Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: muckmaw on April 13, 2004, 01:36:24 PM
-
This seems to be the rally cry of the liberals, and the main problem the Bush admin is facing in the reelection bid.
Here's my question:
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?
According to the lefties I read, all of Iraq's WMD's came from the US anyway. Is it that easy to trace a few 55 gal drums of (Insert Chemical/Bio of your choice here)
This is not bait. I'm just confused as to why the "Liar Bush" as he is called just does'nt tell one more lie if he's so crooked.
-
Bush lied? nah.....he may have fibbed a bit but he didnt lie. liberals may try to use mindtricks and deceive the common people. My advice, everything a liberal says should be considered trixxie.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
why does'nt he have WMD's planted in Iraq?
That will be the next rally cry if we ever find any.
You cant convince a Bush hater, dont even try.
-
But my question is, if he's such a liar, why does'nt he do it?
He'll gain credibility with fence sitters.
I mean, this is the guy that created a freakin' war to make Haliburton rich...you're telling me they can't come up with a scheme for this?
-
"This is not bait."
rofl. That's a good one.
oh. Just saw this on Foxnews and CNN
(http://www.topplebush.com/humor/bushblairwmd.gif)
-
Another awesome contribution by Westy. Youre on a roll today, son.
-
So whats the answer. Don't be a tool.
I'm trying to learn something here.
Is the answer, 'Well, WMDs can be traced by their molecular blahbityblah" or "All WMDS have serial numbers"
I'm jsut looking for an honest answer.
-
And what's wrong with answering a trolling question with a little humor? er, son?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
I'm jsut looking for an honest answer.
ROFL!! Now THATS a good one. :aok
-
Originally posted by Westy
And what's wrong with answering a trolling question with a little humor? er, son?
That was humor?
Look, you don't know me. I think we can establish that, so please don't judge my intent as you have no basis for this judgement.
Now, instead of turning this into a "Who gets the last word" jerk-fest, can you or someone else just answer my question so we can all get on with our lives?
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Look, you don't know me. I think we can establish that, so please don't judge my intent as you have no basis for this judgement.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Or troll.
Perhaps next time you could use the "lefties" and "liberal" tags a little less and you'd get a bite. I'd give it a 2. And a weak one at that.
h
-
lol. I may not know you but I can see you're a clown.
But ok. I have about 30 more minutes today so let's play "ask a really silly, LOADED question."
"This is not bait. I'm just confused as to why the "Liar Bush" as he is called just does'nt tell one more lie if he's so crooked."
Who says he won't? There's lots of time left between now and November.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
Here's my question:
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?
According to the lefties I read, all of Iraq's WMD's came from the US anyway. Is it that easy to trace a few 55 gal drums of (Insert Chemical/Bio of your choice here)
This is not bait. I'm just confused as to why the "Liar Bush" as he is called just doesn't tell one more lie if he's so crooked.
he probably will, but not until it gets a little closer to the election. if he finds them now he could screw up in the meantime and blow the re-election.
they'll be 'found' sometime around early October most likely, so he can ride that little wave of victory into the election.
at least thats what I'd expect him to do.
-
we could have discovered everything and there would still be many who cried we should never have invaded ..
they were crying before we left not knowing what we'd find, happy to leave saddam in power, waiting for the next attack so they could cry/blame some more
LANDSLIDE BUSH!
-
Originally posted by Westy
"This is not bait."
rofl. That's a good one.
oh. Just saw this on Foxnews and CNN
(http://www.topplebush.com/humor/bushblairwmd.gif)
Focke me Wes that's funny.
-
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.
-
Makes very good sense, Lars, thanks.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
@Westy: Great one!!! ROTFL
-
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
-
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.
-
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