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.

 

The Truth!

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 04:26 AM
link   
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?




posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 06:12 AM
link   

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.


LOL address the whole IDEA! Not just the easy part that you want to.
How can someone be so devious to calculate this plot, be so ethical to allow its failure, makes no sense. Your answer is bunk, and that of a desperate person. Please provide a logical explanation.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   
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..."



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 08:45 AM
link   

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..."


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?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Speaking of oil an easier target for it would be Venezuela
It has equally much or more oil and it's not a Muslim country so if it was invaded there would be not terrorist attacks



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   
theyre all waiting in line to be plundered by the US capitalist machinery, you need some kind of a "valid" reason to send the army there.
You remember adolf sent the army to poland to protect the germans there.
System still works after all these years, and just goes to prove than nothing ever changes, except the actors



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
this should be in the mud pit



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   
For Mr. Bush everything worked exactly as planned, in fact he has got Iraq's oil. The only issue about the WMDs made in USA is that Saddam has really destroyed them. Too bad!



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

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?


This statement should be on billboards all over the world.

It should be broadcast on every radio and television station in the world.

It should be posted to every bulliten board on the internet.

It should be shouted from the rooftops.

It should be written in the sky by a million skywriters.

It should be preached from the pulpits of the world.

It should be printed on leaflets and dropped from the sky and placed on every windshield in every parking lot in the world.

It should be written on every chalkboard in every classroom in the world.

It should be put to music and sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

It should be written on a rag and stuffed down Michael Moore's throat.

And that's the truth!


[edit on 04/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]

[edit on 04/9/5 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is what people who think there were no WMD say:

CONSPIRACY!!!

This is what people who think there are WMD say:

Just give us the next millenium and I guarantee, by the 31st century, we'll find WMD in Iraq!



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 5 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
So planting evidence would be just plain wrong and objectionable ..but lying wouldnt.hmm ..well as long as we are just half hearted about it I guess its ok.

Beyond all of the WMD white noise attempting to distract from the main issue, what would you all think if the US had good intelligence that Iraq was planning terrorist activity within the US would that have been justification?


[edit on 5-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

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.


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.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:21 AM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   

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


But Bush is stupid enough to Lie and get caught in the lie on a world stage?

This is the same guy who is smart enough to take control of the "most powerful nation" on the globe? Oh wait... Bush isn't "in charge" he's a puppet for a more secret society who pulls the strings on everything in the world, and they keep it a secret from all of us, except the hysterical lunitic fringe, but they cant keep a secret about planting a few 55 gallon drums of chemicals. O K !


What else do you want on your pizza?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 03:33 AM
link   

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?

But he didn't go to Saudi Arabia, that would make his War on terror a bluff. The reason he didn't is because if he invaded KSA then he invaded the most holiest land to the muslims, it would make all muslims world wide go into fighting that stupid pig.



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?

I guess they are now, since they didn't find anything . . . Beside all those s***heads *Think* he has it. They aren't sure, and certainly they don't have any evidence what so ever.



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.

Yes,Iraq might gave'em to Syria. then let invade that country & after you destroy it you say, it might be buried in the desert of Saudi, lets invade it; after you destroy it, you say they might gave it to Iran, lets invade it ... Until you destroy the whole Middle East, Then destroying the whole world after that you say aaah, here they are, but it turns out to be in the us.

And if they are really searching for WMD, then why not invading N.Korea they are bragging about it infact they are threatening the us with it . . .



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:05 AM
link   

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?


Russian Intelligence never said Iraq had WMD's. Tony Blair is just Bush bitch, for lack of better words. He will say anything to appease the Americans. And since when did German Intelligence supported the WMD lie?

US intelligence says anything Bush wants them to say. Clinton is already a liar, we know that. "I did not have sexual relations with this woman." And Kerry? I doubt he believes the WMD lie, as he was opposed to invading Iraq in the first place. But if he does "believe it", then there is clearly a political reason for doing it. Elections are coming up, did you forget?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 05:45 AM
link   
People either loath Bush or think he is a saint. Did Bush know that there were no WMDs in Iraq ? of course he didnt no one in there right mind would lie to the USAs most important allies. Was his reasoning for going to war flawed? Yes a 6 grader could poke holes in the logic that Bush & co used.

Now heres the problem in 10 years when Bush,Blair and the other leaders are long gone from office and the USA calls on the world to help get rid of a geniue threat will the world ask is this threat like Iraqs WMDs? should we trust what we are being told?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join