Did Bush make up WMD's to use our military? (accuses, regime, politicians)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

We've been through this already. It didn't happen. Bush made no such inference. Another typical Bush-hating charge.

"Another tyypical Bush-hating charge" in reality is just another load of BS.

Why not just speak the truth, you have no rational defense of your position so resort to false accusatins. Bush hating? The man is not worth my energy to hate.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by JBrown

Burdell....You just can't bring yourself to stay on point/topic can you. You never respond to any comment. Rather you go into your typical yeah but Bush did this mode. You either won't or can't bring yourself to deal with the fact that Clinton, knowing there was NO threat from that pharmaceutical plant had missles launched, killing a bunch of factory grunts just so he could have something to distract the MSM from his testimony about getting BJ's in the Oval office. It's not all that tough dude. Just be a man and say..."Yes Clinton was a scum bag and demeaned the White House" and then we can move on......otherwise you just continue to embarrass yourself and appear foolish.

I can't waste anymore time on you if you can't even be a little bit honest...

Since you have already demonstrated that one of you ideas of being on topic is apparently just making 100% inaccurate statements that you know someone's eles's meaning and intent better than they do I don't see much need to waste my time defending myself to you.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

That's real credible. Read a book by someone who was charged with providing accurate intelligence, but didn't and is now redirecting blame.

That's the whole point, isn't it? These people knew some of the intel was questionable and tried to warn the admistration and the administration chose to ignore the warniings. Gee, there's a good reason to believe the administration trying to jusofy their screw ups.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

I guess 8 years isn't long enough huh? How long would've been long enough? How many planes and/or pilots should we have lost? If the intel was true, how many more opportunities should we have given Saddam to arm terrorist groups with them before we stopped him? How many more violations of his surrender agreement should we have accepted? 19 was not enough?

I don't think there's any doubt that a bombing campaign would have resulted in FAR FEWER losses than we've already suffered, the defenses were weak to begin with and would be the first targets.

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Only if you can identify an alternative motive.

A meaingless statement. The shoot from the hip arrogant attiftude has nothing to do with motive so why do I need supply an altrnative? It's sufficient to say just how far off-base these people were when they believed we'd be greeted as liberators.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by JBrown

Burdell....You just can't bring yourself to stay on point/topic can you. You never respond to any comment. Rather you go into your typical yeah but Bush did this mode. You either won't or can't bring yourself to deal with the fact that Clinton, knowing there was NO threat from that pharmaceutical plant had missles launched, killing a bunch of factory grunts just so he could have something to distract the MSM from his testimony about getting BJ's in the Oval office. It's not all that tough dude. Just be a man and say..."Yes Clinton was a scum bag and demeaned the White House" and then we can move on......otherwise you just continue to embarrass yourself and appear foolish.

I can't waste anymore time on you if you can't even be a little bit honest...

So let me get this straight:

Clinton launches a cruise missile attack on a plant believed to be involved with nerve gas production based on what's later found to be bad intel and that "demeaned the White House"?

Bush launches a full sacle invasion/occupation based on faulty intel about WMDs and he's a hero?

I believe if you look in the dictionary under H Y P O C R I S Y you'll find your scenario to be one of the definitions.

[ontheroad]

I am curious as to why you suspected Bush would "go into" Iraq even before we did.

It seemed illogical militarily, but not so geo-politically.

And au contraire, I believe the intel on WMDs was construed to support an invasion, not the cause for an invasion.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye48

I don't think Bush outright made up the WMD's, but I do think once he read about the possibility he took it and ran with it against the advice of many in his Administration.

Personally, the very day Bush was sworn in, I told everyone that would listen to me that we were going to go into Iraq. The signs were all there.

[IYB]

burdell

As anyone else can do I went back and have looked at your past posts. It seems you almost always attempt to turn any thread into a bush bashing thing. You almost never pass by a chance. pretty pathetic. you should re-read your own post above...you demonstrate exactly the validity of the comments directed at you. Reread your own stuff and try to be objective.

dispite you best efforts to prove otherwise stupidity is not a virtue. Go to petsmart and get yourself a couple of raw hide chewies...take you aggresions out on them,. you'll feel better

[ontheroad]

So, after two posts, and membership of more than six months, you have the answers to burdell's temperament and spew negative remarks his way?

Have you read the rules recently--personal attacks are a no-no!

Originally Posted by IYB

burdell

As anyone else can do I went back and have looked at your past posts. It seems you almost always attempt to turn any thread into a bush bashing thing. You almost never pass by a chance. pretty pathetic. you should re-read your own post above...you demonstrate exactly the validity of the comments directed at you. Reread your own stuff and try to be objective.

dispite you best efforts to prove otherwise stupidity is not a virtue. Go to petsmart and get yourself a couple of raw hide chewies...take you aggresions out on them,. you'll feel better

[burdell]

Originally Posted by IYB

burdell

As anyone else can do I went back and have looked at your past posts. It seems you almost always attempt to turn any thread into a bush bashing thing. You almost never pass by a chance. pretty pathetic. you should re-read your own post above...you demonstrate exactly the validity of the comments directed at you. Reread your own stuff and try to be objective.

dispite you best efforts to prove otherwise stupidity is not a virtue. Go to petsmart and get yourself a couple of raw hide chewies...take you aggresions out on them,. you'll feel better

Uh.................this thread started as a thread about Bush and WMDs so just HOW did I attempt to turn anything?

And I question Bush's actions and policies as is my right, if you choose to label that as Bush-bashing it's your problem, not mine.

What's really pathetic is that the small percentage of people who still back Bush rarely have any positive, truthful, rational statements to make about his policies so they resort to accusations of hatred. THAT's pretty pathetic.

And if you think your inane comment about petsmart is comical and that you might have a shot at a second career in comedy my advice is don't give up the day job.

[IYB]

Point taken re rules etc


However I'm quite capable of reading, past posts are here for all to read. I stand by my assesment. Go do some objective reading yourself.

Originally Posted by ontheroad

So, after two posts, and membership of more than six months, you have the answers to burdell's temperament and spew negative remarks his way?

Have you read the rules recently--personal attacks are a no-no!

[happyappy]

IYB,

As the title of this thread practically begs for Bush-bashing, it was actually sarcastic to begin with and invited Clinton-bashing. Your comments lead me to believe you prefer the latter, and that’s acceptable as it was the intent of the thread. But then, the title of this forum practically begs for controversy, political in nature specifically, so I assume you don’t intend to exclude those who prefer Bush-bashing over Clinton-bashing.

Trying to determine who bashed who first, directly or indirectly, would be as fruitless as trying to determine if Democrats overuse the tax system and Republicans have to come in to fix it, or if Republicans tip the table so that all the chips fall in one direction and Democrats have to come in to get the table back level. The root cause of the problem is the tax system. The root cause of the problem you’re addressing in your post is that this forum exists.