US Intelligence: Bush Administration Lied About Iraq

This one is easy:
corplinx said:

...
Why is the burden of proof on people like me and not on them who make these claims?
...
Click to expand...
Because Bush attacked Iraq which "...must disarm." its WMDs, but gee, Iraq is not armed with WMDs, so Bush lied.
 
Ion said:
This one is easy:

Because Bush attacked Iraq which "...must disarm." its WMDs, but gee, Iraq is not armed with WMDs, so Bush lied.
Click to expand...

Your right, and by that logic the US doesn't really have nuclear weapons since we didn't use any in the Iraqi invasion.
 
corplinx said:

...by that logic the US doesn't really have nuclear weapons since we didn't use any in the Iraqi invasion.
Click to expand...
The trivial logic that escapes you so far is that when U.S. is attacked by a country that has nuclear weapons -whether that country uses or does not use its nuclear weapons- and U.S. does not use nuclear weapons for its defense, nor it is found any trace of them after the U.S. is invaded and overturned by the attacking country, then U.S. didn't represent a threat from the perspective of its nuclear weapons.

Now, replace in this statement 'U.S.' with 'Iraq'.

It works too.

Therefore, the attacked Iraq did not represent a threat regarding the Iraqi nuclear and bio-chemical weapons.

That's not what Bush said.

He said that Iraq represented an immediate threat with its nuclear and bio-chemical program, and attacked Iraq.

So, Bush lied.

Got it?
 
Ion said:

He said that Iraq represents an immediate threat with its nuclear and bio-chemical program.

So, Bush lied.

Got it?
Click to expand...

I'm getting something clear and loud alright. Its saying "put Ion on ignore, he has nothing of value to add and is very unreasonable".
 
Sure,

put me on ignore as long as you are wrong about starting wars based on lies.

Don't ignore me, in case you seek to improve your stance.
 
So, where are the 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq that made Bush to start a war?

Without them, Bush lied.
 
Ion said:
So, where are the 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq that made Bush to start a war?

Without them, Bush lied.
Click to expand...

Could you at least wait until we're done looking?

Your frustrations in the lack of WMD may be justified but I for one would think that frustration was more genuine if you at least would wait for a thorough search to be completed.
 
For the Bush Apologists....

I'm curious. Why do you think Bush is so adamantly against having U.N. inspectors return to help the U.S. look for WMD in Iraq? Our sloppy handling of the search hasn't produced anything. You'd think we would welcome the help.

So...Why do you think our military is so resistant to having the most experienced and knowledgable experts on this topic go back into Iraq?
 
corplinx said:


Could you at least wait until we're done looking?
...
Click to expand...
No, it's too little and too late now:

the U.N. inspections were "...looking...", but Bush cut them because there were 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq.

The facts show that there are no 'imminent' WMDs in Iraq, but there is 'imminent' oil in Iraq.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom