Miss GW Yet?

[RRKore]

NO.  I do not agree that there was a conspiracy going on with ONLY republicans.  that's what you're trying to make yourself believe.  and its completely silly.

...

Really?  Why?  

I'm not much of CT guy but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted?  Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?

Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.

[Soul Crusher]

Really?  Why?  

I'm not much of CT guy but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted?  Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?

Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.

So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB? 

[RRKore]

lol.  You posted two links Simpleton Simon.   

True. But then why didn't you say "The links"? 

Here's what you said:

...
I doubt you read the link you provided.  None of them support your assertion that Americans killed 500,000 Iraqis.
...

Still seem clear to you? lol

[RRKore]

Yes, you read it right.  And even that was based on the interview of a relative handful of people.  It wasn't a body count.  Completely unreliable. 

"Relative" handful?  Weak attempt at spin, imo.

"Completely" unreliable?  Wrong again. 

Take a statistics course, science-denier.  It's not voodoo.

[Dos Equis]

True. But then why didn't you say "The links"? 

Here's what you said:
Still seem clear to you? lol

A typo, grammar Nazi.   

[blacken700]

So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB? 

Yeah and his false information he knowingly pushed

[RRKore]

So the brilliant democrats who all believed Saddam had WMD were fooled by the hapless and idiotic GWB? 

Apparently many were.  

If you could get a completely candid answer out of him, how do you think Colin Powell would answer your question?

As I sort of said earlier, when your country is attacked, most people will naturally want to counter-attack.  

Especially Americans who seem to be some of the most warring (not a word?) folks ever.

[Dos Equis]

"Relative" handful?  Weak attempt at spin, imo.

"Completely" unreliable?  Wrong again. 

Take a statistics course, science-denier.  It's not voodoo.

Yes, relative handful.  They interviewed a couple thousand people and used them to project numbers affecting a country with a population of over 30 million.  

A range of 48,000 and 700,000?  LOL!!  

[RRKore]

A typo, grammar Nazi.   

Fair enough. 

(Of course that supports my suspicion that it was getting late for ya, old man. lol)

[RRKore]

Yes, relative handful.  They interviewed a couple thousand people and used them to project numbers affecting a country with a population of over 30 million.  

A range of 48,000 and 700,000?  LOL!!  

So I take it that you just don't trust polling and statistics in general?

Seriously, take a statistics course. 

It's fascinating shit (though you likely won't remember how it works a couple of years later.)

[Dos Equis]

So I take it that you just don't trust polling and statistics in general?

Seriously, take a statistics course. 

It's fascinating shit (though you likely won't remember how it works a couple of years later.)

No, Simpleton Simon, I don't trust a source that tells me Americans killed between "48,000 and 700,000" people.  Asinine.  But a simpleton liberal hack will jump all over it.  lol 

[blacken700]

you can bet if fox news posted one he would be repeating it like a parot

[RRKore]

No, Simpleton Simon, I don't trust a source that tells me Americans killed between "48,000 and 700,000" people.  Asinine.  But a simpleton liberal hack will jump all over it.  lol 

But you will trust a 2,000 year old book that explains the origin of the universe. 

Alrighty then.

[RRKore]

you can bet if fox news posted one he would be repeating it like a parot

no doubt

[Dos Equis]

But you will trust a 2,000 year old book that explains the origin of the universe. 

Alrighty then.

Not to mention the killing of something like 500,000 Iraqis. 

No American should be proud of that.

And in support of this, you post linkS showing a range of "48,000 and 700,000." 

Still laughing.   

[Soul Crusher]

Heck - the world misses Carter at this point.  Obama has been worse than even I had imagined.  One can only fathom if he has even the least bit of competence how much real damage this Marxist tyrant and thug would have done. 

[bears]

Really?  Why?  

I'm not much of CT guy. but you don't think it's possible that a very small group of folks around GWB (but possibly not including him) knowingly gave out false and exaggerated info in order to try to convince Americans (and the rest of the world) that invading Iraq was warranted?  Especially coming from folks who openly made remarks about "making our own reality"?

Sheesh, I'm not even saying that the reasons such folk wanted to go to war were bad in their minds -- They might have been misleading most thinking that the end would be righteously justified by the means...though that'd be pretty hard to justify at this point.

because its pretty much logistically impossible for your scenario to pan out the way you say I may have.  but you are right in that ANYTHING is possible.  i'll concede that.  

i just don't necessarily believe that YOU believe that.  i think its just something you tell yourself to rationalize voting Democrat.

[bears]

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

     Former President Clinton
     During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
     July 22, 2003


and apparently GWB started his plot before he took office and duped Bill Clinton into believing that Sadaam had WMD's.  man he's good.

[bears]

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

     Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
     105th Congress, 2nd Session
     September 29, 1998

Bill Clinton also said this.  why?  is he in on it too?  i apparentlydon't know as much about the CT as you guys do. help me understand.

[RRKore]

And in support of this, you post linkS showing a range of "48,000 and 700,000." 

Still laughing.   

Good for you -- Anything that lightens your mood has to be good at your age, right?

That's the way science is, though;  Not only will it tell you stuff you may not necessarily want to hear but it will also will tell you what it isn't so knowable. (Better than making shit up religion-style in any case, though.)

Anyway, if the number of Iraqi deaths IS "only" 48,000 do you think that means it's OK for Americans to be proud of invading Iraq?

[bears]

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

 If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

     President Clinton
     Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
     February 17, 1998

why was he lying?

[RRKore]

because its pretty much logistically impossible for your scenario to pan out the way you say I may have.  but you are right in that ANYTHING is possible.  i'll concede that.  

i just don't necessarily believe that YOU believe that.  i think its just something you tell yourself to rationalize voting Democrat.

You're kind of right in that I don't believe I know what happened.  I DO believe that some mofo's in our gov't knew there weren't any WMD's in Iraq much earlier than most, though.

But you're also wrong because I don't need to factor in anything Iraq-related to justify voting Democrat.  I just generally like their national policies better than those of Repbulicans.

(On a personal level, though, I guess I'm a Libertarian -- I just don't think it's possible to have a government that runs best for all based on Libertarian principles.)

[Soul Crusher]

Bump

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

 If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

     President Clinton
     Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
     February 17, 1998

why was he lying?

[bears]

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

 HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.

    Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
    Interviewed on CNN
    October 22, 2001

he got the Germans on board with his plan too

[RRKore]

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

     Former President Clinton
     During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
     July 22, 2003


and apparently GWB started his plot before he took office and duped Bill Clinton into believing that Sadaam had WMD's.  man he's good.

C'mon, Bears, you must know that GWB's administration wasn't talking about those kinds of weapons when they were building their case for invading Iraq.  

Remember GWB's comment about one day possibly seeing proof "in the shape of a mushroom cloud"?