Shrub gets desperate

[Vympel]

That's right folks, the latest from the Dear Leader

"I was protecting American from a madman!"

"I was not willing to leave the security of the United States in Saddam's hands!"

And other pieces of rhetorical bullshit completely divorced from reality.

This is part of the administrations newly declared 'PR offensive' to defend it's actions in Iraq and shore up it's collapsing approval ratings and record low prestige around the world. This is also what Powell and Rice's latest Baghdad Bob utterances was about.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

And other pieces of rhetorical bullshit completely divorced from reality.

This is part of the administrations newly declared 'PR offensive' to defend it's actions in Iraq and shore up it's collapsing approval ratings and record low prestige around the world. This is also what Powell and Rice's latest Baghdad Bob utterances was about.

Allthough it is all poltical BS one has to wonder about statement like

"Who could possibly think that the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power?"

What has this to do with the reasons for invasion or the existance of every other genocidal fuck head this side of the black stump?.

[Stravo]

I notice a distinct lack of emphasis on the way this war was sold. The WMD have taken a back seat to such insipid bullshit as "We have freed teh Iraqi people from a dictator." or "The world is better off without Sadaam." Guess what Goerge? That's NOT why the American people decided that the war was a good idea. We did not risk American lives to "free the Iraqi people" we wanted to save ourselves from WMD.

But I guess he wants to set the precedent that we need to start "saving" other nations from their corrupt leaders. I wish a reporter or someone with balls would call the Administration on this angle and give them a list of dictatorships and ask when we will be "saving" them as well.

[Darth Wong]

The administration is in the "any reason will do" mode of thinking. They have had a pre-ordained desire to attack Iraq from the very start; this is becoming more and more clear. And they simply ordered their spin doctors to cook up any and all reasons to justify the war, rather than asking their people to look at the evidence and see if war is justified.

While the idea of attacking countries in order to save their people from venal dictators sounds very nice, it is also bullshit and we all know it. Otherwise, they would be invading all manner of countries.

[Ghost Rider]

Sad to see the justification has gone from weapons of mass destruction(Which is now gaining more scrutiny since we still haven't found them) to the "We were being the good guys!!!"

I wonder how soon it'll be before they come up with some angle that this was the end of some 12 year conflict started by GB1.

[BoredShirtless]

I wonder how soon it'll be before they come up with some angle that this was the end of some 12 year conflict started by GB1.

Nah not needed, "good guys" is good enough.

[Iceberg]

Sad to see the justification has gone from weapons of mass destruction(Which is now gaining more scrutiny since we still haven't found them) to the "We were being the good guys!!!"

I wonder how soon it'll be before they come up with some angle that this was the end of some 12 year conflict started by GB1.

What, you mean like the right-wing apologists around here have tried at various times?

[Joe]

The WMD have taken a back seat to such insipid bullshit as "We have freed teh Iraqi people from a dictator." or "The world is better off without Sadaam." Guess what Goerge? That's NOT why the American people decided that the war was a good idea.

70 percent of the people in the country believe (or believed) that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That's not true, obviously, and doesn't speak very highly of the population, but it does show that WMD probably wasn't the only reason people got on board with the war.

[Stravo]

The WMD have taken a back seat to such insipid bullshit as "We have freed teh Iraqi people from a dictator." or "The world is better off without Sadaam." Guess what Goerge? That's NOT why the American people decided that the war was a good idea.

70 percent of the people in the country believe (or believed) that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That's not true, obviously, and doesn't speak very highly of the population, but it does show that WMD probably wasn't the only reason people got on board with the war.

You cannot deny that it was packaged and sold that way. The fact that retards believe that he had something to do with 9/11 means that they were hearing some of the messages the Adminstration's supporters were sending out. But the central argument was the WMD, it was the centerpiece of his State of the Union address and his request for UN backing of an attack on Iraq.

He is losing support not because people feel we haven't done a good job in the war, it is because it is rapidly becoming clear that the crux of his argument proved false.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I think Iraq will go down as the biggest con job on the American public since Vietnam.

[Joe]

I think Iraq will go down as the biggest con job on the American public since Vietnam.

Vietnam was a little more genuine. A land war in Asia was going to happen, period. Iraq, I don't know about. History's verdict on the war on terror isn't in yet.

There also the fact that Iraq will not have caused anywhere near the misery and suffering that Vietnam did when it's all said and done, on both sides.

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

[BoredShirtless]

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

So how long are you going to keep the book open? Why, after being lied to, would you believe the Bush Admin but not the three agencies given the same task which you're now doing anyway? What's the difference? Or will you keep your book open for as long as your government tells you to?

[Knife]

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

So how long are you going to keep the book open? Why, after being lied to, would you believe the Bush Admin but not the three agencies given the same task which you're now doing anyway? What's the difference? Or will you keep your book open for as long as your government tells you to?

How about until someone figures out what happened to the shit we know he had a decade ago, went to. It is becoming obvious that Saddam didn't have any active weapons nor programes, but at one point he had them and nobody knows what happened to alot of them.

[Crown]

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

I don't know how to break this to you, but that was the same chorus that France and Russia were singing before the war, namely give the (UN) Weapons Inspectors more time.

[Joe]

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

So how long are you going to keep the book open? Why, after being lied to, would you believe the Bush Admin but not the three agencies given the same task which you're now doing anyway? What's the difference?

I'm not sure I was being intentionally lied to, in any case. It doesn't make sense for the Bush administration to intentionally lie; if this was the case, they would have nothing to gain from it, but certainly have lots to lose (as we are seeing now).

In any case, I close the book when the question of why Saddam Hussein went to such ridiculous lengths to protect whatever it is he had gets answered. In any case, I supported the war, WMD or no, and so did a significant minority of the American people.

Or will you keep your book open for as long as your government tells you to?

*yawn* How cliche.

[MKSheppard]

I wonder how soon it'll be before they come up with some angle that this was the end of some 12 year conflict started by GB1.

Actually, that would be correct. 12 years of on/off "Hey, that evil Iraqi SAM
site lit me up! Time to drop a bomb on them!" undeclared low level war.

[Joe]

I actually supported it on those grounds. I think we needed to finish the job, especially after failing to support the Iraqi rebels after we promised to do so.

[BoredShirtless]

In any case, I'm one of those crazies who doesn't believe the book is completely closed yet on the WMD issue.

So how long are you going to keep the book open? Why, after being lied to, would you believe the Bush Admin but not the three agencies given the same task which you're now doing anyway? What's the difference?

I'm not sure I was being intentionally lied to, in any case.

Hello? State of the Union Speech?

It doesn't make sense for the Bush administration to intentionally lie; if this was the case, they would have nothing to gain from it, but certainly have lots to lose (as we are seeing now).

Nothing to gain from lying! Why do people lie then? To see what it feels like to lose someones trust? News flash: people lie for tangible reasons. Always.

In any case, I close the book when the question of why Saddam Hussein went to such ridiculous lengths to protect whatever it is he had gets answered.

Ah. So only if WMD are found, will you close the book. That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said.

In any case, I supported the war, WMD or no, and so did a significant minority of the American people.

Since to you the WMD angle was irrelevent, you didn't then care that he wasn't a threat to the US. So why did you support the war?

Or will you keep your book open for as long as your government tells you to?

*yawn* How cliche.

Do you have any idea how big of a cliche it is to blindly follow governments?

[Joe]

Nothing to gain from lying! Why do people lie then? To see what it feels like to lose someones trust? News flash: people lie for tangible reasons. Always.

Nothing to gain from lying in this particular situation. This may end up costing Shrub the election. It doesn't make sense for Shrub to have intentionally lied here; if this is the case, he and the administration had to have known they would be caught and suffer the consequences.

Ah. So only if WMD are found, will you close the book. That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said.

Or when the missing WMD are accounted for in some way. There has to be some reason why Saddam would risk getting himself killed to cover up something he didn't have.

Since to you the WMD angle was irrelevent, you didn't then care that he wasn't a threat to the US. So why did you support the war?

See above (also, the war allowed us to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, a huge plus).

Do you have any idea how big of a cliche it is to blindly follow governments?

Yes, yes, I've heard all this before. And I am familiar with German history.

[Iceberg]

From Saddam's POV, it was probably better to be martyred by the US than to have it revealed that sanctions turned his country into a toothless, defenseless paper tiger, which would invite the other countries in the region to attack him.

[Joe]

From Saddam's POV, it was probably better to be martyred by the US than to have it revealed that sanctions turned his country into a toothless, defenseless paper tiger, which would invite the other countries in the region to attack him.

You can still fight a war without WMD.

[BoredShirtless]

Nothing to gain from lying! Why do people lie then? To see what it feels like to lose someones trust? News flash: people lie for tangible reasons. Always.

Nothing to gain from lying in this particular situation. This may end up costing Shrub the election. It doesn't make sense for Shrub to have intentionally lied here; if this is the case, he and the administration had to have known they would be caught and suffer the consequences.

You're making a number of assumptions which are coincidentally used by stand up comedians:

1. The Bush Admin isn't arrogant
2. The Bush Admin wasn't desperate
3. The Bush Admin is intelligent

And besides all that, the Bush Admin knew close to a year before the Speech that the Niger docs were forgeries. It's pretty clear that the Admin intentionally lied.

Ah. So only if WMD are found, will you close the book. That's easily the dumbest thing you've ever said.

Or when the missing WMD are accounted for in some way.

What WMD are missing?

There has to be some reason why Saddam would risk getting himself killed to cover up something he didn't have.

Premise: he was covering something up. Conclusion: he was covering something up. You're begging the question. In fact you'd be right if you can prove your assumption that he was...covering something up!

Since to you the WMD angle was irrelevent, you didn't then care that he wasn't a threat to the US. So why did you support the war?

See above (also, the war allowed us to withdraw from Saudi Arabia, a huge plus).

Jeez, what next, invade France to withdraw your troops from Germany?

[BoredShirtless]

From Saddam's POV, it was probably better to be martyred by the US than to have it revealed that sanctions turned his country into a toothless, defenseless paper tiger, which would invite the other countries in the region to attack him.

You can still fight a war without WMD.

So?

[Joe]

You're making a number of assumptions which are coincidentally used by stand up comedians:
1. The Bush Admin isn't arrogant
2. The Bush Admin wasn't desperate
3. The Bush Admin is intelligent

Desperate, no. It's unlikely that the Bush administration would have had to directly lie in order to get the American people to want to attack Iraq, anyway - for the last ten years, something like 25-40 percent of the American people have supported an invasion of Iraq, add to that increased support of aggressive foreign policy since 9/11 and it becomes pretty clear.

Intelligent, well, sorry, that argument doesn't work. There's no way you can possibly make the case that no one in the Bush administration did not realize what the ramifications of a flat-out, intentional lie would have been back home.

And besides all that, the Bush Admin knew close to a year before the Speech that the Niger docs were forgeries. It's pretty clear that the Admin intentionally lied.

The yellowcake story was based on separate intelligence that the British government is standing by to this day.

What WMD are missing?

The stuff he's failed to account for. I should add that practically every intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam had WMD. Including France's, as I recall. They just didn't support the U.S. going into Iraq to deal with the problem, they supported continued inspections.

Premise: he was covering something up. Conclusion: he was covering something up. You're begging the question. In fact you'd be right if you can prove your assumption that he was...covering something up!

It appears that he had been. The UNSCOM has never been particularly satisfied with Hussein's compliance with their inspections. 1997 in particular was a tough year. Why did Hussein pretend to have WMD and refuse to give unrestricted access to UN weapons inspectors? Billions of dollars in forgone revenue, for no reason?

Jeez, what next, invade France to withdraw your troops from Germany?

Germany isn't filled with Islamist whackjobs, last I checked, nor is it funding multimillion dollar terrorist movements.

[SirNitram]

Let me get this straight... You honestly believe politicians don't flat out lie?