Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?
Toogoodreports.com ^ | Weekender June 08, | Lowell Phillips

Posted on 06/06/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by F_Cohen

If Bush Was Going To Lie, Why Would He Lie About WMD?

By Lowell Phillips

Weekender June 08

Toogood Reports

Call it a failing of mine, but I have this problem with things that just don't make sense. And, sorry, the bubbling hysteria over pre-Iraq War intelligence is replete with things that just don't make sense. None of the inconsistencies, however, have any impact on those who are positively breathless to believe the worst about President Bush and the rest of the administration.

Pick up a newspaper, turn on a news broadcast, or listen to the callers on talk radio and there it is. But the screaming illogic of charging the White House with intentionally falsifying intelligence to justify an invasion is being drowned out by the hypnotic chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."

Sure it's maddening, but also fascinating that so many want something so desperately to be true. The political left is giddy at the prospect. Indeed, they have not been this hopeful since body bags were returning from Vietnam en masse.

Though the speed of the victory spoiled their groovy retro-60s protests, there is yet a chance at happiness. And if the cost is merely the paralysis of our intelligence agencies, the premature end to the war on terror, perpetual vulnerability for the American people, and the destruction of the most effective foreign policy president in a generation, so be it. Then again, national security and the international stature of the United States have never been priorities for the left.

Certainly it is possible that this inarticulate Texas dunce orchestrated a wicked scheme to trick the country and the world into war, but how might this be reconciled with the woefully limited intellectual capabilities that his opponents insist he has? Maybe that's just what he "wants us to think". And what would a good conspiracy theory be without an assumption like that?

There is also the possibility that poor President Bush was an unwitting pawn for those nefarious "neo-cons" that we have heard so much about? But if this were the case, he would not be a liar, now would he?

Whatever part Bush played, evil genius or dupe, some farfetched assumptions are necessary, which clear thinkers have pointed out. And even then there are a few significant, though unanswered questions.

To believe that the Bush administration intentionally deceived the country to facilitate war, we must believe that it was working in concert with the Clinton administration, which used much of the same intelligence to justify air strikes back in 1998. We have to believe that Clinton himself was deeply involved in the stratagem, due to his persistent warnings about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. The same can be said for leading Democrats in congress that helped make "regime change" in Iraq the official policy of the U.S. government during that time.

We must believe that countries like Germany, France and Russia, whose intelligence services supported American conclusions, were likewise in on it. Not to mention the United Nations, whose point man, Hans Blix, agreed up to the eve of war that Hussein's regime was not cooperating with inspections.

We have to accept that after going to so much trouble to obstruct and drive out weapons inspectors in 1998, that Saddam then unilaterally destroyed the weapons he admitted to having, and decided to keep it a secret, depriving his government of billions in oil revenue. And we must believe that this wily "survivor" decided to convince the world of his innocence and dissuade the coalition massed on his southern border by threatening to use weapons that he supposedly destroyed.

Maybe I'm nitpicking here, but if one is trying to prove that they haven't got a gun, I don't think they would yell, "Take one more step and I'll shoot!"

It is one hell of a leap to assume so much. But then there's that chant, "No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied." It makes anything easy to swallow.

Ok, let's say that it was all Bush's doing, that it really was a "war for oil", or a Bush family vendetta. Why falsify intelligence about weapons of mass destruction?

It was inevitable that people would want to see the weapons. Are we to believe that the White House set up a situation where they were certain to be exposed? After going to all the trouble to manufacture intelligence, why not supply the weapons in a location convenient for the media's cameras?

No matter how concrete the WMD evidence appeared prior to the invasion, opponents complained that going after Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror. They argued that this was a "distraction". Democrat competitors for Bush's job have also charged him with diverting military assets away from the war to needlessly target Saddam.

Moreover, the WMD angle obligated the administration to seek the approval of the U.N., at least initially, and provided detractors the opportunity to cultivate a "give the inspectors more time" sentiment in the American public.

If Bush wanted war, and was prepared to "lie" to get it, why not cut out the U.N. middleman, and go with the sure thing with American voters?

However pleasing it was to have the support of the British and others for the Iraq invasion, we didn't need them.

For all but the most willful doubters, the support for terrorism by the Hussein regime was clear, but the evidence provided didn't make it appear massive.

Bush could have garnered overwhelming support from the public, left no room for Democrats and the rest of the anti-war movement to cry "distraction", and alleviate the need for U.N. approval from the outset by "exaggerating," "distorting", or simply lying about the terrorist presence in Iraq.

Or perhaps the administration decided on a conspiracy, with all the dangers involved, but still was considerate enough to be sporting and give the opposition a fighting chance to stop the war they so desperately wanted. Is that it?

I have no doubt that these questions will be shrugged off by the legions of Bush-haters as easily as all the others. But should they, if even for a moment, begin to see the absurdity of their accusations, they can resort to that comforting chant and convince themselves of the presidents's fiendishness, that appeasement works, and that liberal paradise awaits.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: iraq; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

1 posted on 06/06/2003 9:19:23 AM PDT by F_Cohen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
If Bush was deliberately lying about WMD, why didn't he have WMD ready to plant in Iraq? Then this whole thing would be a non-issue.
2 posted on 06/06/2003 9:21:06 AM PDT by xm177e2 (Stalinists, Maoists, Ba'athists, Pacifists: Why are they always on the same side?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
"No Weapons. Bush Lied", "No Weapons. Bush Lied."

Here's the deal: does a mafia hitman ever get caught w/ the murder weapon? Does it mean he never had one? Why the mafia analogy? When was there ever a larger crime syndicate than the Saddam regime?

Here's another: We haven't found Saddam yet, either. Does that mean HE didn't exist?

3 posted on 06/06/2003 9:26:11 AM PDT by Migraine (my grain is pretty straight today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
Rush Limbaugh proposed a heartily amusing scenario in which GWB knows positively where WMD are, and has reserved their discovery for the hour in which liberal ranting is at its peak.

Why not? I'm convinced that Powell's reluctance to get on board with the war in the weeks preceding the final showdown with the U.N was engineered to permit the Dems and other liberals to side with Powell against GWB. Recall the rant:

"See! Powell is against the war! And he's the only credible one in this administration!"

And then Powell united his voice with the rest of the administration for the U.N. finale. Liberal Powell supporters had the rug pulled out from under them.

This may just be a nice GWB strategy. Or maybe God's....

4 posted on 06/06/2003 9:30:05 AM PDT by TheGeezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
Then again, if he was going to lie, why not lie about WMD, and then make exactly the same, valid arguments found in this article?

If I were a liberal, that'd be my response.

5 posted on 06/06/2003 9:33:15 AM PDT by newgeezer (A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
I think it's God's stretegery. I doubt W would hold back evidence, but what I do think, however, is that we have evidence, and we're holding it to put together with whatever evidence we eventually come up with, including when Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ crack and tell-all. In the months ahead, we'll see a nice comprehensive report on all of the WMD. The know more than they're telling. The libs/Bush-haters are setting themselves up, once again, to look foolish and WRONG!
6 posted on 06/06/2003 9:34:26 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: F_Cohen
The other thing: If Bush conveyed false information about WMD before the war, he did so because the UN information was false. Go back to his speech to the UN. He used their own data to build the case for UN action against Saddam.
8 posted on 06/06/2003 9:35:33 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
Rush Limbaugh proposed a heartily amusing scenario in which GWB knows positively where WMD are, and has reserved their discovery for the hour in which liberal ranting is at its peak.

Rush thinks Bush would gamble with our international reputation for a purely partisan political move?
9 posted on 06/06/2003 9:36:15 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
Repeat after me: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of an absence."
10 posted on 06/06/2003 9:36:17 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
§ George J. Tenet §

If the Liberals within our intelligence community have set Bush up with a false scenario, then they must be exposed and heads must roll. The problem is that the Director of Central Intelligence was appointed by one or both of the Clintons on July 11, 1997 and anything is possible.

11 posted on 06/06/2003 9:36:59 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: phaser
Saddam destroyed all of his WMD, and he kept no record of it -- nothing to prove there were no WMD?! That's what you're suggesting. I wouldn't be surprised if we have hard evidence already, but it's being held back until we get Mrs. Anthrax, Dr. Germ, and the rest who were involved in these programs, to crack, so a comprehensive report can be given. There is no panic in the Administration over the hyperventaliating of the Bush-haters this week. I think the reason there's no panic is that they already have solid evidence that proves the naysayers wrong (again).
13 posted on 06/06/2003 9:39:19 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Or as Rumsfeld said yesterday, "We haven't found Saddam yet either. And nobody's claiming that he never existed."
14 posted on 06/06/2003 9:40:43 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: phaser
Iraq was told to disarm or face military action. Their weapons have not been found. There's not even a trace of weapons material in the soil samples that have been taken. It's been MONTHS now, since the search has been going on.

Iraq had to PROVE they didn't have something by destorying arms they didn't even have, basically. It was impossible to do, and an illogical stance (what a surprise) from Bush & Co.

Uh, you are leaving out one salient point. The Iraqi government fought inspections tooth and nail. If they didn't have any WMDs, why didn't they just throw the doors open?

Now we're asking, "well, if they were lying, why not plant weapons?" As if they HAD planted weapons, you people would even believe the story! You'dbe denouncing it as conspiracy theory until the day you die. How hypocritical!

I have NO IDEA what you are saying here, could you please restate?

16 posted on 06/06/2003 9:42:22 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Indeed. What about all this stuff?

WARNING: Gathering WMD storm a crock. See what Clinton told nation in 1998...

THE ROAD ENDS FOR WMD ON WHEELS

Coalition forces enter possible WMD site

Initial tests suggest WMD "cocktail" found in Iraq (**Of special note--post #58, by Archy)

U.S. finds new evidence of Iraqi WMD (NBC training school, antidotes)

Chem-weapons lab believed discovered

BRITS' CHILLING CHEM-NUKE FIND

CAPTURED FOES FOUND WITH CHEM-WAR GEAR

EUPHRATES 'POISONED'

MSNBC - Cyanide & Mustard Agents Found in Euphrates River

Is the Activity at Al Qaim Related to Nuclear Efforts?

U.S. probing nuclear facility (Al Tuwaitha Follow Up)

Team Inspects suspected plutonium site (update by the journalist who broke original story, NEW info)

Underground Nuclear Facility Found in Iraq

Marines hold Iraqi nuclear site built by French

U.S. Marines Guard Secret Iraqi City with Very Hot Nuclear Radiation Levels

And from Freeper "HatSteel":

Terrorist devices, chemical weapons found in Iraq

Suspicious Iraqi Drums - UPDATE

Suspected bioweapons labs found

Searching for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Larry Elder

Iraq's Weapons and the Road to War

Iraqi Scientist Links Weapons to 'Dual Use' Facilities, White House Says

IRAQ: U.S. Analysts Link Iraq Labs to Germ Arms

Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert

Herald Sun: Soldiers find Iraqi chemical 'dump'

***Germany's leading role in arming Iraq

*Germany intercepts (30 tonnes) chemicals (may be used to make nerve gas) for N Korea

New DOD team to hunt for intel as well as weapons

***Chemical Weapons Programs

Capture of chemical expert could help U.S. weapons hunt in Iraq (Emad Husayn Abdulla al-Ani)

Belgium Finds Nerve Gas Ingredient in Letters

Banned missile programme found in Iraq

Administration to Announce 'Rollback' Strategy for WMD

Suspicious Iraqi Drums Preliminary Testing Suggests Chemical Agents; More Testing Needed

2 trailers deemed biological arms labs

***Table 2: Characteristics of Chemical Warfare Agents: Commercial Uses of Chemicals or Precursor Chemicals ***CENTAF IRAQ'S CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAM

17 posted on 06/06/2003 9:44:20 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: phaser
, and so far have proven not ONE of their points used to go war.

Point one, Sadam Hussein was butchering his own people.

18 posted on 06/06/2003 9:44:34 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: phaser

It was lies, all lies!!! Bwaaaaah!

 

19 posted on 06/06/2003 9:45:34 AM PDT by Registered ("Status Quo" is Latin for "the mess we're in")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. May 30-June 1, 2003. N=1,019 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.

"Now, we’d like to ask you some questions about Iraq. First, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq now that the major fighting has ended: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, or very badly?"

Very
Well
Moder-
ately
Well
Moder-
ately
Badly
Very
Badly
No
Opinion
% % % % %
5-6/03 11 59 22 7 1

.

"Do you think the Bush Administration does or does not have a clear plan for improving conditions in Iraq and helping the Iraqi civilians rebuild their country?"
Does Does
Not
No
Opinion
% % %
5-6/03 56 41 3

.

"In the long run, do you think the U.S. war with Iraq will end up creating more problems than it solves or will end up solving more problems than it creates?" Options rotated
Creating
More
Solving
More
No
Opinion
% % %
5-6/03 42 53 5

.

"Which comes closest to your view about the war with Iraq? It was justified only if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. It was justified even if the U.S. DOES NOT find conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. OR, It was not justified even if the U.S. finds conclusive evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?" Options rotated
Justified
Only If
Find
Evidence
Justified
Even If
Does Not
Find
Evidence
Not
Justified
No
Opinion
% % % %
5-6/03 23 56 18 3

.

"Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not?"
Deliber-
ately
Misled
Did Not
Mislead
No
Opinion
% % %
5-6/03 31 67 2

20 posted on 06/06/2003 9:45:37 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: phaser
Because conservatives have never done anything underhanded like lying?

You're going to have to explain what that means and how it has anything to do with what I said or else we are all going to think that you are dumb, stupid, and naive. Now, you don't want us to think that, do you?

22 posted on 06/06/2003 9:47:39 AM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
Bump for filing!...

Looks like an awful lot of evidence for something that doesn't exist.

23 posted on 06/06/2003 9:47:49 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
We must believe that countries like Germany, France and Russia, whose intelligence services supported American conclusions, were likewise in on it.

And we must believe that this wily "survivor" decided to convince the world of his innocence and dissuade the coalition massed on his southern border by threatening to use weapons that he supposedly destroyed.

I don't recall either of those things. Anybody know what he's talking about?

24 posted on 06/06/2003 9:48:31 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phaser
They did. The UN inspections, forced to a halt by Bush (and in 1998 by Clinton) were allowed to go about unfettered. They encountered a lockeddoor once, and the problem was immediately corrected when the superintendent of the building came over to unlock it.

That is complete fantasy. Even Scott bin Ritter said (at the time) that the Iraqis were holding back.

Perhaps you'd like to back up that assertion?

25 posted on 06/06/2003 9:48:53 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: phaser
But this war was obviously based on lies. They presented figures and estimates as FACTS, and so far have proven not ONE of their points used to go war. That's known as an illegal act.

Here is a challenge. Lets assume that the intelligence is eventually proven right.

Would you then be willing to contribute $5.00 to Bush's presidential campaign ?

26 posted on 06/06/2003 9:48:53 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: phaser
obviously based on lies

I'd suggest, friend, that those "lies" were perpetrated by the entire international intelligence community, including the UN itself.

27 posted on 06/06/2003 9:49:25 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
When has a leftist ever admitted they were wrong?
28 posted on 06/06/2003 9:50:26 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
I think it's simple really...He's waiting for Hillary to ask where they are publicly...notice she or Bill hasn't (which should speak volumes)...but of course to do so would be to deny with no credibility the entire reason for Bill's timed assault on Iraq to coincide with Monica-gate. And if and when she does, imagine how stupid she would look in either case...and this woman wants to be President...
29 posted on 06/06/2003 9:51:13 AM PDT by grumple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: phaser
This is beyond fence-sitting, this is setting up camps in both yards!

Not really. We knew had them, he admitted it! So the trick now is to find out what he did with them. While we were jerking off to the tune of the UN and all of the other liberal lunacy surrounding Iraq in 2003, Sadamm was hiding and giving the stuff away. Look for an anthrax attack in a Jewish Settlement, or a mustard attack in the NY subway, courtesy of Al-Qaeda through Saddam.

30 posted on 06/06/2003 9:52:14 AM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
I guess, according to the media and some Freepers, it's just more chopped liver...I expect it from the media, but I'm always a little surprised when Freepers buy it, hook line and sinker.
31 posted on 06/06/2003 9:52:24 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2
The proof that W didn't lie was that he didn't direct the U.S. military (or the CIA?) to plant false evidence in Iraq? Some of the 'argumentation' offered to cover W's behind is getting so twisted and... psychedelic... one can't stop oneself from LOL...
32 posted on 06/06/2003 9:52:37 AM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Registered
Bleeding heart liberals have been replaced with bleeding heart conservatives. Practical concerns about whether or not Iraq represented a real threat to the United States before the war are to be brushed off, the retort being an appeal to emotion. Sure, Saddam was/is an evil tyrant, but was/is he an evil tyrant that is a danger to us? If you want to prevent mass graves, then we should be joining French troops in the Congo right now.
33 posted on 06/06/2003 9:54:43 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
But would congress okay the budget for all the white flags? I mean, if we're going to join the French...

;)

34 posted on 06/06/2003 9:58:24 AM PDT by MizSterious (Support whirled peas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
May I quote you. Excellent.
35 posted on 06/06/2003 10:00:23 AM PDT by gathersnomoss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TomB
The Iraqi government fought inspections tooth and nail. If they didn't have any WMDs, why didn't they just throw the doors open?

For the same reason that you don't let the cops come into your house any time that they want to toss it.

That having been said, I'm sure that there are WMD in Iraq. They're probably just buried in the desert somewhere...benign environment like that, they'll last for a long time. It's like looking for a specific needle in a stack of needles. I'm just glad that the adults are in charge now and we can be fairly sure that we'll get to the bottom of it.

36 posted on 06/06/2003 10:01:12 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
It is becoming increasingly clear that the democrats would do anything to win back power. They are ready to destroy this country to obtain absolute power over the sheeples. The democrats would rather rule a 3rd world and impoverished
USA than have the Republicans and Conservatives remain in power over a prosperous America and only hyper-power on earth.
37 posted on 06/06/2003 10:09:24 AM PDT by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheGeezer
"This may just be a nice GWB strategy. Or maybe God's...."

It's the strategery. ;)
38 posted on 06/06/2003 10:16:19 AM PDT by Search4Truth (When a man lies, he murders part of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wbill
For the same reason that you don't let the cops come into your house any time that they want to toss it.

If the cops were outside my house with a search warrant and a sledgehammer, and made it clear they were coming in no matter what, I'd GLADLY open the door.....

....provided I had nothing to hide.

39 posted on 06/06/2003 10:28:54 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TomB
Wow, it didn't take phaser long to get the boot. Must have been a "return engagement".

Too bad, I was enjoying his idiocy.

40 posted on 06/06/2003 10:30:18 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
Would you then be willing to contribute $5.00 to Bush's presidential campaign?

Alas, you'll never get your answer. Not with some of the squeamish moderators and posters here. Yet "phaser" had not been especially rude, or inarticulate.
41 posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:16 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin

"What's that you say, Mr. Blix?.. You say Iraq has NO Weapon of Mass Destruction, eh??

(ahem) "Ha, Ha, YES That's right, Bahgdad Bob! Iraq has no Weapons of Mass Destruction!!"

Oh very good Mr. Blix!! Thats Right Mr Blix!! There you see?... We have NO Weapons of Mass Destruction!

"Ha, Ha, Thank you Bahgdad Bob!!"....   No, Thank YOU Mr. Blix!

42 posted on 06/06/2003 10:34:11 AM PDT by 24-7Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen

Ask this man. He knows the real story.

43 posted on 06/06/2003 10:38:16 AM PDT by The Great Satan (Revenge, Terror and Extortion: A Guide for the Perplexed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Alas, you'll never get your answer. I really do believe we have far more information regarding Iraq's program and that its not going to be disclosed until the admin is much farther along in its interviews and data checking.

Just like the war plan was kept secret and the critics shot themselves in the foot until it completely unfolded, this search plan will be the same.

44 posted on 06/06/2003 10:50:52 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: F_Cohen
I would think if Bush had lied about WMDs wouldnt he have planted some to cover it up? Im not saying that he lied so no flames please.
45 posted on 06/06/2003 10:51:19 AM PDT by smadurski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Actually, anybody who would say or believe this regarding Iraq opening the country to inspectors:

    They did. The UN inspections, forced to a halt by Bush (and in 1998 by Clinton) were allowed to go about unfettered. They encountered a lockeddoor once, and the problem was immediately corrected when the superintendent of the building came over to unlock it.

is undoubtedly a troll. That said, I would have liked for him to have been allowed to stick around to defend that statement.

I give the moderators the benefit of the doubt, they've got a tough job. As I said earlier, he had the smell of a previously banned poster.

46 posted on 06/06/2003 11:01:55 AM PDT by TomB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I really do believe we have far more information regarding Iraq's program and that its not going to be disclosed until the admin is much farther along in its interviews and data checking.

At the risk of going the way of phaser... why would the Administration sit on it while the potential political and diplomatic costs of having possibly lied about WMDs escalate? They certainly didn't wait for an airtight case before entering the war. In fact, the first justification for the war was "regime change," and the final one was liberation.
47 posted on 06/06/2003 11:07:00 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
That's a curiousity to me as well. Basically, the Freeper Community is a mish-mash of folks and perspectives. I've been amazed, actually, at how many frenzied anti-war types there are on FR. Not many, but enough that they pop up frequently in these threads. I'm curious about where they're coming from. Perhaps they are so "paleo" in their conservatism that they go back to the isolationist policies of the early 20th Century, you know, around the 1920s. They resent Bush's interventionism, and are as fervently anti-war as some of the peace-nazis on the left.
48 posted on 06/06/2003 11:10:08 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Egregious Philbin
Bush is the one prosecuting this nation's war on terror. He deemed it vital to take out Saddam as part of that war. You may disagreed. Fine. Vote against him. I trust Bush and the way he's prosecuting the WOT, and have seen nothing in the rhetoric of the naysayers to withdraw that trust.
49 posted on 06/06/2003 11:15:18 AM PDT by My2Cents ("Well....there you go again.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TomB
I give the moderators the benefit of the doubt, they've got a tough job. As I said earlier, he had the smell of a previously banned poster.

You're right, it can't be easy. My experience at lucianne.com makes the moderators here look like kings of restraint. FR is a conservative site, but I think it needs at least a handful of "liberal" posters, but only if they debate issues rather than spout dogma from the far left.

"phaser" didn't seem like a party crasher, though. I wanted to see what he was going to say next too. In my experience crashers come once, try to hit hard with an outrageous statement, and then meet their ban.
50 posted on 06/06/2003 11:15:38 AM PDT by Egregious Philbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson