Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Here are the Iraq WMD's< But...wait a minute Donny... that story you posted only talks about uranium... I don't know if you know this, but WMD means Weapons of Mass Destruction, not One of the Ingredients to Create a Weapon. I'm sure one of the science buildings here has uranium, does that mean it houses WMD's? Nope.
Originally Posted By Donny it's a pretty crucial ingredient to have. but ahhhhh what harm could it do. Read this <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/libya/nuclear.htm" target="_blank">http://www.globalsecurity.org/...lear.htm</a>
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 It's like arguing with a pigeon. THEY DID NOT HAVE WMDs I don't give a damn about how they COULD utilize the uranium. I understand how important it is to the process. Iraq had no NUKES. PERIOD. END OF ARGUMENT. That is what Bush wanted us to go to war over. The fact that Iraq had these mythical Nukes that sprouted wings became unicorns and flew away.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I'm confused. I thought that whole yellow cake uranium story was proven to be false by Joe Wilson. Why is Donny still claiming that the story was true?
Originally Posted By gadzuux For some reason, Condoleeza Rice was making the rounds of cable news shows last night, and Lawrence O'Donnell really lit into her about the whole buildup to the Iraq war. She tried to bluster through it with the usual platitudes and talking points, but O'Donnell wasn't having any of it. She ended up using the "gassing the kurds" excuse, with no mention of the fact that this occurred in the mid-eighties, and they invaded in 2003 - almost twenty years later. When you have to resort to lies and half-truths to support your position, that's about as good an indicator as it gets that your positions are unsupportable.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>When you have to resort to lies and half-truths to support your position, that's about as good an indicator as it gets that your positions are unsupportable. <<< Remember how the right wing crackers all have to stick together.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<The story is Fact>> Nope. All fiction to justify invading Iraq so Junior could kill Saddam for attempting to kill his daddy.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<When you have to resort to lies and half-truths to support your position, that's about as good an indicator as it gets that your positions are unsupportable.>> ^^ This.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Yep, 9/11 was a wasted opportunity. The US had the world's good will, and Bush Jr urinated all over it. On 9/12, I was on the French national news and had expressed my concerns he would use it as an excuse to go into Iraq. My prognostications were sadly correct.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If you believe the political spectrum is circular, "truthers" is the point where the extreme left and right converge. It's strange how many far right and far left people find themselves in the same camp with these conspiracy theories. Sad.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Here are the Iraq WMD's> You can't be serious, Donny. What they found was old and deteriorated, and not even good enough to make a "dirty bomb," let alone a nuke. Yes, it could be processed, but there was NO evidence found that Saddam was doing so. Not even a facility. Claiming that constitutes "WMD" is like claiming having a stone quarry constitutes having a pyramid. From YOUR OWN link: "Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said." And yet, to you, this equals "Here are the Iraq WMD's." You just made yourself look very foolish, I'm afraid.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<You just made yourself look very foolish, I'm afraid.>> He's become quite professional at it, too.
Originally Posted By ecdc On the OP, here's an excellent commentary on the focus on sideshow questions over the enormity of the accomplishment. <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54436.html" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/news/s...436.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Right in the first paragraph of that link is this phrase: "ginned up by media with more time than judgment" ...that I think pretty much sums it up.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Network was just on a few weeks ago because Sidney Lumet passed away. Hard to believe that in 1976 that would be the movie or tv show that accurately predicted the future.
Originally Posted By BPSJP Obama is not a war criminal, be also is not the one who took out "The Worlds number one crimial" That would be our Navy Seal's, who did that. Now I agree, Obama talks as if he did it but that's another story.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 He has to give the order. And he gave the right order. Didn't consult with the UN. Didn't consult with Pakistan(not a dime to them anymore) It was almost cowboy like. But I will say that Presidents get too much blame or credit for extraordinary circumstances.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >Obama talks as if he did it but that's another story< Aww it's so cute that you never watched his speech.
