Lying about WMDs vs. Lying about blowjobs
 

No brainer. Bush should be impeached.

Pentagon report evidence is just as strong as cum stain evidence.

what

man, you´ll never get it ... it was about libertation ... who ever said it was about wmd´s ??

:321GFY

Lying about having sex and giving a girl a dry cleaning bill is a lot worse than just bending the truth to invade a country and kill people to get there oil. Any way they were just towel heads and I'm sure they will find the WMDs very soon. Any day now. In fact it could be that they have found them.

Remember those towel heads had WMDs that could be ready and operational within minutes.

Plus with all our satellites, CIA agents, Special forces and loyal supporters of the West we had in Iraq that sneaky Saddam could have easily gone out one night into the desert and buried them.

In fact if I buried 50 tons of stuff in the desert how long would it take you to find it?

Now theking does not need to post here. :1orglaugh

I'm sure you're being sarcastic..

But, uh, Bush did? Many times.

uh-huh ... bush? ;)

umm..i thought Bush was scared of Saddamn's WMD's ?
thats why US overthrew Saddam.

Bush has always been misunderestimated :1orglaugh

... you are a wise guy!

you have no idea what you are talking about

easiest way to tell someone is a leftist whacko: they think the only bad thing clinton ever did was get a blowjob

Lying about WMDs? Not true and will never be established (beyond those with a left-distorted mindset).

Lying about blowjobs? Under oath, it's called perjury. That was just the tip of the iceberg concerning Clinton's criminal activity.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Oh Geez..for starters? G.W. Bush!

Amazing how the right wing has such problems with short term memory loss.

Oh yeah? - an excerpt from an article by John Dean - conservative and former aid to nixon:

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

in 1998 Iraq declared they had a certain amount of anthrax, nerve gas, etc. So this begs two questions.

1. Do you believe the amount of things they reported were accurate, or the more likely assumption that they only reported a small fraction of what they have.

2. Do you belive that govt , the same govt said we were nowhere near bahgdad when we were two fucking blocks away, when it says that stuff was destroyed.

If you do, i have some oceanfront property in nevada for you.

Are most Americans better off today than they were when Clinton was president?

:1orglaugh

Bush: "Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
http://www.theonion.com/onion3701/bush_nightmare.html

I have never heard of Iraq declaring they had any of this stuff in 1998...where did you read this?

Do tell!

Since the US spent 11 million on the Ken Starr escapade and found nothing, I'd say you were wrong on that.

Although I remember that he got a hair cut in LA that was considered suspisous.

If you think it's no big deal that they haven't found the WMD's that we were sure they had you're fucking nuts.

Who the hell is going to believe anything that our intellegence says if we can't produce what they were ready and willing to use?

Right wingers that just want to ignore the main reason that we were sold this war on are just fucking idiots!

Don't forget I supported the war, and still believe that getting Saddam out was a good thing. Not to mention the mass graves that are being found all over the country. But we WERE sold a bill of goods on this.

I got the year wrong, 1995. 1998 is when they kicked out inspectors.

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/miscdocs/200005_e.html

"The Iraqi government in August 1995 admitted to having produced 19,000 litres of botulinum toxin (BTX), 8,500 litres of anthrax, and 2,400 litres of the cancer-producing agent aflatoxin; to have loaded BTX and anthrax on Scud missile warheads and aerial bombs; and to have conducted research on mycotoxins and infectious viruses. It also claimed to have destroyed the agents after the 1991 Gulf War, but has failed to produce evidence to support such a claim. "

Hitting the nail right on....

Credibility of this administration ( and the one of Blair to that effect) is in serious jeopardy....

Now it is to the US population that their credibility do not go the same way by demanding that the truth be exposed... The american citizens do not have to be responsible of this manipulation...

Seems like they did destroy them ... can't find a fucking ounce....

So what was the rush to war????

Running out of oil for the SUV's ????

its always something with you types. When we didnt win the war in two days, we were 'stuck in a quagmire' and would be another stalingrad. Always something new to spin.

That's the whole point of the thread. They said they destroyed it after the Gulf War. Now we went to war to rid them of those weapons:

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

Radio Address
October 5, 2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."

"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" - his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
October 7, 2002

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

And we are there now...and there are no WMDs.

when 100,000 people are lying dead in the street, it wont be quite as fun to play the 'where are the wmds' spin.

Time to go to bed now...

http://www.iwantitnowgifts.com/Merch...lleRooster.jpg

Clinton also said that Iraq had WMD... so fucking shut up unless you know what the hell you're talking about.

Post a link to that statment.

Terms:

- Weapons of Mass destruction
- Axis of evil
- Road map
- Evil doers ( lol ... fucking religion)

and so on are creation of this administration.

In 1998 President Bill Clinton stated, "What if he [Hussein] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal."

Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated "[W]e know that he [Hussein] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."

GFY :321GFY

yeah you're right, but he didn't take a country to war over it. There is a difference. A big difference.

no such words as "WMD" ...

Everybody knew that Iraq had weapons, mainly the US since they facilitated their acquisition ...

Clinton did bomb in Iraq . Didn;t go to war because their was no need for it .. obviously ...

Uhhhhh... you're a moron. Look at the quote above from 1998...

He is saying that we cannot "Fail to act".... what the fuck do you think that means??

Bush started a war based on lies.

Bush lied to start a war.

Bush sent Americans to die based on lies.

But he didn't get a blowjob.

So Rooster thinks it's ok.

Go figure.

"Fail to act" does not mean "war".

Check Google, 20,000 matches:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...fail+to+act%22

Seems it can mean a few different things, no matter what Rush Limbaugh told you. :1orglaugh

If the WMD's aren't found I'm sure we'll have them just show up somehwere. :winkwink:

If they " show up somewhere " , aren't they " found" ???

You're absolutely right. The liberation of Iraq happened just in the nick of time, Saddam was on the verge of invading the USA. Fortunately Bin Laden, Saddam and all the WMD's have now been captured, as promised, the world is safe now, and your kids won't be learning Arabic in school.

I've said it before and I will say it again. As much as I dislike "W" and his politics I would have backed the war if he had taken the stance that we were doing this for human rights reasons. There is no doubt that there were significant human rights violations in Iraq.

Clinton would have taken this position in my opinion before starting a war with Iraq as he did with Kosovo.

Bush chose to take the position that we must go to war to disarm Iraq of it's WMD's ...that was his position. He made his bed...so now let him lie in it.

-joe

This is true.

Okay for all dumbfucks who still dont get it, here is a quote from Clinton that is clear as day.

and if your only comeback is that he didn't use the exact words 'weapons of mass distruction' you can suck my fucking dick.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Listen - I don't like Bush - but I hate people who try to talk about things they know NOTHING about even more. :321GFY

That is the whole point. But he choosed to misrepresent ( I am kind not saying lying) facts to the world population. Remember that he also took an oath.

So Clinton is also a lying sack of shit, tell us something we don't know :)

Wow, nice quote... and you have taken that where exactly??!

You're absolutely right, but Clinton didn't send 200,000 troops into the middle east to fight a war with Iraq based on the premise that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction only to find out that they don't. George Bush did.

I will do like TheKing, quote myself ( lol):
What is different here than what you are stating,???

Who fucking cares? Our gas prices will go down finally that's all that mattrs!

If Bush would have been as honest as you, this discussion would not take place.

LOL, I doubt it...Bush isn't doing this for YOUR gain

I'm not buying that you don't like Bush. You sound like a Bush supporter trying to sound objective.

Someone said, "Bush lied."

And you respond with, "Clinton said something similar too."

How are those two related?

Did Bush lie or did he not? Who cares what Clinton said. Clinton is not the president anymore. Clinton did not start this war.

If Bush started a war based on lies, do you think it's wrong, or do you think it's ok because of some possibly related Clinton quote that Rush Limbaugh dug up for you?

If Bush lied to start a war, it's obviously impeachable. That's exactly what impeachment was created to address. Abuse of power, lying to congress, lying to the American people to start a war for political reasons.

I am not stupid enough to think that Bush will actually be impeached, but what he did is a far more serious crime than lying about a blowjob.

Bush did something exponentially more criminal and corrupt than Clinton, but luckily for him, there is a Republican Senate and House right now. That's great news for him, but it doesn't change what he did or how he will be treated by history.

Everyone knows that it was about oil and power, WMD's were just a way to go in there with a cause besides getting richer and powerful. But fuck it, my '72 Chevy long bed will now cost me less to drive! :BangBang: