Author Topic: WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz (Read 5193 times)

10Bears · « **Reply #30 on:** May 30, 2003, 09:20:14 PM »

LOL

The 1st bet you wanted to make was do we go in at all... At first I wanted to believe someone in the administration would have basic common sense.. Someone who would tell the President, “Hey wait a minute Mr. President.. this ain’t right.. maybe we better back off and let the inspectors do their job” I was wrong. No one said that so that was a bad bet to make.

The 2nd wager was a safe bet. Plenty of articles this past year how the different intelligence agencies trying to back off all this nonsense.

So we’re left with “motive”[/i]

Posters above talk about creditability. They to skert to ask the other question.. even Weazel

.. If this was a big fat lie.. what is it about 911 that’s equally a big fat honker?

edit: Off topic Toad... I got $75 says Scott Peterson goes free..
You up for that?

Nash · « **Reply #31 on:** May 30, 2003, 09:23:55 PM »

Hey Toad - If I win the bet that you and I share, could you post here on the BBS what it is you write to... uhm.... whoever you're going to write to?

(there's still lotsa time left, I realize that)...

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #32 on:** May 30, 2003, 09:24:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
It's impressive that Wolfie and the War Party are confident enough to admit they were lying all along and think that there will be no repercussions.

Taken from Yahoo news:

Quote

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US decision to focus on Iraqi disarmament as the motive for war was made for "bureaucratic reasons," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said in an interview.

Wolfowitz admitted to the magazine Vanity Fair that the weapons of mass destruction issue was never the United States' prime reason for launching a war on Iraq to overturn the regime of Saddam Hussein.

I see some moderate to heavy spin, some 'splainin' to a reporter, but I see no admission of lies. I think you may be a little premature.

They have searched 200 of 900+ sites and have yet to find anything other that the mobile labs that Colin told us about. When one plays the shell game, don't you want to look under all three shells?

In 1441, the UN Security Council voted 15-0 to require Iraq's cooperation on the WMD issue. Perhaps France was lying when it too agreed to the WMD presence in Iraq. WMD's that were against the rules of the original Gulf War cease fire agreement.

Time to realize the truth may be somewhere in between the Guardian and Rush Limbaugh.

Don't pile on the bandwagon just yet; the horses are not hitched up yet.

anonymous · « **Reply #33 on:** May 30, 2003, 09:36:34 PM »

im not putting lying past anyone in political office. but i am honestly curious why iraq played cat and mouse games with un inspectors for so many years if they had nothing to hide. and cease fire was dependant on compliance with un inspectors if i remember it right.

Sandman · « **Reply #34 on:** May 30, 2003, 09:56:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 10Bears
LOL

The 1st bet you wanted to make was do we go in at all... At first I wanted to believe someone in the administration would have basic common sense.. Someone who would tell the President, “Hey wait a minute Mr. President.. this ain’t right.. maybe we better back off and let the inspectors do their job” I was wrong. No one said that so that was a bad bet to make.

The 2nd wager was a safe bet. Plenty of articles this past year how the different intelligence agencies trying to back off all this nonsense.

So we’re left with “motive”[/i]

Posters above talk about creditability. They to skert to ask the other question.. even Weazel .. If this was a big fat lie.. what is it about 911 that’s equally a big fat honker?

edit: Off topic Toad... I got $75 says Scott Peterson goes free..
You up for that?

What does Iraq have to do with 911?

capt. apathy · « **Reply #35 on:** May 30, 2003, 10:06:32 PM »

Quote

No, the issue now is: Did the President lie to or mislead the people on the reasons for the war? That is the question. If he didn't who misled him?

well it's not such a big deal anyway. I mean even if he did lie to get us in a war, that would pale in comparison to someone lying about a blow-job, right?

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** May 30, 2003, 11:38:30 PM »

10Bears, you were totally unsure initially over a mere $45 and you didn't want to double-down just a week or two ago was it?

So now you're painting yourself as "certain all along"?

Jeebus.. too funny.

Nash, if and when I personally decide that this was all a scam, I'll be writing to my State Reps, the House Committee on the Judiciary, the House Committee on Armed Services and the President himself initially.

If I said I'd post it, I will.

For now, I'm willing to give them a reasonable amount of time and I think one month is far short of "reasonable".

Toad · « **Reply #37 on:** May 30, 2003, 11:40:43 PM »

BTW, Peterson case? I haven't followed that at all. In passing I understand there's some doubt the prosecutors have the necessary evidence? Is that what's going on?

Couldn't begin to guess if he'll get off without reading up on the whole thing.

weazel · « **Reply #38 on:** May 30, 2003, 11:57:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Taken from Yahoo news:

I see some moderate to heavy spin, some 'splainin' to a reporter, but I see no admission of lies. I think you may be a little premature.

Who are you trying to fool here...yourself?

Do you expect Bush to fess up...or will he ask what the definition of "is" is?

It has been two months since the United States and Britain went to war against Saddam Hussein, and have yet to discover convincing evidence of the weapons programs that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair said were its primary cause.

I wonder if anyone bothered to keep track of how many times Bush parroted "WMD" leading up to the war?

When Bush argued that Hussein possessed stockpiles of deadly weapons, he told Americans he was doing so on the basis of intelligence briefings and evidence that the public could not be allowed to see.

He asked the public to trust him, to trust his office, to trust that he was acting legitimately in our self-defense and Americas best interests.

That's something very different from engaging in a policy of attempting to remake the Middle East, or undertaking a humanitarian mission to end oppression.

Neither of these two justifications would have been likely to garner widespread public support. But national defense? That's an argument the President can always win.

A large part of the public trusted Bush, and unless something big develops on WMD soon it's obvious they were decieved by him.

Even *if* he was taken in by his intelligence and military advisers (and I'm not buying that argument, leaked CIA reports burn that straw man) he ought to be angry as hell, because ultimately he bears the responsibility.

It suggests a strain of zealotry in this White House that regards the question of war as just another political debate.

*It isn't*.

More than 100 Americans were killed in this conflict, dozens of British soldiers, and many Iraqis. Nobody gets killed or maimed in Capitol Hill debates over spending plans, or battles over federal court appointments.

War is the most serious step a nation can take, and it deserves the highest measure of seriousness and integrity.

I've been saying on this board for months that Bush lacks any integrity...the facts now bear this conclusion out.

Now, before anyone starts screaming "lefty-liberal" at me consider the following:

True patriots believe that if your country is wrong, you make it right.

If your government commits barbaric acts, you dissent.

If your government trumps up a war of aggression on the basis of untruths and spurious connections between unrelated evils, you protest.

If your government lies to you, you object.

If your country’s actions go against the ideals on which it was founded, patriots burn with the kind of shame and anger that prompts them to take action against the responsible parties.

Impeachment and prison is what Bush deserves.

Sadly, it will never happen.

The Democratic party now has at its disposal a devastating array of issues, foreign and domestic, moral and economic, and yet there it sits, frozen and impotent...and by their silence complicit in the crimes and outrages of the Bush administration.

The Republicans are firmly in the drivers seat.

Now is the time for all good Republicans to come to the aid of their country.

The crisis facing our republic transcends political partisanship. Each of the 51 Republican senators and 229 Republican members of the House took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.

All of those individuals who allowed George Bush to lead us into an unjust war are in violation of that oath.

They can make restitution by reorganizing a Congress that will remove the Bush junta.

Nash · « **Reply #39 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:02:26 AM »

Rgr that Toad. Recall that it was you that wanted to include money into the bet. Your letter writing was all I wanted to have happen, so of course I'm interested in that aspect of it. (I kinda wish the money wasn't added - being as insignificant as it is). That being said, were I to lose the bet I'll be happy to pay you (and through extension, your squadmate).

Anyhow, I really don't win the bet until you concede that you've lost. By the sounds of it, you want to wait longer than the 3 months to come to a personal conclusion and start firing up the printer and stationary, correct?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #40 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:05:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by weazel
Who are you trying to fool here...yourself?

No, just waiting for the dust to settle to allow the sun to shine thru.

Wait a minute! Two Months? and they haven't found Saddam Hussien? Son of a..... he never existed! Bush told me Saddam existed, and he lied about it!

Toad · « **Reply #41 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:37:25 AM »

Well, Nash, it didn't seem right that you'd be contributing to WpnX AH account monetarily and I only had to come up with a letter. Just fairness, is all. That's why I suggested you pick a charity.

IIRC, we sort of settled on the 6 months to a year time frame as reasonable. Let's just see how it goes. If the administration comes out with "well, the WMD aren't important anyway, we're going to quit looking and do some other important stuff", THAT would be the end of it for me.

They aren't slipping that sh t by me without maximum protest.

So, we'll see. I'm patient as I said. BTW, I don't recall if I said I'd post it here, but I'll send you a copy if you wish. Or if I said I'd post it, I will.

Toad · « **Reply #42 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:40:44 AM »

Weazel, that Congressional "reorganization" will have to wait till November of 2004. Since there's no rush to the polling place, please excuse me if I don't rush to conclusions on the WMD.

What, 30 whole days since the end of the combat phase was declared?

Sandman · « **Reply #43 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:47:50 AM »

Saddam Hussein cannot hide its weapons of mass destruction from international inspectors without the cooperation of hundreds and thousands of Iraqis; those who work in the weapons program and those who are responsible for concealing the weapons. -George W. Bush

I wonder how many Iraqi it takes to hide WMD from the U.S. Army.

SirLoin · « **Reply #44 on:** May 31, 2003, 12:53:38 AM »

I am almost ready to start a thread(using quotes) about how certain AH BBS peoples like (Nuke,Ripsnort,Rude,Lazs etc..) said that once WMD was found in Iraq,all us other guys would be flippin sides on issues.

You are looking "Petulant" Lazs...

And Rude..Do YOU have the "Stones"..?