RE: Why would Bush Lie?

RE: Why would Bush Lie? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 1:51:35 PM)
Ken, I take your point that directors do not get involved in the small details. However, evidence of WMDs is not the small details - it is absolutely crucial to the whole invasion of Iraq. If you were the President and a decision was to be taken on whether to invade Iraq on the pretext of WMDs would you not want to see the evidence? I certainly would - especially knowing my neck is on the line. Regards

LotusSong -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 2:19:38 PM)
I wonder.. is it better to have a President that GETS a BJ in the Oval Office... or one that NEEDS a BJ in the Oval Office? I harken back to the elevator scene in the "Good Morning Viet Nam" movie.. where the comment is made as he exits the elevator, about another officer.. "That boy is in dire need of a blow job!" This is all rhetorical btw :) Just a fleeting thought today. (I know.. next time I have a thought.. just let it go :)

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 2:37:39 PM)
We are beginning to agree. But was he provided with every scrap of paper, copies of ever conversation, etc or was he provided with executive summaries? My guess, he was only given executive summaries.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 2:39:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong I wonder.. is it better to have a President that GETS a BJ in the Oval Office... or one that NEEDS a BJ in the Oval Office? I harken back to the elevator scene in the "Good Morning Viet Nam" movie.. where the comment is made as he exits the elevator, about another officer.. "That boy is in dire need of a blow job!" This is all rhetorical btw :) Just a fleeting thought today. (I know.. next time I have a thought.. just let it go :) Lotus you are a woman after my heart. and only 178 miles away

Estring -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 2:45:53 PM)
You are ignoring the fact that we didn't need the WMDs as a reason to oust Saddam. His continued violation of the UN directive holding him to declare what weapons he had, was enough. Even Clinton endorsed regime change when he was in office, and spoke of Saddam's WMDs. The fact that the UN had no balls, and in fact was making money from secret deals with Iraq was the reason they did nothing.

KenDckey -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/28/2006 2:53:39 PM)
Oh yeah. By existing UN resolution, I don't believe that he needed to justify much except failure to meet the requirements of the resolution. Dad went in and did what he said (return Kawait to the people). Son went in and enforced the UN Resolutions.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/29/2006 1:02:09 AM)
Ken, We seem to be disagreeing on one fundamental point - that is I think it's stretching it to suggest that Bush was not consulted on the supposed evidence that ultimately was putting his neck on the line. As you've said, neither of us can prove it either way so not much value in going on with that one. In terms of the UN, I'm surprised to hear you say that. The US and UK canvassed much support on the back of WMDs (and bribes of course) and the UN organisation were backed into a corner because when the weapons inspectors said there was no evidence of WMDs the US said they would press on anyway (as by this time they had an alliance with one or two European countries who saw some value in this). Regards

meatcleaver -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/29/2006 4:00:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring You are ignoring the fact that we didn't need the WMDs as a reason to oust Saddam. His continued violation of the UN directive holding him to declare what weapons he had, was enough. Even Clinton endorsed regime change when he was in office, and spoke of Saddam's WMDs. The fact that the UN had no balls, and in fact was making money from secret deals with Iraq was the reason they did nothing. Let's not get bogged down on UN resolutions. The US (and everyone else for that matter) calls for its enemies to fullfill UN resolutions while ignoring the resolutions its allies refuse to fullfill. Given that UN resolutions are the reason why the US invaded Iraq, the US should be preparing to invade Israel.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/29/2006 4:19:45 AM)
meatcleaver, Yes, exactly. Another red herring in a sea packed full of them. Regards

MasterRenegade77 -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/29/2006 10:37:24 AM)
Because the "Puppet Masters" order him to!!!

CrappyDom -> RE: Why would Bush Lie? (7/29/2006 6:58:44 PM)
Estring, Israel ignores the UN all the time as do we. Isreal has WMD. Clinton and Bush's daddy were both smart enough to talk about regime change and not do it for the exact reason we are facing now. The majority in Iraq is Shia...

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125