs and we have to remember what happened on September 11th and how we cannot go through that again, etc."

You know this, because...?

 

[aps]

That he was wrong in no way means he lied.
You have to show that he knew he was wrong.

You know this, because...?

You know this, because...?

Because I know, damn it! M14, will you forgive me? My heart isn't into this battle today, so I don't feel like searching for the evidence that substantiates what I have said. Based upon what I have read, it is unquestionable that there was evidence that supported Bush's assertions and evidence that supported the fact that Saddam was not reconstituting nuclear weapons. Bush touted only the intelligence that supported his claim. That is BS. Right now, they (Congress) are looking into whether Bush exaggerated the intelligence. They didn't pull that determination out of thin air; rather, the issue is raised by the evidence, or lack thereof. My gut tells me he exaggerated the intelligence, which essentially means he lied.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because I know, damn it!

Thats what I thought.
Its what you BELIEVE - its an article of faith.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Would you be willing to provide evidence to show that Bush did not lie? Bush claimed there were WMDs and that Saddam Hussein had the capabilities to make a mushroom cloud. As it stands now, we have no evidence of such. So, show us how he didn't lie to us.

Aps... you are the one who has to prove that he lied. It is not on me to prove he didn't lie. Also, I think many people here don't know the definition of "lie." Because we haven't found WMD does not mean Bush lied. There are a number of solutions to the whereabouts of the WMD... either they are still there and have not been found, or, they were moved, or, the intelligence was faulty(I personally believe we were right about the WMD, as well as the rest of the world who said the same thing)......... My point is that it is false to say that Bush lied until you prove that he knew the intelligence was wrong and said it anyway. Like I always say... if you accuse Bush of lying, then you must accuse a long list of Democrats of lying, as well as the intelligence agencies and leaders all over the world of lying. You can't single out one person when many others said the same thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You note that my initial prediction was correct -- they wont take it to mean anything.

 

[aps]

Aps... you are the one who has to prove that he lied. It is not on me to prove he didn't lie. Also, I think many people here don't know the definition of "lie." Because we haven't found WMD does not mean Bush lied. There are a number of solutions to the whereabouts of the WMD... either they are still there and have not been found, or, they were moved, or, the intelligence was faulty(I personally believe we were right about the WMD, as well as the rest of the world who said the same thing)......... My point is that it is false to say that Bush lied until you prove that he knew the intelligence was wrong and said it anyway. Like I always say... if you accuse Bush of lying, then you must accuse a long list of Democrats of lying, as well as the intelligence agencies and leaders all over the world of lying. You can't single out one person when many others said the same thing.

Based on my prior posts to M14, I explain why I have deduced that Bush lied. I am not saying that I have established he lied beyond a reasonable doubt. I am saying that based upon what I have read and heard, I personally believe he lied. You can discount my opinion all you want. My definition is that he knew there was intelligence out there that did not support his claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and their WMD capabilities and he failed to point out such negative evidence when he touted all the reasons we needed to go to war. He owed it to us to tell us that there was evidence both for and against the issue of WMDs and let us weigh that evidence. Based on the way he presented intelligence, you would think that there was no dissent whatsoever, which is NOT TRUE.

I believe that Congress would have had more doubts had they thoroughly read through all the documents that were provided to them (although there are allegations that Bush did not provide them with all the documents). Regardless, I find it completely reasonable that those who essentially reiterated what Bush was saying were doing it in good faith. Why would they have reason to believe that Bush would exaggerate intelligence to them? This is where I see that there is a difference between what Bush said and what Congress said. I hold the president more accountable because he receives information that Members of Congress do not.

BTW, it's my prerogative to just accuse Bush of lying. It's his lying that bothers me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My definition is that he knew there was intelligence out there that did not support his claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and their WMD capabilities and he failed to point out such negative evidence when he touted all the reasons we needed to go to war.

Your argumrnt here is based on one thing:
The assumption that the ''no-WMD/ information carried weight sufficient to bring a reasonable question to the 'pro-WMD' information.
Please, support this assumption.

He owed it to us to tell us that there was evidence both for and against the issue of WMDs and let us weigh that evidence.

WRONG.
The President's job is to weigh the evidence and make a decision based on it, not yours. He isnt under any obligation to say that 'there are some things that say otherwise' when he says 'our intelligence says' because HE determines the relative weight of the no- and pro-WMD intel.

Based on the way he presented intelligence, you would think that there was no dissent whatsoever, which is NOT TRUE.

Again:
Support the assumption that the ''no-WMD/ information carried weight sufficient to bring a reasonable question to the 'pro-WMD' information.

I believe that Congress would have had more doubts had they thoroughly read through all the documents that were provided to them (although there are allegations that Bush did not provide them with all the documents).

Ooooh. Allegations.
Is it Bush's fault that Congress read the intel they had and came up with the same conclusion as he did?

Regardless, I find it completely reasonable that those who essentially reiterated what Bush was saying were doing it in good faith.

Please show that Bush was not doing the same.

BTW, it's my prerogative to just accuse Bush of lying. It's his lying
that bothers me.

Unless your accusation has any backing, you;re just wasting peoples' time.

 

[aps]

Your argumrnt here is based on one thing:
The assumption that the ''no-WMD/ information carried weight sufficient to bring a reasonable question to the 'pro-WMD' information.
Please, support this assumption.


WRONG.
The President's job is to weigh the evidence and make a decision based on it, not yours. He isnt under any obligation to say that 'there are some things that say otherwise' when he says 'our intelligence says' because HE determines the relative weight of the no- and pro-WMD intel.


Again:
Support the assumption that the ''no-WMD/ information carried weight sufficient to bring a reasonable question to the 'pro-WMD' information.


Ooooh. Allegations.
Is it Bush's fault that Congress read the intel they had and came up with the same conclusion as he did?


Please show that Bush was not doing the same.


Unless your accusation has any backing, you;re just wasting peoples' time.

Oh brother. As I said, I don't feel like searching for the information today. I don't mind that you think my opinion is BS, as the feeling is mutual.