Bush voters are ignorant, mostly because they believe Bushie lies

actually, he claims to be a US citizen living in colombia... as if

 

OK, now I'm convinced that you're deliberately parodying people like Metro Striker10 who are still trotting out the lies like "Saddam kicked out the inspectors so we had to invade". You even got the Right's self-pitying persecution complex down perfectly. Brilliant work, son, absolutely brilliant!

 

I agree with your post except for this last sentence. I could be wrong but I don't think Bush thought Saddam was a threat. If Bush really wanted to reduce legitimate threats to the US, he'd have started working to do something about North Korea, Pakistani and Indian nukes, etc. before 9/11 happened. He'd wouldn't have half-assed our operations in Afghanistan to invade Iraq. He'd have made safeguarding Iraqi nuke plants a priority in the chaos of the invasion. He'd be moving on any of the hundreds of security measures that inexcusably still need to be done like safeguarding chemical industrial plants, nuke plants, and other possible terrorist targets right here in the US of A. And so on and so on.

The whole "threat" thing from the bogus "We know where Saddam's WMDs are" claims to trying to link Saddam to 9/11 was a cynical ploy to whip up support for the conquest. Bush wanted to conquer Iraq long before 9/11. It was part of his campaign platform and he was going to invade regardless of what the UN inspectors didn't find. Of course, the 9/11 tragedy conveniently gave the the Bush administration the excuse they exploited to cynically further their desire to conquer Iraq and reduce civil rights here at home.

In fact, the Bush administration invaded Iraq specifically because Saddam WASN'T a threat to us and so they figured there wouldn't be much a risk caused by our invasion. Bush is too chicken to go after anyone who is a real threat to us because that would be too great a risk. If Saddam could have credibly hit us with anything, Bush would've never dared to invade for much the same reason he doesn't dare take out the NKs.

Whatever reasons the Bush administration really conquered Iraq, the safety of the American people was not among them and, as you know, our safety has actually been reduced by creating "the swamp" and stirring up the hornet's nest in the middle east more than was necessary.

 

What, you mean Juan Pablo Angel isn't better than Adriano?

 

in the pick your club's all time best XI thread, he proposed to do america de cali... and could only name two players

 

Before you start name calling and judging me on my posts because they don't follow your opinions, I'm basically repeating what I have learned through the news. If what I said isn't true, fine, tell me, just don't use me as a lable to mock others, because of something I mistakenly believed was true.

 

Don't sweat it. Presenting righty opinions will inevitably bring about an excorication from one of the resident senior lefties here. Whether it be Loney, ratdog, superdave, or a plethora of others. Sometimes even me.
Just a rite of passage.

 

this is very true.. i started to post here, seriously, a few weeks ago and soon learned that bs politics is much like the real world..

the libs attack in groups cause they just really dont have that much to say..

 

Ha...I know what ya mean. I've been reading BS since 1999..I too get p.o.ed when reading the one millionth thread on or titled pro/reg, George Weah, David Beckham, will the US win the World Cup in 2XXX???, is it time for Reyna to leave?, FIRE BRUCE NOW!!!!!!, etc.

 

lies? lies ? according to who? biased politicians? ************** liberals who hate republicans so much theyre willing to support terrorism just to get one out of office? please spar me the bs so far none of you have answered any of my posts and are dismissing anything with your ungodly dry sarcasm you think is wit. get real when you do I will be waiting..

 

Proof? Got a link? If you have you could forward it to the White House. They'd much appreciate your not inconsiderable help.

I mean, you are a well known right wing intellectual and all round football pundit, no? The White House could always use someone like you.

How old are you again? Your bio says you're 14/15, but that was only after you edited it when you were busted as being younger than 13.

 

no that was blanquiroja who was busted for being under 13 please get your mind in the right place

when someone moves a weapon of mass destruction there is no proof but if you want one a atack using weapons suspected to be from iraq was stopped im yemen there was enought wmd to level several blocks and it also had a biological agent that could carry out a poisenous effect


you kids want everything fast fact is saddam had 10 years to hide weapons of mass destructions its gonna take double that to find them

 

Yes, that must be the reason.
Explain then why most of the righties here spam the boards with nonsense they crib from Drudge?

 

Uh... so aside from your superior training in soccer analysis and astute political analysis, you've also got extraordinary credentials in weapons manufacturing??

Mira, mi'jo: what has come out in the last 18 months is that the UN weapons inspectors (yeah, I know, they're your inferiors) actually had been doing an incredible job and would have come to the undeniable conclusion that there were no WMD, just like the US-led team discovered after looking really, really hard for over a year.

But please, forward your credentials to the UN and the White House, cuz this (that removal of WMDs removes ANY proof of its production) would be useful info.

Heck, send it to all the CSI shows and every police dept in the land, as this is amazing info that needs to be shared.

Shucks, I guess I will no longer enjoy CSI, cuz if WMDs are not traceable, I guess pistols and DNA and hair and fingerprints and such are just as worthless. Darn...

 

We're talking about hundreds if not thousands of tons of munitions. This means that there would be plenty of proof lying around if it actually exists. There would be records of their manufacture. There would be evidence of the plants that made them. Hiding it would mean massive construction projects, which means lots of paperwork, payroll, communication records and so on. It would mean continual communication over radio where we were listening to and land lines which we had tapped. It would mean lots of large scale truck movement on land that we had total air superiority over, and where we flew constant reconnaissance aircraft and satellites. We had access to a anti-Saddam (so-called) spy network containing many high-level Army officers that should be privy to such knowledge. The US even deployed a commando force into Iraq months before the invasion with the sole mission of finding such sites before Saddam could destroy them. Most important of all, it would mean lots of workers at all levels who knew what is going on. These people would have loved to get the massive rewards that leading US troops to WMD would entail. We have spent month after month interrogating Bathist officals and digging up ever half-completed foundation in Iraq pointed at by schemers looking to get rich quick and nothing has turned up. NOTHING.

Your belief has no basis in reality.

 

Okay...let me get this straight. You're saying that Saddam was building WMD so that he could hide them in Yemen and that it will take 20 years to find them? Right.

Here's the problem with your theory. Bushcorp said Saddam was an imminent threat to the US and that his intention was to attack the US with his vast stockpiles of WMD. Now when the US military showed up in Iraq, Saddam didn't let loose with the WMD. Could it be that Saddam didn't have WMD or the intention of using them? Why would any mad dictator spend a decade building an arsenal and not use it? Stop with the blantant fabrications and think this through: NO WMD-NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA-NO CONNECTION TO 9/11.

(sorry for the caps)

 

there were records of manafacture but did you guys beleive them no you dismissed them NO ONE SAID there were thousands there were WMDS but as far as things go terrorists could of easily destroyed all the evidince you dont understand one thing aobut wmds once youve learned a couple things about them you can come back otherwise you are not worthy to be in my presence you are the weakest link goodbye pig********er

 

no the idea is that once sadam got wind of what bush was gonna do he gave the terrorists support and helped them smuggle the wmds out of the country disguising them as weapons for food program and aid trucks there was evidence discovered of al queda having a meeting with saddam 3 mon ths before the war and theyre were many recordings of sadam and al quedas phone conversations mostly encoded that are undecipherable

you know nothing of saddam he himself was a terrorist and you think he was not you yourself are a monster anyone who does not support the iraq war and the war on terrorism will be considered a terrorist themselves and will be bombed tommorow goodbyhe

 

Provide proof.

 

So the WMD's were destroyed?? Wouldn't that mean we wouldn't have to invade, since that's what we wanted (apparently) all along?

What makes you such an expert on WMD's??

ARE YOU A TERRORIST??!!?? HUH, PIG********ER???!!!!

 

they were destroyed there is no way to provide proof that something was destroyed but the sameway you refrain from providing proof that saddam wasnt conspiriting with terrorists and didnt have wmds i will refrain from giving proof that he did

 

i stuided them for 5 years

the evidence that the wmds were created and or moved was destroyed not the wmds themselves

 

Meow ya doin'?