WMD
 

This story is everywhere, not just FOX.

Speaking of stories, how about that "Pay for Favorable Coverage" scandal currently going over at KOS (a/k/a Kos-ola)?

WMD
 

Ty@50 tells em that after the denocrats retake both houses later this year ther are hearings which show that littlegrenfootballs was behind the scandl to frame Kos and as a resullt Kos; fame soars and he gets the prsidential nomination in 2012, after President Clointon's assasination at the convention.

WMD
 

This is such a non issue it is pathetic. Even if we found tons of weapons of mass destruction it would not change anyone’s minds. The lack of WMDs is just something to complain about, and if we found arenas full of them the liberals would find something else to complain about.

The Administration really thought the WMDS were there and so did everyone else (including the Clinton administration). No one lied about anything. The liberals keep saying "if you state something that is not true, is that not a lie?" - As a matter of fact it isn't. A lie is when you state something that isn't true, and you know it is not true. If you don't know it isn't true, then it is not a lie. Everyone in the administration said there were weapons of mass destruction and they all believed that hence no lie. In any case, there were WMDs and even if there were none Saddam at some point was going to try and get his hands on some more.

But all that is irrelevant because anyone that is upset about the lack of WMDs or Bush's supposed lie would be against the war even if we found them. The point is our military took out a ruthless dictator that was engaged in genocide and destroying the entire ecosystem of Iraq (something you would think liberals would care about). Saddam drained the entire swamp system in Iraq in the Southern Tigris and Euphrates valley to kill off the Shiite insurgents. Wetlands that had existed for thousands of years, and the most important wetlands for bird migrations in the entire Middle East. And if you don't care about the birds etc., millions of peoples lives were dependent on the existence of those wetlands. The only reason why the civil war ended in Iraq was because Saddam had ruthlessly repressed it.

From any rational point of view, even a full out civil war is better than what existed under Saddam. In a civil war at least people have the chance to defend themselves where under Saddam they were under the sway of a ruthless dictator. Only a person with their head shoved way up their derriere would really try and argue that Iraq would be better under Saddam than under a civil war.

Iraq is now infinitely better off than it was under Saddam. If the insurgency ends, then it will be even better off. But any argument that says that the war was wrong is an argument that says that Iraq would be better off under Saddam. That position is untenable.

People that are against the war just hate Bush and they want to criticize everything he did. It is pure partisanship, just like the opposition to Clinton's Serbian war was pure partisanship.

Taking out psychotic, genocidal dictators is never a bad thing. Period.

WMD
 

I'm reluctant to wade into this partisan nut house, but fuck it. That's just wrong. Even if I concede that Iraq is better off without Saddam, I could credibly argue that, all things considered, the war was not in U.S. interests.

I liked it better before the edit, when it said "genocidal dictatorts." That would make a nice board motto.

WMD
 

Not true. If they found tons of WMD, I would (1) admit that the administration was right about it, and (2) feel better about the otherwise woeful track record of foreign intelligence.

The Clinton administration thought that years ago. As it appears today, it seems that once that belief was established, we were unable to gain any updated intelligence to unseat that established belief (I mean, why would Saddam have gotten rid of them, right?)

I believe the suggestion has been not that the administration didn't believe that there were WMD, but that (1) WMD were not the real motivation for the invasion, and (2) the administration is incompetent because it believed there were WMD when there were not. Or it didn't want to believe otherwise.

The invasion was not predicated on some ancient mustard gas. I can't agree that this statement has any real support.

That's all it takes? I believe that maybe, someday in the future, you might get WMD, so we're sending in the Marines? Or is it just that Saddam's a bad guy?


Engaged in?

Flower, what do you say?

Nice of you to make that judgment for them. But seriously, you don't think a rational Iraqi could disagree with you?

And now they are under the sway of the United States Marines. Certainly preferable to Saddam, but i'm not sure that it is a shining picture of freedom. Nor does it seem likely to be anytime soon.

Seriously now, why is this your judgment to make?

Nice false dichotomy.

Strange, I see plenty of room for reasonable disagreement on both wars.

i think there is a poster of W with this caption on Osama's cave wall as we speak.

WMD
 

It's a minor issue at best - but that wasn't the point.

WMD
 

I thought the story was not that there's anything new -- these are the same bunch of degrading mustard gas shells found two years ago now -- but instead, the story is that Santorum's pimpin' old "news" so hard, like it's the new, bigger titties on his best girl. Am I missing something here?

No idea. What is it? Just the fact that it's got its own cute name makes me quiver with anticipation. Do tell!

WMD
 

I think "genital dictatorts" would be bestest. Better even than muse to the fucktards.

WMD
 

To care about it would suggest that it's a meaningful and legitimate media outlet.

WMD
 

And not even I would argue that.

WMD
 

It got Dean elected DNC chair.

WMD
 

Isn't it always in U.S. interest to have less genocidal dictators, that are also ruining the domestic econony, running foreign countries?

WMD
 

If the alternative is equally or more ruinous to the domestic economy, mightn't we prefer the genocidal dictator?

WMD
 

Yes true. You would admit that the administration was right because you would have to. You might feel better about foreign intelligence but who cares about that. The issue is would you 1) Support the war and our involvement 2) Support the Bush administration; if you found out there were WMDs - I think not.

How are we supposed to know what is in every square inch of a country that is thousands of sqaure miles, and whose government isn't exactly helpful in our pursuit of gathering intelligence on them. All of a sudden a liberals think our intelligence should know absolutely everything about every inch of every foreign country. It is just absurd. It would be like blaming the New York City police for not anticpating every murder in the city last year.


They felt it was in our interest to invade and were trying to convince the American people. What did you expect them to do - lay out the argument for the other side? So the administration got it wrong. Was it such a huge mistake. Why is that such a big deal. We still unseated a genocidal dictator.


It was predicated on the idea that Saddam Hussein had it in for the US. the embargo was slipping and he soon would have access to revenue from his massive oil supplies. It was becoming extremely more difficult for us to keep our no fly zones. Eventually he was going to get a hold of a US pilot has prisoner. It didn't look like the local insurgents were going to topple him anytime soon. We had invaded the country before so we new we could topple him pretty quickly. Al Queda, with only the help of a backward state took out the WTC, which showed us that if terrorists hooked up with a powerful state (Iraq) they could do more damage. Saddam was a brutal dicator that was willing to use WMDs on his own people and probalby would do so again, and might use them on his neighbors. And finally, he flagrantly broke the treaty that ended Gulf War One. When Hitler ignored the Versailles treaty and that was ignored it didn't turn out well.


I think gassing the Kurds, and draining the swamps were enough to justify an invasion.



NO. Three is no rational argument in support of a genocidal dictator.


When was the goal of our foreign policy perfection. So if we couldn't set up a perfect society we shouldn't go in. The question is not whether it is perfect, the question is the country significantly better off - and it is.


It wasn't my judgement to make, but it certainly was the Bush administrations. The Bush administration had the means to end Saddam's reign and they decided to do it. Not ending the reign would also have been a decision based on moral judgement, and a bad one.


No - an unfortunate fact that liberals are in denial off. If you were against the invasion you were for keeping Saddam in Power. It is that simple. You may have liked Saddam gone with out an invasion but that wasn't an option.

WMD
 

We might prefer a dictator if it would mean a better economy, but not a genocidal dictator. A genocidal dictator is never the right option. However, in this case not only did you have a genocidal dictator but one that also was destroying the economy.

In every year of the occuptation the country's economy has grown by more than forty percent. Before the embargo, Iraq was a kleptocracy. The Batthists when the first got in power nationalized all the important industry and pretty much ruined the economy. Saddam took that ruined country and ruined it even more by setting up a Kleptocracy. Then the sanctions hit. There was no where to go but up.