Posted on 04/09/2006 9:31:44 PM PDT by hildy123
As far as the Left is concerned, that we didn't find WMD 5 minutes after we entered Iraq, everything from that point on is a lie. The Left never did and never will want to know the truth about ANYTHING that upsets them.
["Both mustard and nerve agents were used against U.S. troops in Iraq in 2003."]
Okay, maybe you can explain.....when and where were Mustard and Nerve agents used against US soldiers in (Iraq) 2003?
LIBO
Well, try buying the book and find out yourself. The burden of proof is now on the Libs. If they can disprove this book, then let’s get it on and put up the facts. I am currently in Iraq and I have spoke to two Marines who have seen WMD’s. I, myself work in environmental clean up. Trust me you would pooooop if you knew what was here at one time and is continuing to be found close to the Syrian boarder. That’s about all I can say. I know Bryan and he is good at his research.
Thanks for the response. I will look into this matter.
LIBO
bttt
bump
Just of the top of my head, maybe there is no mention from the white house on WMD, because we have lost them.
If they are out there we have no idea where they are, or who controls them, so it looks as if it suits both sides to not talk about WMD.
"The question that weighs on my mind remains. Why did Bush allow the "no weapons were found" lie continue to be told."
I think its because before the invasion Bush and co told us that Saddam had "as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent" and "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents". What have we found? "Over 50 chemical munitions"? How far past their shelflife were the weapons that we found? How effective were they? Bush would've been ridiculed if one of his pre-war speeches saying "Saddam has tons of weapons" was played back to back with a post-war speech saying "We found the weapons; he had a lunch-box packed full of the stuff!".
The fact is that what has been found was a tiny fraction of what we were told was there. What we have found would justify invading my neighbor's barn, but probably not someone else's country.
So, in all honesty, the administration, CFR folks, Trilateral Commission members, and the Bildeburg members, have agreed to the need of the cover-ups as not to scare the general public (world that is) as to threaten global economic business, and most importantly cover their butts from a political viewpoint.
The reason that we say we didn't find any WMDs is that we did.
To minimize the propaganda power of Saddam, Bush is willing to allow it to be said that we didn't find anything.
All the nuclear stuff Libya surrendered after Iraq had fallen was Saddam's, from a secret nuclear facility inside a mountain in Libya where 10,000 Iraqis worked on WMD's.
As soon as Quadaffi figured out Saddam done for, he decided to give up what he was hiding for him, because he knew we would be coming to get it (And him) later.
It's all about saving face with the arabs, we are beating them but not rubbing it in to the point where they get angry and get organized on a whole different scale.
President Bush is keeping them just confused enough to remain splintered and divided.
He just pointed to the REAL enemy...
"The burden of proof is now on the Libs. If they can disprove this book, then let’s get it on and put up the facts."
The facts are all out there. Take this quote:
"Nuclear material to include yellowcake and enriched uranium were found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion."
That is so demonstrably false that I actually laughed when I read it. The yellowcake and enriched uranium that was found in Iraq was not touted as a "find" by the administration because we already knew it was there legally - it was tagged, sealed and monitored by the IAEA:
"The visit was agreed after weeks of pleading by the IAEA, which has kept the radiological materials at the site safely under UN seal for 12 years" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm
The invasion, and subsequent looting, actually led to the possibility of this stuff falling into the wrong hands, so it's little wonder that it's kept quiet. Seriously, how can this book be taken seriously if it contains such obvious misinformation?
Or put another way Bush isn't going to tell the world Saddam had a Full House when we bluffed him with three of a kind into folding.
"Cuz if we found them we would have to point our finger in the direction they came from and we are not quite ready to confront Russia or China at this moment."
I was thinking the same thing at one time but I am not so sure anymore. Sorry I can't come up with a solid reason either. I speculate Bush just does the right thing but is disconnected to the American public. Just because Americans were happy with his explanation that we are at war and will not reveal all the details doesn't mean he shouldn't bother quantifying the justifications to go to war.
This is the only speculative reason I could think of, that he is not thinking about the future of the party and only focused on the here and now. It's like the immigration thing. He let this fester for several months and not went public about the guest worker/registation program. I think this is a good way to go (flame away) but allowed himself to look like he could care less.
"In my humble opinion, people don't care about truth anymore. They believe so strongly in their case that nothing can persuade them otherwise. Therefore they are susectible to every tin foil lie that comes down the pike. Bush lied about WMDs. Right. What a 'slap your mother in the face' God Damn Lie that is. Iraq was a WMD dump as well as a haven for terrorists. You know, I don't care if the MSM carries this. They have their own agenda of trying to harpoon the president. I believe and that is enough for me..."
I agree. What is a shame is that many Americans will not remember Bush Jr. with respect, kind of like Bush Sr. Like father like son when it comes to allowing the Dems to crucify them and not go public with response immediately. I will remember the Bush's as some of the best President's ever for having to make incredible tough (and accurate)decisions concerning life or death but they still need to remember that their is a Republican party that needs to win elections in the future.
"Not true. Americans hate it when it can be proved that they were lied to. Just let a compendium of evidence be mounted, push the story hard, and the results will forever stain the dims and their lying liars!!!
LLS"
I agree. One thing I do notice about the Republicans is they like to wait for election year to hit the Dems in the jaw with the truth. It's about timing.
"It's all about saving face with the arabs, we are beating them but not rubbing it in to the point where they get angry and get organized on a whole different scale.
President Bush is keeping them just confused enough to remain splintered and divided."
That could be, good point.
"The question that weighs on my mind remains. Why did Bush allow the "no weapons were found" lie continue to be told."
I will tell you why. Think of the liberal mantra of No WMD found. Now think of the liberal mantra, "How do we know that we found all of the WMD? Because of Bush invading Iraq, Al Queada might now have WMD."
Which scenario would you rather have? On one hand, the WMD was probably secured by the Russians and out of country. On the other hand, terrorists could have possession of enough WMD to destroy a city.
In my opinion, taking out Saddam and fighting a war on terror pretty much got Bush reelected despite the no WMD claim. I am not sure if it would have been the same result after the libs and the world consemned Bush for allowing Al Queda to possess WMD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.