IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New To be "Fair and Balanced"...
For the sake of argument, can you imagine if President Bush had ignored the CIA's assertion that Saddam had anthrax and other deadly substances? Can you just picture what would have happened if Al Qaeda attacked America with deadly weapons acquired from Baghdad and Bush had rejected intelligence reports about WMDs? My God! President Bush would have gone down in history as the incompetent of all time.

So based on intelligence, Bush had to confront Saddam and tried to work within the framework of the United Nations to do it. But it was obvious the U.N. was going to procrastinate as long as possible, just as it is doing now in the Sudan. While thousands of innocent people die every week at the hands of the brutal Khartoum regime, U.N. diplomats sit there and eat lunch.

What would you have done if you were Bush? You are told by U.S. and British intelligence that a brutal dictator had WMDs. That dictator had funded and supported terrorism all over the Middle East. Known terrorists, including Bin Laden pal al-Zarqawi, were living inside Iraq. And you sit there while Hans Blix runs around the desert? Come on. President Bush could have delayed the action and planned better for the aftermath but, ultimately, he had to act.


Does anyone have any facts to refute what Bill says? I've only seen bits and pieces of the 9/11 and intelligence committee reports. Did he miss something in those reports?

Thanks,
John
New Re: To be "Fair and Balanced"...
Your letting yourself be blinded by the hope. The fact is, from DAY 1 this administration had the idee fixe of "getting Saddam" (Richard Clarke, John O'Neill). If Bin Laden had farted in a New York elevator they'd have been on Saddam for feeding him chili.
-drl
New ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #166654 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=166654|ICLRPD]
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New I read one interesting piece
though I don't have a link. It was an interview of the officer responsible for the containment of Iraq. According to him, they knew damn well that Saddam had bupkes.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Not bupkis..[oil]!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New If you haven't been paying attention, you might believe him
PNAC. Look it up.

This crowd has had a hardon for Iraq since *before* they were installed in office. Saying the intelligence was faulty is a red herring. They were going to go to war in Iraq and were just trying to find some way of selling it to the public.

Of course if you prefer to stay willfully ignorant, it's no skin off my nose.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
New Still waiting for evidence of lying...
Just because hawks in the administration felt Iraq was unfinished business even before 9/11 is not evidence that they knowingly lied about WMDs. They've been cleared by two US commissions and one British commission.

Anyone have any *facts* that contradicts those reports?
New So...
At a minimum they've been unknowingly lying, sticking to it after they've been proven wrong, and not apologizing or taking any responsibility for their mistakes. The US commissions from the start were forbidden from declaring any wrongdoing by the White House as being outside their area of investigation, and the British commissions reviewed condemning evidence already available to the public and managed to find that it didn't actually condemn anyone, not even a low level scapegoat. How bad does it have to get before you'll stop supporting an administration that invaded the wrong country at the behest of a declared enemy? Does Bush have to commit adultery or merely join the Democratic Party and suddenly, all else equal, you won't support him anymore?
New When incompetence just isn't enough..
-drl
New Not around here. Don't need em ;)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Right on cue; Beep, your standards of proof remind of
the ontological proof of God.

Gooo ---> O. J.
If it doesn't fit
you must acquit.

Ah if you could only be a retro fly-on-wall with Dick C and Kenny Boy, in those lovely electricity meetings. (But then, that was OK - it was bizness sans the golf.)


Love. It.
New Excuse me.
Just stating the painfully obvious where you are concerned.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I doubt that. The koolaid taste ok then?
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
New Read chapter 8 of the 9/11 report
     Does he think we're retarded? - (Silverlock) - (18)
         My Gramma prepared me for such creatures. -NT - (Ashton)
         "Scotty! Quick! The Reality Distortion Field on Full!!" -NT - (jb4)
         Yes. - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             Re: Yes. - (deSitter)
         To be "Fair and Balanced"... - (johnu) - (13)
             Re: To be "Fair and Balanced"... - (deSitter) - (1)
                 ICLRPD (new thread) - (jb4)
             I read one interesting piece - (jake123) - (1)
                 Not bupkis..[oil]! -NT - (jb4)
             If you haven't been paying attention, you might believe him - (Silverlock) - (8)
                 Still waiting for evidence of lying... - (johnu) - (7)
                     So... - (tangaroa)
                     When incompetence just isn't enough.. -NT - (deSitter)
                     Not around here. Don't need em ;) -NT - (bepatient) - (2)
                         Right on cue; Beep, your standards of proof remind of - (Ashton) - (1)
                             Excuse me. - (bepatient)
                     I doubt that. The koolaid taste ok then? -NT - (Silverlock)
                     Read chapter 8 of the 9/11 report -NT - (Simon_Jester)

Misdirection!
97 ms