It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saddam is now using democrat arguments!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   
How do you guys feel that Saddam has now began to use the same arguments that the left does?

www.cnn.com...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- In one of his frequent outbursts during his trial, former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein on Thursday said the Bush administration lied when it claimed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as well as when it disputed his claims of being beaten.

"The White House lies once more," Hussein said. "The number-one liar in the world, they said in Iraq, there is chemicals, and there is a relation to terrorism, and they announced later we couldn't find any of that in Iraq.


The fact that Saddam's talking points are now almost exactly the same as the democrats. It started last night when he began accusing the administration of "torturing" him and then going on a rant about how Bush is a liar.

Saddam knows we are watching him on TV. It's no accident that he is echoing statements from the opponents of bush.

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Dronetek]




posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Saddam is going to use anything he can find in order to try to defend himself.

All of which amounts to nothing, the "legality" of the Iraq war itself has little or no bearing on the accusations against Saddam Husein.

As for the cute little positioning, it's also irrelevant, and a cheap attak on those that disagree with you. For the last time, "against the war" doesn't equal "for Saddam", however much you might like to twist things around. Saddam was a brutal dictator, few doubt that, but the world is full of brutal dictators, that doesn't mean we need to go to war with all of them.

The War was sold to Americans under the premise that Saddam was a "threat" to the US, which he wasn't. Everything else is just window dressing.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
So people aren't allowed to speak the truth?

Is that your point?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Sure they can speak the truth.

So um... when was Saddam going to start speaking the truth?

He's grasping here... if the patterns holds true, Saddam will complain tomorrow that he was tapped without a warrant, and then next week he'll complain about wanting better pensions and contracts.

Why can no one see that this man is STILL an uber-charismatic personality who is an absolute master of diverting attention from his barbarism.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Ok I'll take the bait!!!

Saddam is using the tactics of the Republican Administration. Lies, Lies and more Lies.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
He has right to fair trial even when his attorneys are killed on daily basis. I´m pretty sure he is convicted because usa has spent over 300 million to expenses proving him guilty. But when the war is illegal it maybe harder than you think to make someone being scapecoat. After all bush is responsible of killing more civilians than him.(maybe not if saddam killed over 30.000 people).
-aape



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by aape
He has right to fair trial even when his attorneys are killed on daily basis. I´m pretty sure he is convicted because usa has spent over 300 million to expenses proving him guilty. But when the war is illegal it maybe harder than you think to make someone being scapecoat. After all bush is responsible of killing more civilians than him.(maybe not if saddam killed over 30.000 people).
-aape


So you make statements even when you know they are probobly wrong. You could easily go to google and do a quick search to check. What the hell?



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Saddam has been used to provided the public with a circus sho, he actually has not rights.

The whole circus of the trial is for public opinion, he is better off found guilty and killed.

That is what will happen at the end.

Is all a show.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This post actually backs up the point many have been making that all the anti-Bush and anti-war talk from the left is heard by the insurgents and does help prop them up and is used by them.


As for saddam's rights, please (finally?) understand that they are iraqi rights - whatever those are - and not the rights of a U.S. citizen.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
This post actually backs up the point many have been making that all the anti-Bush and anti-war talk from the left is heard by the insurgents and does help prop them up and is used by them.


This is exactly my point. Now saddam can give his little insurgency more legitimacy by echoing the talking points of the anti-war movement.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Saddam is just making use of his 15 minutes of fame in court. After a while the media will get bored with his trial untill some phiiscal evidence is presented to the court. There is only going to be one verdict at this trial unless the political process takes a turn for the worst.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Those of you who now claim Saddam is using the Democratic play book would you feel better if there was no dissent in this country? Or is it okay for you to disagree with a policy, direction, administration but not others?

Seriously, do you have any clue what a democracy is? Do you realize how much your hate of dissent sounds like the words of people gladly ruled by a dictatorship?

This is why there is a divide in this country. Both sides seem to hate each other so much. Republicans hate the Democrats for daring to question the administration (something they did constantly with Clinton in office). The Democrats seem to hate the Republicans for daring to agree with the administration.

Let's not forget. The power will shift again. Those in power will be out of power sooner than you might think. All we will have to do is flip Dem for Repub in our postings to stay current.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
This post actually backs up the point many have been making that all the anti-Bush and anti-war talk from the left is heard by the insurgents and does help prop them up and is used by them.



So... are you asserting that without the anti-war movement Saddam wouldn't have been able to come up with "Bush lied!" on his own? Before the war even started, he was calling Bush a liar.



September 19, 2002
WASHINGTON/UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday urged the U.S. Congress to authorize military action against Iraq, warning the United Nations Washington was prepared to go it alone, as Saddam Hussein accused Bush of lying to gain control of Middle East oil.
Source



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
How do you guys feel that Saddam has now began to use the same arguments that the left does?


Hitler was left handed. My husband is left handed. That doesn't mean that my husband is just like Hitler. I feel silly explaining this, but you apparently wish to associate Saddam with Democrats by pointing out that they both accuse Bush of lying.

Well, just about the whole world is accusing Bush of lying these days darlin'. You know why?



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So... are you asserting that without the anti-war movement Saddam wouldn't have been able to come up with "Bush lied!" on his own? Before the war even started, he was calling Bush a liar.


No, I'm saying that without the media and also people like you saddam wouldn't have any hope that his lies would get any air time. He's counting on you and the media to help keep his lies in the news and on the internet, and let me say that you're doing a great job for him so far.

I thank you and I'm sure any troop serving in iraq would thank you if they knew of your contributions - not.



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Well, just about the whole world is accusing Bush of lying these days darlin'. You know why?


Well, it may seem like that to you when your circle of (5) friends agrees with you. That is when they're not too busy hugging trees, drinking lattes and/or eating tofu.


Admit it. The reason you keep writing post after post after post after post (ad nauseum) about "Bush lied" is because that's what they impeached your hero Bill Clinton for, now isn't it? Or maybe you're even getting paid for your anti-Bush posts as was alleged in another thread.



[edit on 12/23/2005 by centurion1211]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
Well, it may seem like that to you when your circle of (5) friends agrees with you.


That is just mean!
It's amazing what some people will say when they don't have a valid argument...



That is when they're not too busy hugging trees, drinking lattes and/or eating tofu.



I thought we settled this in another thread. Remember me? The 2nd amendment and immigration control supporter? Man! I thought perhaps we were making some progress in seeing each other as people, not parties, but it's clear I was wrong. You handed me an olive branch! Bah!




Admit it. The reason you keep writing post after post after post after post (ad nauseum) about "Bush lied" is because that's what they impeached your hero Bill Clinton for, now isn't it?


Bill Clinton is not even close to my hero. I was JUST as furious about him lying. My husband would tell you so.



Or maybe you're even getting paid for your anti-Bush posts as was alleged in another thread.



What? I have no idea what you're talking about. I guess I'll have to look around and find that. But I assure you, I'm not getting paid. If you think I would talk for money, you don't know me at all. And it's clear that you don't know me at all.

Edit: I have searched and find no implication that I was getting paid for my 'anti-Bush posts'. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

It's also clear that you had to resort to multiple personal attacks because you have no argument.

I said good-day!


[edit on 23-12-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Yes, I held out an olive branch to you ---- and a little while later started reading your latest comments towards me on several threads. Gee, bad timing on my part I guess.

Check your mirror (for the source of the problem) ...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Hey!! I hug trees!! they keep me alive and I appreciate that. but I like black coffee... it's dark and bitter.... like my soul.

Wait.. you mean I can get paid to hate Bush?!?! where do I sign up?????

Yes, Clinton lied and he shouldn’t have.. but in his " It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is." You can see in his face that he is thinking... " Ohh man.. even I don't believe this pile.."

I have hated Bush for longer than most have... I lived in Arlington TX when his daddy bought him the Rangers and he ran them into the ground, I was there when he and his brothers ruined SnL...

I remember what a pile of poo the governor elections in Texas were when he ran against Ann Richards accusing her of being an Alcoholic.. meanwhile he is in the North East getting a DWI.

I hate Bush because he has always been a slimy spoiled POS that apparently has his daddy's horseshoe shoved about a foot and a half up his unmentionables.

I hate what his last 6 years has done to our nation, to our people, to our relations with the rest of the world, that his rein has wasted generations of income.

I hate that, I am better than you smirk of his,
I hate his wife's holier than thou attitude.
I hate how they treat the people of Maryland and DC where I moved to 10 years ago to get away from him and his kind.
I hate how the staff of the white house are treated by them. I hate his beady rat eyes...
I hate that he can't pronounce the word Nuclear...
I despise his spoiled children.

I don't even like his dog....

What was the point of this post? ohh yes... If Saddam is using what he feels are valid points to defend himself so what?!? he is arguing the legally of the invasion to attempt to argue against the legality of his imprisonment. If i were him I would try everything I could too.

I'm surprised he hasn’t started to claim that he is a reformed man and is now a born again Christian.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
There were no weapons of mass destruction.

When it's a fact, you call it a fact. Not a 'Democratic Party argument.'

Don't be such a weasel.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join