NationStates Jolt Archive

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

To paraphrase..."WMD in Iraq. Intelligence tells me so."

Blah blah blah.

I won't even bother with the poll. You get the idea.

It's a trick question - he's a moron. Ask any Canadian.

Wait... why does this have to be an either/or? Can't he be both?

To paraphrase..."WMD in Iraq. Intelligence tells me so."

Blah blah blah.

I won't even bother with the poll. You get the idea.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418845

To paraphrase..."WMD in Iraq. Intelligence tells me so."

Blah blah blah.

I won't even bother with the poll. You get the idea.

Where is the 'both' option?

Evidence, people!

Give evidence!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418845
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=463150

It's a trick question - he's a moron. Ask any Canadian.
Why, would they be able to recognize one of their own kind?

Evidense, people!

Give evidense!
Schooling, man!

Get schooling!

Or tutoring, anyway.

In remedial english studies...

Why, would they be able to recognize one of their own kind?
No. (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/21/moron021121)

Not even close.

He's both... A complete idiot and a liar.... I was soo looking forward that his last speech would've been his concession speech, but alas, 3 more years of his ummms and hmmms and incomplete sentences and non-sense....

It's a trick question - he's a moron. Ask any Canadian.Yep he is. :p

Anybody want to stomp on a George W. Bush action figure? :D

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/parrish_bushboot041117.jpg

Reasons why he's an idiot:

- Just watch him speak
- He fired everyone important on his administration who criticized him (it was their job to do so)
- He can't back his ideas up with facts
- He supports "intelligent design"
- "Our enemies of innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking of new ways to harm our country, and neither do we."
- "I, I don't know -- Bono came in and dropped this new iPod off... Lightweight. Crank it on, and you shuffle the shuffle."
- Go to google.com, type "failure" in the search box, and hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button

Reasons why he's a liar:

- New Orleans: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
- The Budget: "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
- Small Business: "I understand small business growth. I was one."
- "I didn't -- I swear I didn't -- get into politics to feather my nest or feather my friends' nests."
- "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

All quotes are REAL Bush Jr. Quotes.

- Small Business: "I understand small business growth. I was one."


How can a person be a small business?

How can a person be a small business?

...that's why it's a Bushism.

How can a person be a small business?
I thought he was saying he was once a growth. Presumably one that later consumed the body of his human host...

I thought he was saying he was once a growth. Presumably one that later consumed the body of his human host...

I can see that...

...I mean, I assume it had a human host. I could be wrong. Maybe the "smirking chimp" angle isn't so far-fetched after all. :eek:

Bush winning the presidency in 2000 was the greatest american tragedy since Pearl Harbour.

Wait... why does this have to be an either/or? Can't he be both?

Yes. He is both.

to quote accurately: "Islam is a religion of peace"
lying idiot or idiotic liar i'd say.

Not at all. Islam is indeed a religion of peace.

Or should we consider Christianity a religion of racism or violence because of the KKK minorities or Pat Robertson?

Wow, im so surprised that we havent used Bush and 9/11 in any of the comments. To bad bush cant make a speech without bringing up 9/11. Now yea, i felt that 9/11 was an attack on america by Al Quedea (sp)...not iraq. But still we are over there plundering our oil. The best democracy is the forced kind! (ENTER SARCASM HERE)

Still I am overwhelmed by the fact that NO ONE IN THE MEDIA BRINGS IT UP!
Whats going on, Clinton had some fun in the white house and BLAMO. Now im not saying that the media is controlled by the rights or whatnot. But, im just stating what i see. Dont get me started on the whole CIA Leak story. I'll break my keyboard


Hitler had the The Riechstag, and that gained him power

Bush has the Twin Towers, please god dont let history repeat itself

How can a person be a small business?
With all the ins-and-outs that the corporate continuum have had with him, it makes sense.
Bush's "business end" has been open to HIGH volume traffic for some time now. You could see how he's adjusted his hips to accomodate during the debates with Kerry, who of course, loosened him up ever-the-slightest more.

With all the ins-and-outs that the corporate continuum have had with him, it makes sense.
Bush's "business end" has been open to HIGH volume traffic for some time now. You could see how he's adjusted his hips to accomodate during the debates with Kerry, who of course, loosened him up ever-the-slightest more.
Nahhh... he's a growth.

I have to say, I find it hilarious that this thread has lasted longer on the front page than the thread it was parodying.

Wow, im so surprised that we havent used Bush and 9/11 in any of the comments. To bad bush cant make a speech without bringing up 9/11. Now yea, i felt that 9/11 was an attack on america by Al Quedea (sp)...not iraq. But still we are over there plundering our oil. The best democracy is the forced kind! (ENTER SARCASM HERE)

Uhm,
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10235745&postcount=13

And as far as i'm concerned, of all the lies he's spewed out, this one (being the latest and most brazen) pissed me off the most. Still does.
I am, however, open to more that i haven't read/heard yet, but you know how THAT goes.

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.
- George "Small Business" Bush

Nahhh... he's a growth.
At least Farnsworth's growth had a legit paper route, for a little while.
This stupid motherf*cker wrecks businesses, reputations, Constitutions AND economies, and STILL with all that apparent skill he can't manage a majority of the things to come out of his mouth to NOT sound like the coke permanently fused a few of the wrong parts of his brain.

Man, I don't even keep former cokeheads in my social circles, why would anyone in their right minds elect one their leader? It's beyond me.

As much as I dislike President Bush's policies, this thread is more moronic than you claim the president is. Have NationStates conersations really digressed this much?

As much as I dislike President Bush's policies, this thread is more moronic than you claim the president is. Have NationStates conersations really digressed this much?

It was a parody of a thread yesterday.

As much as I dislike President Bush's policies, this thread is more moronic than you claim the president is. Have NationStates conersations really digressed this much?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10241829&postcount=26

Man, I don't even keep former cokeheads in my social circles, why would anyone in their right minds elect one their leader? It's beyond me.
How sagacious.
Clinton AND Bush : "I didn't inhale!"
Clinton AND Bush : "I just liked the smell. A lot."

As much as I dislike President Bush's policies, this thread is more moronic than you claim the president is. Have NationStates conersations really digressed this much?
Ah, it depends on the day/work schedule.

In my opinion, he's no genius, but he's certainly not a complete idiot (somewhat of a buffoon - yes, complete idiot - no).

Since it appears to me that he either must be a complete idiot or a lier, and since I suspect he is in fact not a complete idiot, I have a tentitive opinion that Bush is more likely a lier than not a lier.

As much as I dislike President Bush's policies, this thread is more moronic than you claim the president is. Have NationStates conersations really digressed this much?

What's a conersation? :confused:

Is Nadkor a homo or a fag?

Cant it be both?

Get some new material stop flaming and endlessly smack talking the President.....atleast use some constructive criticism, not "idiot or liar".

Jeeeeeeeez, if I didnt know any better I'd say YOU were totally the former.

...And yet another person lacking wit, a sense of irony, or even a clue as to what real parody is about - not what passes for it on television, that is - is heard from.

Hilariously enough, the above poster couldn't be bothered reading the rest of the posts almost immediately preceding their own, wherein the truth of the matter is revealed.

Way to go, knee-jerk responsiveness. Save us from all this dreadful belly-laughing this instant.

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

To paraphrase..."WMD in Iraq. Intelligence tells me so."

Blah blah blah.

I won't even bother with the poll. You get the idea.

actually, it's quite possible that he's neither a liar (at least on WMD) nor an idiot.

If you think a person would have to be an idiot to listen to CIA/other intelligence reports, then you're starting from the assumption that the intelligence is usually wrong.

If you don't listen to your intelligence... I imagine that could be a problem. The fact that the intel was wrong wasn't his fault.

The fact that he listened to it, well, nobody could make him listen to it, but again... would you tell the CIA chief that he's stupid without having knowledge whether or not the intel was wrong or not?

So I vote neither. He's a politician, so he panders like most of them, but to call him a liar -- when it really can't be substantiated -- does nothing more than show your personal bias.

Calling him an idiot supports your perceived anti-Bush bias.

Is Nadkor a homo or a fag?

Cant it be both?

Get some new material stop flaming and endlessly smack talking the President.....atleast use some constructive criticism, not "idiot or liar".

Jeeeeeeeez, if I didnt know any better I'd say YOU were totally the former.

What do you have against homosexuals?

Is Nadkor a homo or a fag?

Cant it be both?

Get some new material stop flaming and endlessly smack talking the President.....atleast use some constructive criticism, not "idiot or liar".

Jeeeeeeeez, if I didnt know any better I'd say YOU were totally the former.

actually, it's quite possible that he's neither a liar (at least on WMD) nor an idiot.

If you think a person would have to be an idiot to listen to CIA/other intelligence reports, then you're starting from the assumption that the intelligence is usually wrong.

If you don't listen to your intelligence... I imagine that could be a problem. The fact that the intel was wrong wasn't his fault.

The fact that he listened to it, well, nobody could make him listen to it, but again... would you tell the CIA chief that he's stupid without having knowledge whether or not the intel was wrong or not?

So I vote neither. He's a politician, so he panders like most of them, but to call him a liar -- when it really can't be substantiated -- does nothing more than show your personal bias.

Calling him an idiot supports your perceived anti-Bush bias.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10241829&postcount=26

- Small Business: "I understand small business growth. I was one."

How can a person be a small business?

You misunderstand. He wasn't a small business. He was a growth. Well, he WAS one in Texas. Now he's one in Washington.

What do you have against homosexuals?

I try not to have anything agianst homosexuals, but you know, sometimes the subways get a bit cramped.

*Searches for the 'both' option*

What do you have against homosexuals?

well lets see, to start with, alot...but thats a whole other can o' worms.

actually, it's quite possible that he's neither a liar (at least on WMD) nor an idiot.
If you think a person would have to be an idiot to listen to CIA/other intelligence reports, then you're starting from the assumption that the intelligence is usually wrong.
Even if we ignore the actual information itself (and the falseness of it), we still have a big problem. How do you explain that the Bush administration asserted (in the face of the numerous and vigourous challenges to the WMD claims, and the many questions about the conclusiveness and soundness of the evidence/conclusions about the evidence) that they had proof?

Either Bush doesnt know what proof means, or cant tell the difference between something proven and something 'not proven', or he is a lier. The essential meaning of proof is such that if something is 'untrue' there cannot possibly be proof of that thing being true.

In the case of the Iraq WMD debacle, it was the President who was responsible for evaluating the evidence and conclusions presented by the CIA (and other agencies), and communicating their own analysis of that body of information in a way that is not misleading. The American public did not have direct access to the information, they dont have the ability to 'vote out' the CIA head, what the do have is the ability to hold accountable the President, and it is right and fitting that they do so, (even though clearly they chose not to).

There is simply no way I am prepared to believe that any honest, objective, non-idiot-person (in Bush's position), no matter how convinced they were that Saddam had an active WMD program, could believe that the evidence amounted to 'proof'.

If you don't listen to your intelligence... I imagine that could be a problem. The fact that the intel was wrong wasn't his fault.
The fact that the American public, the UN, the entire world in fact were told in no uncertain terms that there was 'proof' is indeed Bush's fault. Is the USA a democracy or not? If the voters cannot hold responsible the person in a position to dictate what the people and their elected representitives are told regarding such high level and significant information (ie the kind the starting of a war is decided on), then they have no significant say in the running of the US. Either Bush is to blame, or there is no democracy in the USA and in fact the head of the CIA is the real ruler of the USA....

The fact that he listened to it, well, nobody could make him listen to it, but again... would you tell the CIA chief that he's stupid without having knowledge whether or not the intel was wrong or not?
The fact is Bush asserted that there was 'proof'. As the President it was his duty to not take the word or some unelected official in such a case. He had a duty to ascertain for himself the strength of the evidence, and to come to his own conclusions regarding whether or not the body of information available to him was evidence or proof that Saddam had a WMD program. He is the friggin President of the United States of America for goodness sake....just what the heck do people think the job is about? Getting big-ups and shout outs and generating 'cool stories' about sneaking around with Condi in 'base-ball bat' disguises, and ensuring Camp David photo ops for British Prime Ministers? He's the President, not the Queen, it isnt a figurehead position.

He's supposed to run the country, he is not a figurehead for the head of the CIA; we know this because he is elected and the CIA head is not, and the USA is purportedly a democracy...

So I vote neither. He's a politician, so he panders like most of them, but to call him a liar -- when it really can't be substantiated -- does nothing more than show your personal bias.
There is a difference between 'the CIA has presented me with strong evidence', and 'the CIA has presented me with proof'. Either Bush knows this difference and can work out which is applicable when, or he is an idiot. I'm disinclined to believe the latter, so I'm stuck with strongly suspecting the former.

Calling him an idiot supports your perceived anti-Bush bias.
As it happens I dont think he is an idiot, that is why I have trouble believing that he believed he had been presented with 'proof' of an active WMD program in Iraq.

How sagacious.
Clinton AND Bush : "I didn't inhale!"
Clinton AND Bush : "I just liked the smell. A lot."
It is called Electric Kool-aid and Pot brownies. Neither are inhaling (meaning smoke).

Clinton didn't lie about that.

My mother and step-dad never inhaled back in 70's either.THey just did what Clinton did.
Bush also used Cocaine so that was worse.

The fact that the American public, the UN, the entire world in fact were told in no uncertain terms that there was 'proof' is indeed Bush's fault. Is the USA a democracy or not? If the voters cannot hold responsible the person in a position to dictate what the people and their elected representitives are told regarding such high level and significant information (ie the kind the starting of a war is decided on), then they have no significant say in the running of the US. Either Bush is to blame, or there is no democracy in the USA and in fact the head of the CIA is the real ruler of the USA....

I gotta say I like your moxy, kiddo.

It is called Electric Kool-aid and Pot brownies. Neither are inhaling (meaning smoke).

Clinton didn't lie about that.

My mother and step-dad never inhaled back in 70's either.THey just did what Clinton did.
Bush also used Cocaine so that was worse.
I figured i'd put them in exactly the same context for contrast.
I also figured someone would have jumped my sh*t about it .... ;)

actually, it's quite possible that he's neither a liar (at least on WMD) nor an idiot.

If you think a person would have to be an idiot to listen to CIA/other intelligence reports, then you're starting from the assumption that the intelligence is usually wrong.

If you don't listen to your intelligence... I imagine that could be a problem. The fact that the intel was wrong wasn't his fault.

The fact that he listened to it, well, nobody could make him listen to it, but again... would you tell the CIA chief that he's stupid without having knowledge whether or not the intel was wrong or not?

So I vote neither. He's a politician, so he panders like most of them, but to call him a liar -- when it really can't be substantiated -- does nothing more than show your personal bias.

Calling him an idiot supports your perceived anti-Bush bias.
It has been most certainly "substantiated" in many places in the world that he lied about it AND that he did what he could to cover it up. You've had your arse handed to you literally dozens of times here and who knows how many other places, and for some reason, YOU STILL post like you have at least ONE fact in your arguments. Bafflingly. :confused:
To the point: there's almost NOTHING of factual value in THIS post (imagine my surprise).
Your repeated ignorant posts support your pro-Bush bias.

he is both. next question D:

he is both. next question D:

I concur.

Look I am not pro or anti bush. Idiots don't get into or graduate from Ivy league schools. Idiots aren't able to run countries. Idiots vote other people into office. His down falls or his past rather? He had drug habits but managed to keep his family together and not die, and become president. DON"T SLING MUD! It does not make you look cool or make you feel better. I don't love the guy but he seems to be pretty successful despite what the media and your shallow infantile minds decide to pigeon hole him as. He is a politician though so you know there is a lot you and I will never see. That means we all make huge uneducated decisions about someone's life we don't lead OR have control over. That makes us the idiots, doesn't it? Have a pleasant rest tonight, go to work tomorrow, love your family whoever they are and concentrate on those things because that will only better our country in the long run. But this is just a game and we are only human. Cheers! COMPAI! and GAMBATE!

Look I am not pro or anti bush. Idiots don't get into or graduate from Ivy league schools.My cousin's wife is a Harvard graduate (which I understand to be one of the best universities in the world, even beyond Yale where I understand Bush graduated from), and she's really not very bright. Seriously. Her mummy and daddy are pretty well off, you see.

Not to sound like I'm supporting GW whether I do or not, BUT Saddam had access to and inclination to use chemical weapons.

Want proof? Ask the 200,000 dead Kurdish civilians killed by Iraqi soldiers, many in chemical weapon attacks. Oh no wait, they're dead. >.> Never mind. Mustard, VX, Cyanide, to name just a few. And if you can find a WWI vet who inhaled some mustard gas, ask him how painless it was. But of course, we "couldn't" find the WMDs. After all it's only 430,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS (if you don't understand metric, learn), it's not like we couldn't check that whole area for aerosol cans and mortar shells. And it's not like the UN weapons inspectors were denyed entry to almost every single facility they went to inspect, sometimes for hours. I mean, that's only 100,000,000 football fields (if you can't be bothered learning metric, maybe that'll help) of sand. No biggie.

How about this. Instead of asking ourselves if there were no WMDs in Iraq, asking ourselves if the Iraqi government under Saddam Husien was trying to hide something? I know you all hate Bush blindly and ignorantly, but even if he is what you claim it doesn't mean he's always wrong. I doubt any of you even knew the weapons inspectors were refused entry at almost every single one of Saddam's palaces (oh yeah, he had quite a few of those, pretty well off for a benevolent leader) or even research facilitys, for hours on end. More than long enough to slip almost anything past 4 SUVs with a dozen UN officials (read: civilians) parked out front.




But hey, let's not let rationality ruin such a popular fad. :rolleyes: The MTV generation, a force to be reckoned with. Apathetic to anything that matters, but motivated and irational when it comes to martyring anyone in authority.

How about this. Instead of asking ourselves if there were no WMDs in Iraq, asking ourselves if the Iraqi government under Saddam Husien was trying to hide something?Quite, but the reason we went to war was because of WMDs. 45 minutes and all that. Then there were claims that Saddam had Al-Queda links (apparently Czech authorities had proof, which they refuted). There were claims of chemical weapons, which the UN could find no evidence of. Then we were doing it for the democratic freedom of the Iraqis. And so on and so on.

If they had actually agreed on one at least potentially truthful basis for the war, I might have felt differently. But they didn't.

I, by the way, abhor MTV (as I suspect many NSers do). I would certainly not describe myself as a liberal. I don't hate conversatives or the US Republican party. Although you made some valid points, the preconceived generalisations really weren't necessary.

But of course, we "couldn't" find the WMDs. After all it's only 430,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS (if you don't understand metric, learn), it's not like we couldn't check that whole area for aerosol cans and mortar shells.

And of course the manafacturing of WoMD and intercontinental missiles does not require any infrastructure, factories, supply trains etc. You just hide it under the sand in the desert - sending the materials and food for the hungry workers there by magic. Magic that also solves the lack of missiles.

Not to sound like I'm supporting GW whether I do or not, BUT Saddam had access to and inclination to use chemical weapons.

Want proof? Ask the 200,000 dead Kurdish civilians killed by Iraqi soldiers, many in chemical weapon attacks. Oh no wait, they're dead. >.> Never mind. Mustard, VX, Cyanide, to name just a few. And if you can find a WWI vet who inhaled some mustard gas, ask him how painless it was. But of course, we "couldn't" find the WMDs. After all it's only 430,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS (if you don't understand metric, learn), it's not like we couldn't check that whole area for aerosol cans and mortar shells. And it's not like the UN weapons inspectors were denyed entry to almost every single facility they went to inspect, sometimes for hours. I mean, that's only 100,000,000 football fields (if you can't be bothered learning metric, maybe that'll help) of sand. No biggie.





But hey, let's not let rationality ruin such a popular fad. :rolleyes: The MTV generation, a force to be reckoned with. Apathetic to anything that matters, but motivated and irational when it comes to martyring anyone in authority.


It's more the whole '45 minute striking capability' thing. You can't say that wasn't a lie. Sure, Saddam was an evil guy, but he wasn't threatening the US - he wouldn't dare. The way war was rushed into has left the entire region destabalised. And while the poor Iraqi civillians may be free of Saddam, they are yet to be rid of the constant fear of being shot or blown up, either by terrorists or allied soldiers. The minute western military support is removed there will be a civil war, but while they're there there is violence and opposition, so what do you do? Maybe you're right - Bush did the right thing by deciding to try and rid the Iraqi people of Saddam, but why, oh why, would he have flt the need to first lie about it, and go in without a proper plan for coming back out? To me, the whole thing reeks of selfish political motives: the war should have got America cheap oil, and provided some sort of scapegoat for 9/11 (before the war, Saddam and Osama probably weren't batting for the same team - ideological differences).

People in positions of authority need to be able to step back and view a situation objectivly. They also (in a democracy, anyway) need to remember that THEY ARE ELECTED BY AND ANSERABLE TO THE PEOPLE! Lying to (or bending the truth to) people to get them to agree with you is not an admirable or very honest thing to do: he is a liar. Not fully thinking through a war before putting your soldiers in harms is not the best way to serve your people: he is an idiot.

Problem is, it's too late to do anything about it.

Wait... why does this have to be an either/or? Can't he be both?


Took the words right out of my mouth.

Oh, and the questioner forgot "drug addict", "draft-dodging hypocrite", and "chimp".

Not to sound like I'm supporting GW whether I do or not, BUT Saddam had access to and inclination to use chemical weapons.

Want proof? Ask the 200,000 dead Kurdish civilians killed by Iraqi soldiers, many in chemical weapon attacks. Oh no wait, they're dead. >.> Never mind. Mustard, VX, Cyanide, to name just a few. And if you can find a WWI vet who inhaled some mustard gas, ask him how painless it was. But of course, we "couldn't" find the WMDs. After all it's only 430,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS (if you don't understand metric, learn), it's not like we couldn't check that whole area for aerosol cans and mortar shells. And it's not like the UN weapons inspectors were denyed entry to almost every single facility they went to inspect, sometimes for hours. I mean, that's only 100,000,000 football fields (if you can't be bothered learning metric, maybe that'll help) of sand. No biggie.



um ya thats why they have satellites to scan......... besides, the war was so sudden, Saddam wouldn't have had any time to disassemble the wmds.

It isn't an either/or question, chaps: the chimp is an idiot and a liar. I thought that was pretty obvious.

How can a person be a small business?

The same way "Frankie goes to Hollywood" can be a music group?

What's a conersation? :confused:

It's what takes place when cone-heads get together.

Look I am not pro or anti bush. Idiots don't get into or graduate from Ivy league schools.

They do when they're rich and they're legacies. Do you know what a legacy is? It's someone whose parent went to the same school. No matter how bad their scores or grades they will be accepted as long as their parents can pay their tuition.

Do you know what a "Gentleman's C" is? It's the sort of grade that is given to the children of rich people who take the business administration track as a legacy. One of his own professors, when asked about Bush's performance in school, said two things about Bush.

1) Any professor who has been teaching for 30 years will tell you that he only remembers two kinds of students. The students really bright, curious, insightful, and full of potential, and the students who are completly the opposite of that. Bush was completly the latter."

2) Students in the business administration track weren't really evaluated on their work. They showed up, and they got their C and they moved on. There was a lot of social promotion.

And idiot can thrive in such an environment, and it seems Bush did.

Idiots aren't able to run countries.

Oh, I thought you were just trying to argue that he wasn't an idiot, because he clearly can't run this country.


I don't love the guy but he seems to be pretty successful despite what the media and your shallow infantile minds decide to pigeon hole him as.

Are you nuts? The media bend over backwards trying to make him look sensible and presidential and dismiss his idiocy and incompetence as mere "folksiness."

He is a politician though so you know there is a lot you and I will never see. That means we all make huge uneducated decisions about someone's life we don't lead OR have control over. That makes us the idiots, doesn't it? Have a pleasant rest tonight, go to work tomorrow, love your family whoever they are and concentrate on those things because that will only better our country in the long run. But this is just a game and we are only human. Cheers! COMPAI! and GAMBATE!

The ultimate proto facsist sentiment. Don't pay attention to what sort of a person that the president is. He's the guy in charge, so just do whatever he says, don't question him or doubt him, just pay attention to the shallow details of your own little life and forget about the fact that as a citizen you're supposed to participate in your government. Remember, we're not a democracy, we're a republic. That means that the people don't rule, the public chooses an elite public, a republic to do all its thinking for it.

You wouldn't try to replace the pipes in your own house would you? You'd get a plumber. You wouldn't try to rewire your house, you'd get an electrician. So don't try to participate in democracy. Get a corrupt bureacrat.

Actually my point on chemical weapons in Iraq was WMDs and their production facilitys DON'T NEED to be big. Sattelite surveilance isn't some super-weapon in the war on crime/terror. Imagine looking at photos with about 10cm/pixel resolution (that's a meter per 10 pixels, about the size length of 1 letter at the font/screensize I'm viewing) and trying to figure out what a mobile home was doing, even IF you found it and were suspicious of it, NOT TO MENTION the sattelite coverage is temporary, because they're in ORBIT. Maybe I should define these big words for you. >.> Geosynchronous orbit is possible, but uncommon in "spy" sattelites except over places like Russia, China and the USA. Most have a variable orbit that can be adjusted, but not fixed, and only provide coverage of Iraq for a few minutes/hours a day.

As for the production facilitys being hard to hide, anyone with a few braincells can manufacture cyanide gas, a small mobile lab could mass-produce most primitive chemical weapons, and biologicals aren't that much more difficult. YES, it would be easy to hide both the delivery methods (mortar shells, aerosol cans, small missile warheads, even large missile warheads) in the desert. YES, it would be easy to hide production facilitys in any part of a city or a desert. Nuclear is harder, it requires large dedicated facilitys to produce. However, you seem to have forgotten a key issue. Black market weapons trade. A government like pre-war Iraq would've had complete access to the black market arsenal as well.


45 minute strike capability though, that is either a lie or misinterpreted. Was that to US soil (lie), or to US interests/citizens/allies (truth)? Map (http://world-hotel-reservation.info/maps/map-middle-east.gif)


And, as I stated first thing in my last post, I'm not taking sides on the Bush argument, I'm just saying that one of the claimed wrongdoings is a lie, Iraq having access and inclination to use WMDs was guarnteed.

//Edit: I do appologise to a few people for being snipey, but frankly if you lived where I live and got hassled for being half-American from a bunch of retards who don't understand that our nation has a defense pact with the US, and THEY are the ones going to bail us out if the shit hits the fan, you'd be snipey too.

Not to sound like I'm supporting GW whether I do or not, BUT Saddam had access to and inclination to use chemical weapons.
Clearly at one time, but since that time apparently had ended before Bush Jr landed in the White House it's not actually relevent is it?

But of course, we "couldn't" find the WMDs. After all it's only 430,000 SQUARE KILOMETERS (if you don't understand metric, learn), it's not like we couldn't check that whole area for aerosol cans and mortar shells.
Well might be a point, however, alternatively how hard is to find something when you have proof of it's exact physical location?

And it's not like the UN weapons inspectors were denyed entry to almost every single facility they went to inspect, sometimes for hours. I mean, that's only 100,000,000 football fields (if you can't be bothered learning metric, maybe that'll help) of sand. No biggie.
Actually they were delayed, but indeed it was no biggie. Hans Blix stated as much when he reported the lacklustre cooperation and muck arounds. All parr for the course in Han's line of work. The delays and muck arounds negatively impacted the efficiency of the inspections but in the judgement of the world's foremost expert on such matters, not the effectiveness.

How about this. Instead of asking ourselves if there were no WMDs in Iraq, asking ourselves if the Iraqi government under Saddam Husien was trying to hide something?
What?
Ok I have no idea what you think the point of that would be. I dont get it, why wouldnt the Iraq government have something it was trying to hide? It is a government isnt it?
I can only conclude that you either think everyone but yourself is a real thicko, or you in fact are at least a little naive.

I know you all hate Bush blindly and ignorantly,
No you dont, you might think you know but I dont hate Bush blindly and ignorantly so what you are percieving as 'knowledge' is in fact 'a mistaken belief'.

but even if he is what you claim it doesn't mean he's always wrong.
Same can be said of my broken wind up watch....it's right for a whole minute twice every 24 hours - it's also utterly useless.

I doubt any of you even knew the weapons inspectors were refused entry at almost every single one of Saddam's palaces (oh yeah, he had quite a few of those, pretty well off for a benevolent leader) or even research facilitys, for hours on end.
Is it possible you spend a lot of time around stupid people? I'm struggling to understand quite why you would expect to come across even one person as stupid as you appear to believe every poster in this thread is.

More than long enough to slip almost anything past 4 SUVs with a dozen UN officials (read: civilians) parked out front.
Wow! That is stunning.
Poor ol Hans Blix, he's only the world's foremost expert on WMD, how could he possibly be expected to counter such subterfuge - I mean this is the kind of high level sophisticated plan that requires at least the intellect of a stoned waster who just caught sight of a cop car pulling into the drive way half way through his spot...
In order to counter such ingenious tactics as the old 'out the backdoor and over the fence while the suckers knock on the front door' one needs to be at least as exceptionally talented and trained as a barely scraped through training, first day on the beat greenie kiddie cop....poor old Hans, as a mere world expert in the detection of hidden WMD how could he ever have been expected to show himself equal to such a cunning tactic....
Are you aware that Hans Blix doesnt suffer from Down's Syndrom?

But hey, let's not let rationality ruin such a popular fad. :rolleyes:
Exactly, you're on a roll so why change tactics one sentence out from the finish line....?

The MTV generation, a force to be reckoned with. Apathetic to anything that matters, but motivated and irational when it comes to martyring anyone in authority.
Such an accurate description of me, it's like looking in the mirror, I mean aside from my not having ever viewed MTV in my life, my being passionately interested and engaged (rather than apathetic), and my being both completely unmotivated and rational when it comes to inflicting pain and suffering (such as matrydom) on any human being, your description is a flawless representation of myself...:D

He is both :p Also a comedian though :)

Well might be a point, however, alternatively how hard is to find something when you have proof of it's exact physical location?
Excellent post, Zagat. *bows*
If it isn't too offensive, i'd like to take this opportunity to provide a few Rumsfeld quotes ... if i may ...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

News conference, 12 March 2003:
"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods."

Addressing the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, October 2004:
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction and why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail..."

Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: "Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

...AND since we're on the topic, i'll give a little dessert ...
Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

Bush, May 29, 2003: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

---
So ... refutations, anyone? :gundge:

Excellent post, Zagat. *bows*
If it isn't too offensive, i'd like to take this opportunity to provide a few Rumsfeld quotes ... if i may ...

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

"Learn to say 'I don't know.' If used when appropriate, it will be often."

"I don't know what the facts are but somebody's certainly going to sit down with him and find out what he knows that they may not know, and make sure he knows what they know that he may not know."

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."

News conference, 12 March 2003:
"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods."

Addressing the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, October 2004:
"It turns out that we have not found weapons of mass destruction and why the intelligence proved wrong, I'm not in a position to say. I simply don't know. But the world is a lot better off with Saddam Hussein in jail..."

Rumsfeld, May 30, 2003: "Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

...AND since we're on the topic, i'll give a little dessert ...
Q: Weapons of mass destruction haven't been found. So what argument will you use now to justify this war?

Bush, May 29, 2003: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

---
So ... refutations, anyone? :gundge:

Unfortunately, Bush and his lackeys couldn't find their own butts with both hands and Google maps.

Evidence, people!

Give evidence!

"Saddam/Al queda, Al queda/Saddam. Same thing" George W. Bush. - Liar.

"Fool me once, shame on, shame on you, fool me... can't get fooled again," George W. Bush - Moron.

Unfortunately, Bush and his lackeys couldn't find their own butts with both hands and Google maps.

If they could then they'd outlaw access in Washington in the interest of National Security.

Unfortunately, Bush and his lackeys couldn't find their own butts with both hands and Google maps.
You know, responses like this are about half the reason why i bother going the trouble of posting like that in the first place. :D
*bows*

Sattelite surveilance isn't some super-weapon in the war on crime/terror.

:eek: There's a war on crime?? Oh crap, now they're gonna bomb my neighbour who has got a lot of unpaid parking-tickets, aren't they... :(

Unfortunately, Bush and his lackeys couldn't find their own butts with both hands and Google maps.

"As of yesterday, the Bush administration still hadn't found the source of the White House leak that outed a woman as a CIA operative. To recap, here are the things President Bush can't find: The source of the leak, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Osama bin laden, the link between Saddam and Osama bin laden, the guy who sent the anthrax through the mail, and his butt with two hands and a flash light." — Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update". :p

What do you have against homosexuals?

Don't bother, homophobes are just pissed because they can't get laid. ;)

It's a trick question - he's a moron. Ask any Canadian.

You think? I'd put his IQ at much lower than 51! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron).

As for the idiot vs liar thing, I'd say both. Although at least he isn't a spineless lying idiot like the UK's Great Leader Bliar, who really wants to be President of the United States of Europe

You know, responses like this are about half the reason why i bother going the trouble of posting like that in the first place. :D
*bows*

*offers a mug of coffee*

Glad to be of service.
:cool:

"As of yesterday, the Bush administration still hadn't found the source of the White House leak that outed a woman as a CIA operative. To recap, here are the things President Bush can't find: The source of the leak, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Osama bin laden, the link between Saddam and Osama bin laden, the guy who sent the anthrax through the mail, and his butt with two hands and a flash light." — Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update". :p
Tina Fey's nummy.
BTW, i bet if he figured out what the sheathing was around his head, and removed it, he'd eventually find his butt ... he'd deny it, and then he'd admit it after the talking points were circulated and blamed the democrats.
And then Corneliu'd post about how it was the democrats' fault.
And that lots of democrats at some point had similar things happen or something to that effect.

*offers a mug of coffee*

Glad to be of service.
:cool:
Thanks!
*sups the coffee, offers Triscuit*

Just listen to Air America Radio, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Sam Sedar and Rachel Maddow will keep you straight with facts. Watch C-SPAN anad you will see who and who is not an idiot and a liar in our government. There are many intelligent people in our government. However, no matter how intelligent they are, liars are easy to spot. The human race, and politicians are still part of that, is not set up for lying. Why do you think GW stumbles so much through his speeches. He knows they are lies. I bet Laura could tell you when he is lying. He has probably lied to her often.

Just listen to Air America Radio, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Sam Sedar and Rachel Maddow will keep you straight with facts. Watch C-SPAN anad you will see who and who is not an idiot and a liar in our government. There are many intelligent people in our government. However, no matter how intelligent they are, liars are easy to spot. The human race, and politicians are still part of that, is not set up for lying. Why do you think GW stumbles so much through his speeches. He knows they are lies. I bet Laura could tell you when he is lying. He has probably lied to her often.
*waits for conservatives to come in and start insulting and degrading everyone listed*

Triscuits are crunchy salty goodness.

You make the call! Either he's completely stupid or he's deliberately lying through his teeth. There isn't ANY other explanation.

To paraphrase..."WMD in Iraq. Intelligence tells me so."

Blah blah blah.

I won't even bother with the poll. You get the idea.

Let me set up the scenario for you.
George Bush Sr. kicked the crap out of Saddam Hussein. I mean really kicked the crap out of him. The Gulf War only lasted two months. Desperate to get out of such an awful battle, Saddam Hussein signed the first treaty the United States pushed his way. This treaty included a clause requiring him to submit to weapons inspections.
But Saddam Hussein refused to uphold that clause in the treaty. Bill Clinton even missled the sorry dictator, and he didn't get the message (http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/).
Now Bush Jr. gets ellected, and BOOM! 9-11, twin towers go down, so we're in Afganistan. Our military is busy with Bin Laden, if somebody's going to strike us, that would have been a good time.
Suddenly, large government activity in Iraq. Trucks are flocking like mad government buildings in Iraq toward their key military areas. What the freak does it look like they're doing?
You'd be stupid not to bomb the crap out of the guy again with that kind of info. It looks a whole lot like he's beefing up his military with WMDs!
The Bush administration asks the UN for assistance in removing what appears to be an immediate threat to the United States from power. The UN, without the same crap your pants fear the US has underestimates the importance this has and thinks that if they send a few guys that the entire country of Iraq can be combed over. 2 months of preperation, and Saddam Hussein lets them in.
Think of that, what can he do in two months?
That's what Bush thought. Saddam Hussein was still showing very suspicious behavior. And no way a couple of inspectors combed over all of Iraq. I doubt they even combed over Bahgdad.
Bush could say with a lot more sincerity that Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman" that Iraq had WMDs.
Granted we got in there, and all we found was a bit of hazardous material that could have been turned into bombs, far less than the immediate threat we expected, but the fact remains that Iraq at least appeared to be an immediate and dangerous threat to the United States people.
Stupid? No. I've actually met him; in person he's sharp as a tack. Seriously, all these "Bushisms" or whatever you call them, just Bush being nervous and a bad public speaker. Even super-speaker Bill Clinton slipped and said, "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." It happens.
He also didn't lie. He made a very educated guess, like Sir Issac Newton did with gravity. Yeah, Einstein proved Newton slightly wrong, but does that make Newton a liar/idiot? Don't answer; that was rhetorical.

Just listen to Air America Radio, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Sam Sedar and Rachel Maddow will keep you straight with facts. Watch C-SPAN anad you will see who and who is not an idiot and a liar in our government. There are many intelligent people in our government. However, no matter how intelligent they are, liars are easy to spot. The human race, and politicians are still part of that, is not set up for lying. Why do you think GW stumbles so much through his speeches. He knows they are lies. I bet Laura could tell you when he is lying. He has probably lied to her often.


You mean Air America hasn't financially bled itself into non-existence yet? What a pity. You know, there's a reason why liberal talk hasn't succeeded very well in this country. It's because most people in this country don't agree with liberal politics. Not that you could discern that from reading posts in this forum, though. This is a nice little haven from reality you all have here. A little bit incestuous, but nice. Enjoy.

You mean Air America hasn't financially bled itself into non-existence yet? What a pity. You know, there's a reason why liberal talk hasn't succeeded very well in this country. It's because most people in this country don't agree with liberal politics. Not that you could discern that from reading posts in this forum, though. This is a nice little haven from reality you all have here. A little bit incestuous, but nice. Enjoy.
So how exactly do you know what most people in this country agree with, anyway? You host big barbeques or something?

Block parties?

So how exactly do you know what most people in this country agree with, anyway? You host big barbeques or something?

Block parties?

The liberal media tells him most of the country isn't liberal.

:eek: There's a war on crime?? Oh crap, now they're gonna bomb my neighbour who has got a lot of unpaid parking-tickets, aren't they... :( Untwist your knickers, man. Nixon declared the War on Crime in 1968, about the same time he declared the War on Drugs and the War on Cancer.

We haven't won any of those either. ;)

The liberal media tells him most of the country isn't liberal.

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

Notice how the talk shows which generates the highest ratings by far are all conservative talk show hosts. Which indicates that there is obviously a market for conservative viewpoints, and much less so for liberal viewpoints. Which also indicates that people listen to those shows, and like them and support them.

Don't know what those numbers mean to you, but it tells me that if you find one person that prefers to listen to (ick) Al Franken, I can probably find fifteen that would prefer to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Reality is knocking. Oh, don't bother answering. You haven't yet. Why start now.

Untwist your knickers, man. Nixon declared the War on Crime in 1968, about the same time he declared the War on Drugs and the War on Cancer.

We haven't won any of those either. ;)

Can we have a War on War yet?

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

Notice how the talk shows which generates the highest ratings by far are all conservative talk show hosts. Which indicates that there is obviously a market for conservative viewpoints, and much less so for liberal viewpoints. Which also indicates that people listen to those shows, and like them and support them.

Don't know what those numbers mean to you, but it tells me that if you find one person that prefers to listen to (ick) Al Franken, I can probably find fifteen that would prefer to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Reality is knocking. Oh, don't bother answering. You haven't yet. Why start now.
Don't make me start paraphrasing Oscar Wilde's take on cynics.

http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34

Notice how the talk shows which generates the highest ratings by far are all conservative talk show hosts. Which indicates that there is obviously a market for conservative viewpoints, and much less so for liberal viewpoints. Which also indicates that people listen to those shows, and like them and support them.

Don't know what those numbers mean to you, but it tells me that if you find one person that prefers to listen to (ick) Al Franken, I can probably find fifteen that would prefer to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Reality is knocking. Oh, don't bother answering. You haven't yet. Why start now.

McDonald's serves the most hamburgers to the most people. What conservative talk shows and McDonald's have in common are that they are both bad for you.

Yes, and apparently, like McDonalds, a certain former Democrat President leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Can we have a War on War yet?

If Bush ever officially declared a War on Intelligence, he could honestly say we're winning the war.

Can we have a War on War yet?I'd settle for a War on Idiocy or even a War on the Over-use of Over-hyped Rhetoric.

Don't make me start paraphrasing Oscar Wilde's take on cynics.Whip me. Beat me. Quote Oscar Wilde to me? :D

Don't make me start paraphrasing Oscar Wilde's take on cynics.

Probably this one.....

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

But this one is probably closer to the truth......

Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
Oscar Wilde

Stupid? No. I've actually met him; in person he's sharp as a tack. Seriously, all these "Bushisms" or whatever you call them, just Bush being nervous and a bad public speaker. Even super-speaker Bill Clinton slipped and said, "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." It happens.
Though that spesific quote is attributed also to Bush (Sr. and Jr.), Kerry, Gore and Quale, but apparently originated from Mad Magazine (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/candidate.asp) in 1991. ;) (This I learned in another quote-thread :fluffle: )


He also didn't lie. He made a very educated guess, like Sir Issac Newton did with gravity.
Ignoring the reports of the weapons inspectors on the ground, not letting them finish their work, and... Ah, this has been done before anyway. Suffice to say that even if it was only an educated guess, it was wrong, and the Bush-administration should be held accountable for it.

As for your extreme simplification of the prelude to invation, well that would require a thread of it's own to adress.
You should do some research on that subject, though. It's quite interesting.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.
Report delivered 7th of March 2003 (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm), last report before the invasion.

Triscuits are crunchy salty goodness.
Rosemary and garlic!
Mmmmnumm!!
:)

Which also indicates that people listen to those shows, and like them and support them.
Aside from inundation and a severely lopsided pervasion of rightwing OWNERS and distributors, i should point out the beautiful fallacy of your quote here ...
I listen to Savage and those other Bush fellators for the same reason i screen through Bush presentations ... occasionally i get a gem of true inflection of character, and often, i'm amused at their compensatory bravado and laughable angle of "facts".
Keep your friends close ... da da dadada dada ...
To be fair there's certain people here i support since they provide comedic relief and do a good job to show just how morally bankrupt the rightwingers are (while attempting only to show their *heil* allegience). They're good at shooting down their whole side.
;)

He's both

Probably this one.....

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

But this one is probably closer to the truth......

Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
Oscar Wilde
He didn't say he'd quote them, he said don't get him started on paraphrasing them.

Good quotes though. Now how 'bout a little Voltaire?

I wouldn't say he's an idiot. If you can become president of the USA for 8 years and convince millions of people that you need to invade a small sovereign country for your own national security then you've got to be pretty smart. Or at least have some smart advisers.

A liar definately, but then what politician isnt?

...

A liar definately, but then what politician isnt?


But isn't "politician" from the Latin, meaning "to lie in order to control the public" ? :D

*waits for conservatives to come in and start insulting and degrading everyone listed*

You mean Air America hasn't financially bled itself into non-existence yet? What a pity. You know, there's a reason why liberal talk hasn't succeeded very well in this country. It's because most people in this country don't agree with liberal politics. Not that you could discern that from reading posts in this forum, though. This is a nice little haven from reality you all have here. A little bit incestuous, but nice. Enjoy.

QED

I particularly like how he ends his post with obvious flame-bait if not outright flame. Way to go.

He is an idiot and a liar, ask anyone apart from his wife and his pals in washington.