Read News Stories About the "War on Terrorism" You Will Never See On CNN

[Christy]

We went to war because Saddam supposedly would have WMDs very soon. I don't believe the president lied there (he does lots of other places), but there were no WMDs. That, by definition, is a mistake.

Be careful, No*s. The story about the WMD's is not over, although I am certain you hope to use the issue against Bush forever. Word has it that the most intelligent and well-connected of Saddam's followers are now sitting pretty in Damascus, Syria, along with the $billions that Saddam stole from the UN Oil for Food program. From there they are funding the insurgencies in Iraq and elsewhere. Doesn't it make sense that they also secreted away the WMD's to Syria while the UN's inept agencies twiddled time away?

The question is not WILL the WMD's be found in Syria. The question is WHEN.

And then there is another question. Will people like you be honest enough to give Bush the credit he deserves when this discovery is reported? Somehow, I think not.

 

[jewscout]

The media is doing what it's always done...selling a product. I don't think they are or aren't covering up for anyone. They take the stories they think will get them the most viewers based upon the demagraphic they know are watching and then put it on the air and call it news.
Thats why you should rely soley on cable news network cause they are just there to serve you up a product so they can get the highest ratings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The question is not WILL the WMD's be found in Syria. The question is WHEN.

No, the real question is WHEN will republicans stop beating a horse that is not only DEAD, but is half decomposed already. I understand how hard it is to let this go, since the ENTIRE war was predicated on their existence But an apology for such a grave miscalculation would do more to instill CONFIDENCE in the current regime, then continually asserting their presence.

But an apology is not something the Bush War Regime has enough humility to give. When your entire premise is based on an idiot being perfect, then there ain't much wiggle room.

All I know is that people who voted for Bush voted to extend the war and to end the lives of thousands. They are just as guilty as Dubya for the death of these innocents. I somehow don't think that this is what Jesus would have done.

 

[No*s]

Be careful, No*s. The story about the WMD's is not over, although I am certain you hope to use the issue against Bush forever. Word has it that the most intelligent and well-connected of Saddam's followers are now sitting pretty in Damascus, Syria, along with the $billions that Saddam stole from the UN Oil for Food program. From there they are funding the insurgencies in Iraq and elsewhere. Doesn't it make sense that they also secreted away the WMD's to Syria while the UN's inept agencies twiddled time away?

The question is not WILL the WMD's be found in Syria. The question is WHEN.

And then there is another question. Will people like you be honest enough to give Bush the credit he deserves when this discovery is reported? Somehow, I think not.

I'm one of those few that didn't buy the presentation that Colin Powell made. I did at first, but within a few days I was back to my old "I say thee nay!" routine. I realized that some of the evidence I could see as circumstantial, and some of it was outside my keen. I found my skepticism supportable when other experts, less interviewed at the time, came forward.

I didn't buy into the "Saddam has a cache of WMDs" then, when there was a rather large amount of circumstantial evidence, so why should I buy your claim now with far, far less evidence? The fact that some of Saddam's followers, and billions of dollars, now sit in Syria is not evidence of WMDs being moved to Syria. It can't even constitute circumstantial evidence like Colin Powell's presentation.

If they did move it, where is our proof? You know that we had our satellites watching that very thing, but we don't have a single piece of hard evidence. You can't say that it's because our intelligence agencies are completely unreliable right now (even though they are), because that calls the "Saddam had WMDs" premise into question even further.

In short, there isn't a case left yet. Is it possible? Sure, it's possible, but I don't believe it. I'd sooner believe in Atlantis at this point.

So, when you say it's not a matter of if but when, I cry "foul." It is far more a matter of if than when. The administration was wrong, and until further evidence surfaces, that is what we see, and we see this with nothing contradicting it.

Now, finally, to silence the argument that I would use anything to attack Bush, you need to realize this is the fourth political thread I've taken part in on this board. The first, capital punishment, is a red herring here. The second claimed that our government is fascist, and even though I'm not a Bush supporter, I argued against the notion. I could easily have used that against Mr. Bush and furthered some vendetta. The third was about FBI agents supposedly over-stepping their bounds. Again, I could have used that to attack Mr. Bush, because I have a beef with the government's expanding powers. So, counting this one, I have gone to bat for the administration, indirectly, twice, once it was irrelevant, and lastly this one that I'm attacking it. I do believe the evidence contradicts any allegations that I will latch onto anything to attack Mr. Bush.

I think I have laid that allegation to rest now.

 

[RangerTwigz]

That wasn't why went to war, though, was it? We went to war because Saddam supposedly would have WMDs very soon. I don't believe the president lied there (he does lots of other places), but there were no WMDs. That, by definition, is a mistake.

All the reasons you've mentioned were initially nice side-effects while stopping the WMDs was the principal issue. Now that we don't have WMDs they don't detract from the fact that it was a mistake. Are they good? Absolutely? They just weren't why we went to war.

I have to agree with you. Yes, there is nothing wrong with freeing people from a restrictive dictatorship and giving them the right to choose their own leaders. However, the coalition forces broadcasted that they went to war with Saddam Hussain because he supposedly had WMDs. WMDs that were not found before war began and continue to be missing. I'm glad that Iraqis have been 'freed' but i feel that Bush shouldnt have lied about his reasons for going to war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

However, the coalition forces broadcasted that they went to war with Saddam Hussain because he supposedly had WMDs.

I thought it was because Saddam wouldn't cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

 

[linwood]

I thought it was because Saddam wouldn't cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

You know too well spinkles the argument made by our current admin was that saddam Hussien was a threat and linked to Alqueda.

You also know now niether was true.

I don`t like where Bush has taken my country and I hope we can bounce back quickly when he`s gone.

I do not however rabidly disagree with everything he has done.
Just almost everything.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you see our new tanks???

They have a new sign on the side:

Bush Inc.​

(Formerly known as the USA)​

​

After he stole the first election and decieved enough people to snag the second election, do you really believe that he will just slip away into that good night? Just watch and see that term limits will be found unconstitutional for religious bigots.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You know too well spinkles the argument made by our current admin was that saddam Hussien was a threat and linked to Alqueda.

You also know now niether was true.

We've had this discussion before. From the quotes painted wolf has provided me, I know that Bush said that Saddam's regime had links to terrorists, some of whom were connected with Al Quaida. Is this false?

I don't agree with everything the Bush administration has done....but I'm glad somebody finally stopped putting up with Saddam Hussein's shananagans and actually DID something (rather than allowing it to go on for another twelve years).

And no, I do not know that Saddam was not a threat. We knew he had WMD and missiles that violate the ceasefire agreement from the first Gulf War, we knew he was a madman bent on conquering his neighbors when the time is right (a la Hitler), and we knew he wasn't fully cooperating with U.N. inspectors. I don't blame Bush for finally confronting Saddam's lack of cooperation in a forceful manner...I blame Saddam Hussein for refusing to cooperate with the inspectors fully, and I blame countries like Germany, France and Russia for rejecting a U.N. ultimatum that may have finally gotten through to Saddam that he can't get away with that stuff anymore.

Did you see our new tanks???

They have a new sign on the side:

Bush Inc.​

(Formerly known as the USA)​

​

After he stole the first election and decieved enough people to snag the second election, do you really believe that he will just slip away into that good night? Just watch and see that term limits will be found unconstitutional for religious bigots.

NetDoc-- If you have something interesting or important to add to the conversation, by all means share it. I'm always eager to hear well-thought-out points of view, but please--keep the mindless rhetoric to yourself.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What is mindless rhetoric to one man, is impending doom to another. Sometimes humor is the best way to demonstrate the absurdity of a situation. The message may not always be welcomed by those who feel differently, but that does not make it "mindless". Just irritatingly accurate.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Or perhaps it is a glimpse at the inner anguish of the loser. Bush did not 'steal' any election, nor did he 'deceive' anyone into voting for him any more than any other politician. I second Spinkles' request that people keep such foundationless claims to themselves.

 

[Sunstone]

Bush did not 'steal' any election, nor did he 'deceive' anyone into voting for him any more than any other politician.

And that's another reason for me to dislike Bush! He didn't even steal the election. What a jerk! If he had lived up to my expectations and stole the election, then I'd have something more to righteously b**** about. But no. So now I have to stick to other things he's done when finding stuff to b**** about. All I can say is it's d**n frustrating when a politician won't even steal an election so you can d**n him to hell for it. :banghead3

 

[HelpMe]

...Bush did not 'steal' any election...request that people keep such foundationless claims to themselves.

req. res.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Medthinks I hit a nerve with that joke!

As you wish... you're the mod and if you say it's "foundationless" then who am I to argue.

The man's morality is impeccable and he has never decieved a soul. He fought fair and square and anyone who says different is a "loser".

There, I hope that helps!

 

[Ceridwen018]

Oh NetDoc, you know I don't mean all of that....but you also know that he didn't 'steal' the election, and that he is no more deceptive than any other politician...perhaps even less than most...

 

[Scuba Pete]

I only hope that I used enough smilies...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sometimes humor is the best way to demonstrate the absurdity of a situation.

And sometimes it only serves to affirm and entertain those who already agree with you. I, however, much prefer well-thought out comments like linwood's, for example. They help me expand my thinking by allowing me to understand the reasoning behind other points of view.

 

[TamerAhmad]

No mistake has been made. Freeing people from a despot is not a mistake. Wanting to have people choose their own leaders is not a mistake. Improving the lifestyles and the futures of millions of Iraquis is not a mistake.

Here are the mistakes: Thinking that Iraqis could never be happy living under a democracy. Thinking that terrorism will ultimately succeed.

Christy
Let’s not state the obvious Ok; nobody can say Saddam was a nice guy and his rule was fair or even that the Iraqi ppl did not want him to go but let’s see now:

• Bush went there for the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) , lied and showed us his satellite pictures of them ( in the UN) but never found any and had to admit the pictures were wrong .So how would he have hurt the USA if he didn't have any WMDs , and as for the ppl , the Americans killed more Iraqis and destroyed more of Iraq in the past year than Saddam did in the past twenty years or so and even if Saddam killed more ;is it a race who kills more Iraqis? Shouldn't Bush have just let the Iraqis choose their own life even if they never will, instead if being bombarded by the most powerful bombs that where ever made (as if to try them out there) and having their country destroyed.
• The USA is the country who invented most of those WMDs, has till this day the biggest stock of WMDs and holds the highest record in using WMDs.
• Most of the chemical WMDs Saddam has where American anyway .
• Who gave the USA the right to play police man and go to Iraq and change the regime there , who asked them , who wants them , who cares what they want or think about Saddam or Iraq . Did they ask the Iraqis, do they even care what anybody thinks?
• Can any other country say the USA has WMDs and has used them a lot before and thus declare war to find and destroy them and in the mean time change the regime to one it feels is more appropriate?
• What's this act that’s being put on to show the USA as the savior of the world while it is killing more and more innocent ppl every day like it has always been doing since its foundation over millions of native American lives (not to forget the poor Africans brought in slavery who built that country), till its protection and support of the Israeli terrorism in Palestine politically and with American weapons. As if nobody knows as if it is not all there in writing and on film; News Flash: We're not stupid you know.

 

[Godless Dave]

Do you think that Bush is telling the news channels to cover up the huge mistake he's made?

Yes, but most presidents do that. The appalling, disgusting, and unAmerican thing is that the news media is going along with it. I don't know if it's laziness, corruption, or some kind of conspiracy to insert propagandists into key jobs in the news media. Maybe all three. But it makes me want to barge into the editorial offices of the New York Times and ask them just who they think they are.

Don't even get me started on CNN, the Cheney News Network.

 

[Yerda]

Oh NetDoc, you know I don't mean all of that....but you also know that he didn't 'steal' the election, and that he is no more deceptive than any other politician...perhaps even less than most...

I almost choked on my cornflakes there. I know politicians (if you want to call them that) who are very honest (oxymoron??). If George Bush isn't dishonest surely he is completely thick?

As regards the election theft thing, off course he didn't. His bosses did.