A question about WMDs in Iraq...

[Torque]

Originally posted by Westy
"This is not bait."

 rofl.  That's a good one.




 oh.  Just saw this on Foxnews and CNN

Focke me Wes that's funny.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by muckmaw
If Bush is the liar all the liberals say he is, and he isfacing this huge credibility gap because of the loack of WMDs found in Iraq, why does'nt he have WMD's planted in Iraq?

 

My opinion on this is that in order to ship enough tonage of WMD's, whether chemical or biological, into Iraq there's have to be too many people involved to make absolutly sure that there be no leaks. That, IMO, would be impossible. Any finding of WMD's will have to be of substantial tonage to support Bush's assertion of impending doom to the USA and it's allies.

Now, for the tinfoilers, there are reports from, ahem, mid eastern sources, that state that WMD's ARE being transported into Iraq. I'll post a link if interested but don't blame me for the integrity of the reporting orginisation.

Whatever the case, if WMD's are found they will be anylised to find their origin. If GWB tries to use WMD's as an October suprise my feeling is that the backlash recieved because of the timing would far outweigh any importance placed on those findings by this administration.

In short, the politcal gain isn't enough to risk such a move.

[muckmaw]

Makes very good sense, Lars, thanks.

[FUNKED1]

I still think the October Surprise will be OBL's head on a platter.  I will actually take a day off from work and party if they get the ****er.

[MrLars]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
I still think the October Surprise will be OBL's head on a platter.  I will actually take a day off from work and party if they get the ****er.

That is a good visual Funked....however, having OBL as the October suprise wouldn't be enough of a boost for GWB's reelection hopes, the timing would be too suspect and, IMO, it would be too convienent to be believed that we just then caught him.

I suspect that the October suprise would be more on the lines of finding stockpiles of WMD in a neighboring country. He's got to do something to deflect the fact that he's the first president of modern times to have lost so many jobs on his watch.

That is now, when Scooter Libby and his cohorts are finaly indicted for the Plame affair there will be a need for multiple October Suprises.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by MrLars
He's got to do something to deflect the fact that he's the first president of modern times to have lost so many jobs on his watch.  

The 'lost jobs issue' is a comparison of actual job growth to the expected growth of the job market should historical trends have continued.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in January 2001, total employment was 136.0 million, seasonally adjusted.

In March 2004, total employment was 138.298 million, seasonally adjusted,

March 2003 – Jan 2001 = 2.298 million jobs.

Bush's record on the jobs issue is one of anemic growth, but in fact there are more employed Americans now than when he took office.

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by muckmaw
But that's my question.

Why does'nt he. I'm not condoning it in any way.

The best, clearest non-partisan way to ask this question is:

Is it easy, difficult or impossible to trace the source of a WMD?

If it's easy, the answer to why Bush has not planted is obvious.

If it's impossible, I can't understand why he has'nt planted them to save his re-election bid. (Assuming that he is a liar).

That's what I am trying to figure out here.

Gee probably because even an idiot like Bush would realise that he'd get caught doing it.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by muckmaw
If Bush is the liar all the liberals say he is, and he isfacing this huge credibility gap because of the loack of WMDs found in Iraq, why does'nt he have WMD's planted in Iraq?

The implication here seems to be that because Bush hasn't done this he's not a liar.

But of course, just because he hasn't tried to mislead people with the specific lie you present (planting WMD), certainly doesn't mean he hasn't lied about other things.

For example.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction."

[Duedel]

@Westy: Great one!!! ROTFL

[Gixer]

I still haven't stopped laughing at his prime time speech. No wonder he's given less prime time addresses and taken less questions by the press then any other President. I mean 12 in total. Isn't the country at war? Surely he must have more to say during these important days,months,years.

He's hopless when on the spot  and answering questions by reporters without regurgitating the same, words Freedom,Thugs,Assasins over and over. Or not answering at all and just trying to play the question down with some short half hearted joke.

The difference of Bush compared to Blair who can talk his way out of anything is quite a contrast.



...-Gixer

[Holden McGroin]

The British Parliament system develops Prime Ministers who have been rhetorically attacked during weekly Q/A sessions thus you get Churchillian retorts from time to time.

Attacking a prime minister is like heckling the stand up comic with 20 years experience.  The comic is going to destroy you because he has probably heard it before and he reaches into his repertoire and pulls out the perfect comeback to get you to shrivel up and slither out.

[Horn]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Bush's record on the jobs issue is one of anemic growth, but in fact there are more employed Americans now than when he took office.

Wow. Maybe he'll use that in his campaign. Oh he's not? Wonder why.

h