WMDs and Bush - Lie or mistake?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider me extremely depressed.

[John Ho]

LOL you and others believe this? Wow what a strong case.

Maybe we should invade Syria to find Saddam's WMDs. And if they aren't there we can invade Iran where Saddam's WMDs were moved via Syria according to my neighbor's kid's best friend's dad who vacuums at the State Department.

And when we don't find them in Iran we can invade North Korea since my dog's barking indicates she believes she heard the WMDs were transported there.

Then all our troubles will be over.

Bush's blunder and reelection is going to bite us in the ass in the coming years. If we actually did NEED to launch a preemptive war we are behind the 8 ball in getting international support.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that there is a very large chance that you've experienced some cognative dissonance on this issue. And I also believe that if there was any actual evidence of this whatsoever it would be part of every Bush speech and every McClellan press gaggle.

[Jedster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has come to this? A "strong feeling"? Is this the same "many out there" that have "a strong feeling" that "intelligent design"/creationism should be taught instead of evolution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont be an ass. Let me put it to you a little more definitively. I think there is a very large chance that WMD were transported to Syria. Many people I know think this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Iraq transported WMD to Syria before the war, then it stands to reason that we are just as vulnerable to that WMD today as we were then. Unless, of course, you think that Syria is a better caretaker of WMD than Iraq. The problem is that now we are bogged down in Iraq when all the WMD is in Syria. So according to that line of (flawed) thinking, clearly then we must be much worse off today than we were before the war because the WMD threat remains unabated AND our military is bogged down in Iraq. So if you really think that WMD is in Syria, please explain how the Iraq war has not been an unmitigated failure.

Please note: my view is that there were no significant WMD in Iraq before the war and that therefore nothing was ever moved to Syria. I believe that if there were any evidence that Syria held these weapons that Bush-Cheney would have made this case. Some may argue that Bush-Cheney would not make this case because they don't want to start another war in Syria because we are bogged down in Iraq. If this is true, then it proves the general point that Iraq was a screw-up, because it has hamstrung our nation from going after true threats. But to reiterate, I have never seen a single piece of evidence to suggest that Syria received WMD.

But there is plenty of evidence that Bush's war has been a total disaster.

[nicky g]

"Also there is a strong feeling by many out there that Syria may have been the beneficiary of WMD largesse from Saddam.
"

There is a strong feeling by many out there that Elvis is still alive. It would really depress me if you really belive this is a likely explanation for what happened.

[ QUOTE ]


There is a strong feeling by many out there that Elvis is still alive.



[/ QUOTE ]

You evidently don't hang out at a lot of 7/11's, do you?

Long Live The King!!!!

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're clean, why act like you're trying to hide something?

[/ QUOTE ]

The secretive nature of all dictatorships is a factor. Especially dictatorships on a war footing, which has been on, moreover, for decades.

Plus, the fact that Saddam Hussein did not want Iraq to appear militarily weaker, especially towards Israel and Iran, its arch-enemies. Beyond that, the stalling was a standard netotiating ploy towards placating the western demands by slowly feeding them with compliance.

This case (why Saddam's Iraq did not open everything to inspection) has been examined and analyzed already. Western intelligence was perfectly aware of the ways of Saddam's Iraq.

[theweatherman]

haha, people really think we had faulty intelligence?!?!?!

Are you retarded? Seriously America knows exactly whats going on all over the world all the time, the only way we would be tricked is by some highly funded, high tech operation. There is no way we could not see every square inch of iraq before we invaded.

[BCPVP]

George Bush is a politician, agreed?
Politicians like to be re-elected, agreed?
The lack of WMDs would be found out if we invaded, agreed?
So why would Bush take the chance to not get relected by openly lying? What did he gain from that "lie"?
Wouldn't you agree that had Bush just stomped all over Afghanistan and done absolutely nothing about Iraq, he probably could have won big over any challenger? So why take the risk?

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
George Bush is a politician, agreed?
Politicians like to be re-elected, agreed?
The lack of WMDs would be found out if we invaded, agreed?
So why would Bush take the chance to not get relected by openly lying? What did he gain from that "lie"?
Wouldn't you agree that had Bush just stomped all over Afghanistan and done absolutely nothing about Iraq, he probably could have won big over any challenger? So why take the risk?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he thought we would win in a walk and be seen as liberators. If the war went well, he knew that Americans wouldn't care about the justifications for going to war. We (as a country) would only care that: a) we won big, and b) few of our troops died.