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.
Originally posted by looking4clues
All of you out there so desperate to push Blame for Terror on America and its conspiratorial agenda, I say to you; Why did they stop and welcome the easily avoidable ridicule over WMD, that could have easily been planted in Iraq to justify the invasion?
Why would Bush devise a sinister plot only to let it fall part and risk losing his re-election?
Originally posted by The Crow
Originally posted by looking4clues
All of you out there so desperate to push Blame for Terror on America and its conspiratorial agenda, I say to you; Why did they stop and welcome the easily avoidable ridicule over WMD, that could have easily been planted in Iraq to justify the invasion?
Why would Bush devise a sinister plot only to let it fall part and risk losing his re-election?
They welcomed the ridicule because it was justified. They were wrong, and they knew it. What else would they do, continue to drag on a beaten down issue and look even more incompetent?
Planting evidence is just flat wrong. Even Bush knows that.
As for your last question, my only answer is that he's human. He cannot foresee the future, and maybe the evidence was supporting his reasoning. He thought it would be easy, but he was wrong.
Originally posted by The Crow
I have no interest in debating this 'WHOLE' issue. I was half-heartedly answering the questions you initially provided; I was under the impression that is what you wanted.
And being devious and ethical has nothing to do with it. Bush was lying to the American people when he said Iraq has WMD's. He stretched the truth as much as he wanted to, to justify his decisions. All he needed was to get American forces to Iraq, and he did that. When people ask for the evidence of WMD, Bush just shrugs and says "Oops, my mistake. Hey, but while we're here, look at all this oil..."
Originally posted by The Crow
I have no interest in debating this 'WHOLE' issue. I was half-heartedly answering the questions you initially provided; I was under the impression that is what you wanted.
And being devious and ethical has nothing to do with it. Bush was lying to the American people when he said Iraq has WMD's. He stretched the truth as much as he wanted to, to justify his decisions. All he needed was to get American forces to Iraq, and he did that. When people ask for the evidence of WMD, Bush just shrugs and says "Oops, my mistake. Hey, but while we're here, look at all this oil..."
Originally posted by Carseller4 For Bush to be lying about WMD's these people also must be lying... Bill Clinton, John Kerry, US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, German intelligence. If you had all this information, what would you have done? Just sit back and do nothing? Saddam repeatedly refused to obey UN resolutions, and interfered with weapons inspectors. Why do you think Saddam did this if there where no WMD's?
Originally posted by verfed
Lookin4clues Saddam gassed the Iranians and the Kurds. Everyone knows he had WMDs. Did he sell them? Did he hide them? Did he use them all up on the Iranians and the Kurds? Do you at least agree that at one point in time Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Originally posted by sturod84
they are simply not that stupid! the risk involved in planting WMD is politcal suicide, and would destroy what little credibility the US has left. an honest mistake deserves an honest response. now a dishonest mistake (everything the US govt does) deserves hordes of attention and effort to cover up. IMO
Originally posted by looking4clues
LOL Oil... Seems to me a better target for Oil would be Saudi Arabia. After all they put 14 or 15 Muslim losers on planes to the West. And trust me, If I was in charge and Oil was my objective, I could turn any country into the terrorist state. Why Iraq? Maybe because they were a rogue terrorist state? In order to Lie you must know the Truth. Was Saddam a good guy?
Originally posted by Carseller4
For Bush to be lying about WMD's these people also must be lying... Bill Clinton, John Kerry, US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, German intelligence. If you had all this information, what would you have done? Just sit back and do nothing? Saddam repeatedly refused to obey UN resolutions, and interfered with weapons inspectors. Why do you think Saddam did this if there where no WMD's?
Originally posted by looking4clues
I think they are either in Syria or buried in the desert. I believe Saddam's Nuclear program was in Libya with Moronomer Quackidaffi. Days after Saddam was captured the pressure was on Quackidaffi because he thought Saddam would be tortured into telling the US about Libya, After all Libya was not in the Axis, and probably off the radar. All circumstantial but still intriguing.
If you think I am on the against the president on this you should read my posts slower.
Originally posted by Carseller4
Originally posted by The Crow
I have no interest in debating this 'WHOLE' issue. I was half-heartedly answering the questions you initially provided; I was under the impression that is what you wanted.
And being devious and ethical has nothing to do with it. Bush was lying to the American people when he said Iraq has WMD's. He stretched the truth as much as he wanted to, to justify his decisions. All he needed was to get American forces to Iraq, and he did that. When people ask for the evidence of WMD, Bush just shrugs and says "Oops, my mistake. Hey, but while we're here, look at all this oil..."
For Bush to be lying about WMD's these people also must be lying... Bill Clinton, John Kerry, US intelligence, British intelligence, Russian intelligence, German intelligence. If you had all this information, what would you have done? Just sit back and do nothing? Saddam repeatedly refused to obey UN resolutions, and interfered with weapons inspectors. Why do you think Saddam did this if there where no WMD's?