WMD Argument for Iraq

[ViperPilot 0]

Here's a link to "educate" everyone out there on the political side of the decision to go to Iraq. Think "crazy" George was the only one who thought Saddam had WMDs, was a threat to the U.S., and needed to be stopped immediately? Think again. Here's a 100% FACT-BASED argument that Bush was not a lone gunman wanting to stop Saddam and using the WMD argument as a reason. Please take the time to read this page. And once your done, come and tell me that you still think Bush was a "lone crazy guy" who made up this WMD argument to go into Iraq.

I realize the site name and am in no way trying to bash John Kerry or any Democrats, just look past that title and actually look at this. It's very interesting to say the least (and no it doesn't just bash democrats, so it's not ridiculous "right-wing" propoganda).

www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

[billvon 3,118]

>Here's a 100% FACT-BASED argument that Bush was not a lone
> gunman wanting to stop Saddam and using the WMD argument as
>a reason.

Right. A page titled "scaryjohnkerry" contains a fact-based argument, and not a politically motivated diatribe.

[Skyrad 0]

So what this site is saying is that Bush wasn't wrong it was just his incompetent intelligence agencies and piss poor Millitary intelligence that guided him into an unjustifiable illegal act of aggression. Cool!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[ViperPilot 0]

Seriously it does. I don't think they should have named it that. I'm not a Kerry hater, it's just what those guys' site is named. All it does is present facts, if you don't like it, fine by me. But really, what's the reason for not looking at it, think it might have some stuff you don't want to see? Any person without their head up their ass would be objective and at least take a look at it. I promise it is not BS political bashing, just states info.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

So what this site is saying is that Bush wasn't wrong it was just his incompetent intelligence agencies and piss poor Millitary intelligence that guided him into an unjustifiable illegal act of aggression. Cool!

It's not saying who is right and who is wrong, it's saying that there were far more people than Bush that took that intel as fact. Basically, I'm sick of hearing arguments that Bush was an "idiot" for making decisions based on "bad" intel. Guess what, he most certainly wasn't the only "idiot" to do so. If you watch this, you'll see what I mean.

And to add to this, nobody was wrong about the WMDs...Kerry was right, Clinton was right, Kennedy was right. It's just the fact that America acted on this well known fact too late, thus WMDs weren't there when we got to Iraq.

[skymiles 3]

We all thought Saddam had WMDs. After all, we sold them to him and he used them. However, it was Bush and his administration that hyped obviously flawed intelligence and said, among other erroneous things, that we were in imminent threat of a nuclear attack in as little as 45 minutes. Don’t forget, Saddam was contained and the weapon inspectors were on the ground. Nonetheless, Bush pulled them out and rushed to war.

It was HIS decision, he fucked up, and our troops are paying the price.

Phil

[IanHarrop 42]

Yep that sure is an unbiased account of what happened

Thank goodness the internet always has the facts we can trust
I seem to recall that there were those who said that there weren't WMD so perhaps this isn't the whole story.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[ViperPilot 0]

Well, there sure weren't WMDs as of a few years ago, I do believe that. But what do you expect when Saddam was given 10+ years to hide/export them? The point is, everyone knew they were there, everyone thought something should be done, but everyone acted too late (by everyone I mean both Democrats and Republicans). In addition to that, it is not Bush's absolute fault that he was given intel reports that ended up not leading to what was said in them. He took them at face value, just as ANY president would.

Quote

However, it was Bush and his administration that hyped obviously flawed intelligence

This intelligence was not "obviously flawed" at the time, it was only proven flawed AFTER we had gone in and failed to unearth a WMD.

Quote

that we were in imminent threat of a nuclear attack in as little as 45 minutes

Show me where/when Bush said those words and I'll believe you, hands down.

Quote

Don’t forget, Saddam was contained

He was contained, eh? If by containment you mean funneling millions of dollars to off-shore accounts, including those expunged by terrorists and corrupt UN officials. Then yes, he was contained.

Quote

Bush pulled them out and rushed to war

With over 10 years of Saddam laughing at the international community, defying over 15 UN resolutions and thus continuing his roundabout money laundering which funded corrupt officials and weapons research, how is it that America rushed to war? How is it that over 10 years of putting up with this tyrant and then finally acting is considered "rushing?" Please explain.

[Skyrad 0]

I looked again and you know what? You are right! Its not just GW Bush that would have made this decision all of the corupt clowns in Americas politcal world (Its no better over here either) would have done the same! So if the intel was good where is the WMDs If the intel was bad it wasn't the clowns at the top that screwed up it was the clowns in the CIA et al.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Trent 0]

Come on... we've all seen thes quotes before, and we know that these people said them. The problem Viper is pointing out is legit, but many of you won't acknowledge that since you guys hate our president so much. If you can't see that Bush wasn't the only one who viewed Iraq as a threat, how can any of your arguments be taken seriously?

What I find funny is how tough Clinton talked about Iraq AFTER he was out of office. Sounded like he thought something should be done, just not while he was president. Guess he didn't think a few cruise missiles and an aspirin factory would take care of the Iraq problem.

Oh, hello again!

[ViperPilot 0]

Skyrad, I will definitely take that. Don't get the impression I posted this to be told I'm right. It's not about that, it's about presenting the fact that we shouldn't blame govt f**k ups single handedly on Bush. To me, sounds like the CIA is to blame. Doesn't mean I totally hate the CIA and think they should be disbanded, but they definitely screwed this one up. Anyhow, Bush should have used to reason of helping/saving innocent Iraqis from tyranny and opression as the main reason for going in. And yes I do believe the rest of the world can be made safer by taking Saddam out of the international loop, but overall, we're there to help people, and they should be the reason we went.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Come on... we've all seen thes quotes before, and we know that these people said them. The problem Viper is pointing out is legit, but many of you won't acknowledge that since you guys hate our president so much. If you can't see that Bush wasn't the only one who viewed Iraq as a threat, how can any of your arguments be taken seriously?

What I find funny is how tough Clinton talked about Iraq AFTER he was out of office. Sounded like he thought something should be done, just not while he was president. Guess he didn't think a few cruise missiles and an aspirin factory would take care of the Iraq problem.

Who said I hated Bush? Who said that Bush was the only one that viewed Iraq as a threat?
How can I take your arguments seriously when you don't use facts to back up your argument?

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Ron 10]

Quote

Right. A page titled "scaryjohnkerry" contains a fact-based argument, and not a politically motivated diatribe.

did you bother to READ it? Or are you just acting like you claim Bush did and only selecting stuff you WANT to read that proves your already set mind?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Yep that sure is an unbiased account of what happened

Well, I might be crazy, but I don't think it's unbiased to show direct quotes.

Quote

Who said I hated Bush? Who said that Bush was the only one that viewed Iraq as a threat?
How can I take your arguments seriously when you don't use facts to back up your argument?

Trent is correct in saying that there are many people out there who just hate Bush so much that they won't acknowledge anything like this. I've seen it, we've all seen it. I don't think Trent or I came off as directly saying you are one of those. Thus, his argument can be take seriously because it is fact that those people are out there. NO ONE said you were one of them. Everyone should try to be objective, just that many don't.

• Quote

[ViperPilot 0]

I'm wondering the exact thing? Did you read it or are you just passing people like Ron and I off as wacko right-wing nutjobs?

[Trent 0]

Quote

Who said I hated Bush?

Not me. I said, "...many of you won't acknowledge that since you guys hate our president so much." If you don't share the common disdain for Bush that is prevalent here and in the lefty circles, then I wasn't talking about you. A post in reply to you doesn't mean it's ABOUT you.

Quote

Who said that Bush was the only one that viewed Iraq as a threat?

Actions speak louder than words. Almost everyone who opposes Bush seems to place the blame on him and his administration, when clearly that isn't true. The only people above reproach here are the super-prescient ones who KNEW that he didn't have WMD's before we got there, or the lucky ones who just guessed right.

Quote

How can I take your arguments seriously when you don't use facts to back up your argument?

Which facts did you want? Or did you just feel offended that I replied to your post?

Oh, hello again!

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Quote

Yep that sure is an unbiased account of what happened

Well, I might be crazy, but I don't think it's unbiased to show direct quotes.

Quote

Who said I hated Bush? Who said that Bush was the only one that viewed Iraq as a threat?
How can I take your arguments seriously when you don't use facts to back up your argument?

Trent is correct in saying that there are many people out there who just hate Bush so much that they won't acknowledge anything like this. I've seen it, we've all seen it. I don't think Trent or I came off as directly saying you are one of those. Thus, his argument can be take seriously because it is fact that those people are out there. NO ONE said you were one of them. Everyone should try to be objective, just that many don't.

And from my post that Trent took issue with:

I seem to recall that there were those who said that there weren't WMD so perhaps this isn't the whole story.

I suggest that it was Trent that was not being objective. There were other opinions about WMD in Iraq other than those saying they existed. He can choose to ignore those opinions, but he should not deny that they existed. To suggest that there was only one side to the story is not objective.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

• Quote

[billvon 3,118]

>did you bother to READ it?

Read it; nothing new. It was a pain in the ass to have to click through all the pages.

>Or are you just acting like you claim Bush did and only selecting
>stuff you WANT to read that proves your already set mind?

If I were acting like Bush I'd have to claim that that website was absolute proof that Syria maintains and continues to develop some of the most deadly WMD's known to man.

[billvon 3,118]

> Basically, I'm sick of hearing arguments that Bush was an
>"idiot" for making decisions based on "bad" intel.

Best read a pro-Bush site, then. The fact of the matter is that a lot of people thought he might have them. Bush went to war and killed tens of thousands of innocent people based on that unsubstantiated thought.

You may think that your neigbor is a homicidal criminal. No problem. You might even tell people that, if you really believe it. But if you see him oustide one day, and you decide to shoot him dead, you better be DAMN sure that he really is a criminal and is about to kill you. Talking about someone being a criminal, and shooting him dead, are two different things. Most people (except for the Bush apologists) understand that.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Read it; nothing new. It was a pain in the ass to have to click through all the pages.

So, how can it be only Bush who was wrong if they all said those things?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,118]

>So, how can it be only Bush who was wrong if they all said those things?

Lots of people were wrong. Only one person made the decision to kill tens of thousands of innocent people based on being wrong. Actions actually matter in the reality-based community.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Bush went to war and killed tens of thousands of innocent people

Absolutely false. I am a member of the military and I know directly that a statistic like that is unsubstantiated BS. Yes civilians get hurt/killed in war, it's just what happens. It's very sad and I hate it every single time. But it's not us who does it, it's the insurgents. They kill civilians like there's no tomorrow. Yes tens of thousands of innocent people have died, but how did they die? Car bombs, a machete wielded by an insurgent, insurgent explosives (RPGs, grenades, pipe bombs, compound B, etc) detonated accidentally or on purpose, Sunnis hating Shites so much that they'll shoot an 8 yr old boy just because he's Shite. That's how they die. We DO NOT shoot innocent civilians, our bombs DO NOT blow up innocent civilians. That is not what we do. I can't say that accidents don't happen, but I can say that the number of accidental civilian deaths caused directly by the US military is very low. So NO, Bush did not go to war and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And lastly, you try being in a country where even an "innocent" 10 yr old comes up to you and hands you a live grenade. When the bad guys don't wear uniforms, war is harder than anything on the face of this planet.

p.s. If you only knew how accurate our weapons are and the kind of technology we have available, you'd realize soley based on the aformentioned that the civilian death number you claim is completly impossible and unrealistic.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Lots of people were wrong. Only one person made the decision to kill tens of thousands of innocent people based on being wrong. Actions actually matter in the reality-based community.

Only one?

But he was not the only one. The House passed H.J. Res. 114, to authorize the use of force against Iraq by a vote of 296 to 133.

The Senate also held a vote, 77-23 in favor.

So at best in the US the people who sent the troops into Iraq is 374.

296 Reps
77 Senators
1 CiC
374 =

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[ViperPilot 0]

If you're looking for more fact, well, Ron just showed it to you. But I'm assuming you're going to try to argue with proven numbers. Please prove me wrong.

[billvon 3,118]

>Seriously it does. I don't think they should have named it that. I'm
> not a Kerry hater, it's just what those guys' site is named. All it does
>? is present facts . . .I promise it is not BS political bashing,

Dude! Watch the whole thing! It bashes democrats (check out the last frame) and is called 'scaryjohnkerry.' It's the usual political bashing. You could do exactly the same thing with Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice quotes and then have some statement at the end that says "Bush knew that his evidence was weak, but he decided to deceive congress and america to get a war he desperately wanted. Now he's lying to cover it up."