Bush Concedes their were no WMD's

[Chadman]

So, now, Bush supporters, do you still argue that Iraq had WMD's now that President Bush says they did not in his press conference today? I have to think this paints you into a pretty small corner. The President himself says there were none, so I guess you are on your own.

--------------------------

US President George W. Bush has announced that the United States will not be leaving Iraq during his presidency, RAW STORY has learned.

"Either you say, 'Yes it?s important we stay there and get it done,' or we leave," Bush argued. "We?re not leaving so long as I?m the president. That would be a huge mistake."

At a news conference today, Bush also conceded that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Bush opened his remarks at 10 AM, announcing that the nation would be offering $230 million in aid to Lebanon. The president also called for fast deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

Late in the conference, when asked what Iraq's role was in the World Trade Center attacks, the president said, "Nothing."

But he went on to suggest that by overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States could forestall future acts of terrorism by defeating resentment with hope, "and the best way to do hope is through a form of government."

 

[smurphy]

....the United States could forestall future acts of terrorism by defeating resentment with hope, "and the best way to do hope is through a form of government."

What the hell does that even mean?

I appreciate Bush FINALLY levelling with us on Iraq...somewhat. He's like Fonzie trying to utter the word "wwwrrrooo....wwwwrrrrrooooonnnnn.....WRONG".

 

[Agent 0659]

I have often wondered (silently), could a terrorist himself be considered a WMD??
:shrug:

 

[smurphy]

If your referring to Saddam, that backpedal was already used when it first became apparent we were duped into Iraq by the administration.

If Saddam was a WMD, then so are we. Although we haven't created the infamous 400,000 mass graves, we do have the blood of several thousand civilians on our hands. Frankly, I sleep better at night knowing that my country isn't the one doing the needless killings.

 

[Pujo21]

OH MY GOD--$230,000,000


To phuckin Lebanon, and then how much will it be to Israel

What about Americans that need help ?

THIS IS A DAMN SHAME

THIS IS JUST PLAIN SICKENING, giving this money to these people when we have needy Americans desparate for help----WHY CAN'T BUSH HELP AMERICANS FIRST ??:sadwave: :sadwave: :sadwave: :nono:

 

[djv]

Pujo21 Israel gets around 4 billion a year from us.
That's every year. Lebanon is a down payment to make it look like we care. Iran by way of Hezbollah is estimated to have given 10 billion in last 4 years.
So us trying to look like good guys. We haven't a chance with 230 million. Bush should have just passed it out here to the poor.

 

[Pujo21]

RIGHT


$230,000,000 would / could help a lot of people in this contry.

There people in such need of medical attention, schooling, food.

what the phuck is this chit !

why are americans being left behind when all this money goes to foreigners?

 

[Pujo21]

sorry, one other thing, how the hell is all this money available for Israel and foreigners when Bush claims that Social security is in trouble?

Sure, give all this money to foreigners and while trying to phuck the AMERICAN ELDERLY TOO who work all their lives to hear this guy say you are on your own unless you are in The Middle east, then you can have all the money of hard working americans.

enuff is enuff--i can't wait till January 2009.

 

[ELVIS]

my gas is $3.00 a gallon, milk the same, and how many other items cost too much? most Americans have to go into debt to get their kids through colleg and we are giving another 230,000,000 away- i will be sick even more than normal.

i have hated giving $$ to foreigners since high school.

how about taking 200,000,000 and hiring someone to mass produce a car that doesn't burn gasoline and works............................

or maybe fix the f'ing port in california?

or hiring a group of assassins that kill terrorrists,rapist,child molesters, felons that committ heinous crimes, etc......

fawk it.

 

[danmurphy jr]

Perfect points. America is BROKE. $230M is in technological aid. Security-Communications, etc and that is to keep in the mix. Syria and Iran has given Billions.
The worry should be: How in God's world did the majority of American voters put this stupid - unintelligible human being in the highest office in the world. America is the laughing stock of the world.
You are all absolutely correct. Billions of dollars squandered on an unwinnable war that Russia after 10 years had to give up and no lesson was learned. Sorry to rant, just is so irksome when these politicians stand up and say "Americans want this or that.:.

 

[StevieD]

I don't hear anything from the Bush apologists?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Stevie--Bill-hilliary-kerry-gore-edwards and every other person said same--when someone singles them out individually and apologizes you might get one from me.

We been through this before and will ask you same question again--name any candidate from primary of 2000-2004 from any party that "didn't" say Saddam had WMDs?

I assume we'll get same answer again--silence!

 

[StevieD]

The difference is that they didn't send 2600 soldiers to their death after being told that there wasn't any WMD.

 

[Agent 0659]

A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on the interstate. Nothing is moving.

Suddenly a man knocks on the window. The driver rolls down his window and
asks, "What's going on?"

"Terrorists down the road have kidnapped George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They're asking for a $100 million ransom. Otherwise they're going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire.

We're going from car to car, taking up a collection."

The driver asks, "How much is everyone giving, on average?"

"Most people are giving about a gallon."

 

[Chadman]

The difference is that they didn't send 2600 soldiers to their death after being told that there wasn't any WMD.

BINGO.

I expect some very loud crickets on this issue.

 

[Chadman]

The eternal comparisons to other people not in charge of our military is really not an important distinction to make - especially since those same people are eternally the ones called out as being weak on terror, would not have kept us safe, would not have fought terrorists "over there," etc. It's getting pretty old looking at the excuses and comparisons as the right wingers still pray that they can try to have it both ways in the minds of undecided Americans.

The point you make here, Wayne, is really more of a comment about our political process than any candidate's beliefs. You say these people are weak on terror. So, they realize to try to win over voters during the runup to an election that they have to make statements that stand up to Republicans who are bashing them as being weak. I submit it's alot like a Conservative who says they are strong on the environment during an election process, and then backs big industry in easing pollution regs. The democrats were looking at manipulated "evidence" and reports that Saddam had the stuff Bush said he had. Which, now, he says he didn't have. So, are the liberals wrong to have believed the administration, and in saying things mainly for political gain during an election process? Sure. On both counts. But I don't think many - if any - of them would have sent us to war against people who didn't attack us.

There is a difference.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Every swinging dick thought they would find wmd's WHEN we invaded. If you had them-used them and kick inspectors out --what is a prudent person to think?

on party weak on terror--

When your party
-- votes against Patriot Act
--bitch about effective survailiance
--panders for terrorists rights
--whine about embarrassing terrorist prisonors
--and your party's last attorney general is defending Saddam Hussein

--does country really need debate on issue?

 

[Chadman]

I don't think every "swinging dick", as you put it, thought we would find WMD's WHEN we invaded. There were those strong in their beliefs (and probably in their voting districts) that spoke out against it. And many that said those things pretty much said them when painted in a corner as being pro-terra-rist or unpatriotic by conservatives. You know it was a wildfire started by conservatives, Wayne, and people have to react in the political arena. Some believed it, yes, but again, we were all told to believe it, and we were not getting the complete truth or story. How many times have you bet on the wrong golfer because you didn't know he was injured or having marital issues that were not reported to you before making your decision? Not the same thing, but people were misled by the administration. How can you blame people for putting faith in the administration when you defend it to this day?

I know you want to gloss over the base issue here with another tirade against liberals, but this issue is not a liberal issue. It's the current administration's issue - AND FAULT.