If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

Dude, if it were up to you, we'd still be messing around with inspections. You had infinite ************ing patience with those people.And now you need the WMD's right now? Please, spare me of your dramatics.

 

It all depends on how we define "reasonable".
I don't even know how I'd define it, but at minimum I'd say it would mean a couple more months...
Let's let the inspections work

 

Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

Didn't we, like, know where this stuff was already, but we couldn't tell anyone?

 

Man, what is with this people and their impatience, it's completely unamerican to demand to know where the WMD are right now, the government officials are our leaders, we must follow them and they surely know better. Fucking liberals, have patience, the inspectors need time...

...Now where have I heard that before?

 

Re: Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

Couldn't they, like, move it? Or is it more likely it would sitting on a table wrapped in ribbon with a card saying "Dear Americans, here are some WMD's..
Love, Saddam"?

 

In your dream. Man of characters??

W: Oops, I guess I was misled… Sorry Saddam!
Clinton: It depends what your definition of is is…

You want W out of White House, give us a GOOD Democrat candidate next year. As an independent, I can tell you that posting this type of wimpy wishful thinking does not make Democrats look good.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

When did they like, move it? And "it" in this case consists of thousands upon thousands of gallons of chemicals and biological agents, hundreds of missiles, racks of documentation on how to create new-cue-lar weapons, etc etc etc.

It would've been tough to hide all of that stuff with US satellites overhead watching every move Iraq made for about the last 12 years or so.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

You know, this makes me laugh.

Somehow, people believe that our sattelites are all knowing, all seeing...that our intelligence services are somehow some HUGE big brother machine...

Feeds the insatiable liberal appetite for conspiracy fantasies, I guess.

First of all, when you talk about, say, 10,000 gallons, you're talking about a few Olympic sized swimming pools....in a country the size of California. It's EASY to hide that much liquid. It's REALLY hard to find it if someone is using even a MINIMAL amount of brainpower to figure out ways to hide it.

Second, last I heard, sattelites couldn't photgraph stuff that was buried, unless there's some new orbital x-ray technology that they are keeping secret.

Third, you have to understand the sequence here. You have to start searching the obvious places, but in knooks and crannies. Then simultaneously, you have to start interviewing scientists and other adminstrators in the program. I would bet NONE of these guys have the complete picture, but rather bits and pieces you need to assemble into a mosaic. Once you vett them and their stories, you proceed to your search. Then, once at the locations, you follow very methodical and detailed forensic procedures to do evidence collection so that when you DO find something, you engage in a process that will mitigate the INEVITABLE carping that we have planted it, or otherwise manipulated events to prove our case.

In other works, we won't have some Colonel talk to some embedded reporter about a couple of drums he's found.

This will all take time. I wouldn't be surprised if it took 2-3 months before we found the first evidence.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

As far as I recall, Powell in his now infamous UN presentation pinpointed specific locations of where the WMD would be.





Or are saying that he wasn't being 100% truthful? Even though the Iraqis abandoned those sites right after Powell's disertation, there would surely be residual evidence.

 

Bush thought that there were WMD. Honestly.

So the answer is clearly no.

Now if you show that he intentionally lied to start a war, that's impreachable, isn't it? So when we find that out, then we can talk.

And we won't be talking.

 

If no WMDs are discovered, the Bush loses my support. Nothing dramatic there, but the WMDs were a major premise of the effort IMO.

 

These guys are certain WMDs will be found.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...afp/20030418/ts_afp/iraq_war_wmd_030418023626

 

By your standard, the only president we've had with any character is Richard Nixon.

 

Someone's lying. From the link in the previous post.

>>>
McGovern said he was alluding to a remark by Secretary of State Colin Powell after it emerged that a letter purporting to show that Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Niger -- a key argument in the case for war and cited in President George W. Bush's January 28 State of the Union address -- was a forgery.

Powell told NBC: "It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine."
>>>

 

McGovern was just speculating based on Powell's remarks. No one's lying...

 

They already lied about this.

>>>
after it emerged that a letter purporting to show that Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Niger -- a key argument in the case for war and cited in President George W. Bush's January 28 State of the Union address -- was a forgery.
>>>

 

You're acting as if Powell knew the info was forged and went with it anyway...

In any event, your accusation is that someone's lying now. Am I right about that? You're saying that the administration is lying right this second about WMD's in Iraq. Is that your stance?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If WMDs aren't found within a reasonable period of time, should Bush resign?

Ironically, isn't that about how much more time Blix asked for before we launched an attack?

 

I have not said they're lying now. Just they have lied in the past.

As for Powell not knowing, you would think the Secretary of State, or someone on staff, would check the validity of a document before letting the President of the United States cite it in his State of the Union address as a reason for taking this nation to war. If he didn't actually know it was a forgery before the State of the Union then incompetence of that magnitude is worse than lying.

 

Someone is always lying. The point is, its not GWB at this point.

If someone screwed up, or lied, I assume his head may roll.

 

Last I checked Powell was still employed.

If, as President, I was given information that was false to rally America to war, I would have toasted half the cabinet.