Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Redfish]

The WMD Republican lie they “we found them” even though W his damn self admitted that “they were not there”
is what taught the Republican disinformation eco-structure that the loyal dittohead and Fox News consumer will take a tiniest shredded kernel of truth and turn it into a zillion cornfield acres of truth in support of Republican propaganda.

!!!!!WE ARE ON the OP TOPIC HERE!!!!!

This right to the righteousness of the moral majority: family values: churched Republican shepards to lie that “W found his WMD” to the flock of sheep that still believes it; was set up to succeed by the thirty years of Catholic (at first) and then white Evangelical Christianity (W said his favorite philosopher was Jesus Christ) to convince conservative voters that Republicans are holy for they saveth Baby Fetus and Democrats are evil and ate demonic killers of Baby Fetus.

“WMD were found in Iraq” and “Democrats want to kill babies after they are born” just put a Republican, democracy plundering and pillaging, fascist in the white house for a second term.

The sheep are rambling about with glee for their savior has brought them to the promised land.

come back in 4 years and let's discuss your rambling rant.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

stating what you believe to be true is not lying. His staff lied to him. His mistake was believing them.

Sheep much?


See nfbw xii,dcclic 241114 Vrvwgo12759

 

[hadit]

IDIOCRACY said: buddy George

I voted for Kerry in 2004 who did you vote for?

I'm sorry you felt that you had to admit that.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

come back in 4 years and let's discuss your rambling rant.

why you proved my point Right now.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_general_topics=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln_search_for_wmds&timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln

NotfooledbyW Administrator Jul 4, 2013 at 3:21pm Quote * If the CIA is sent in and they find something, Bush will say that war is then justified because the smoking gun was found; and yet people might think the CIA planted the evidence. -Ravenman 06-10-2013, 09:57 PM. boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...6#post16370026 I did not get a chance to ask about your reply to my point that Iraq had publically offered in December 2002 to let the CIA come into Iraq to search themselves for the WMD they thought was there. I would like to know why what you described in a potential defense argument for Bush to reject the offer prior to the invasion, would not be a much worse problem when after the invasion, the CIA was sent in to run the search for the alleged WMD - under much more fog and confusion of war. IF the CIA 'found' something after the start of the invasion meant to secure the 'most lethal weapons ever devised' would not the same claims and counterclaims be made, and wouldn't they be much more controversial duirng a US occupation of Iraq rather than if the CIA had to plant something under the noses of the inspectors while peace was still at hand. I don't see any genuine justified excuse for Bush to have rejected even a slight test of that offer. Ravenman has provided the following response to my point about Iraq's offer to let the CIA come in. (Arrg-345) President Bush's objective was to remove Saddam, not to protect the United States against WMDs. From the perspective of the Bush White House, the suspected WMD program was simply the most convenient reason to rally support for regime change, which was the stated policy of the United States Government at the time (and for the several years prior to the invasion). Since the above response was provided July 3 at 09:04 AM I have explained that I can accept all supposition and conjecture that Bush's objective was primarily to remove SH from power and the WMD concerns were really of no interest to him. But what I would like to know (Arrg-345) is why Ravenman, believing the conjecture about Bush's motive still would not seek to hold Bush accountable for turning down a chance to get real intelligence on the ground inside Iraq. Why is there a willingness on Ravenman's part to manufacture and excuse for Bush to not attempt to avoid war even if you are damn certain that he has no intention of avoiding war no matter what. Why (Arrg-345) cant we the people of the United States call Bush out on that question, as I am doing. Why should I be ridiculed and the one making up excuses for why Bush wouldn't let the CIA go on is considered some kind of normal on this forum. If you would simply understand that Bush's real goal was to remove Saddam (rather than figure out if there were WMD programs), then it becomes incredibly easy to understand that any action or policy that would jeopardize regime change was undesirable to him. Once regime change had been accomplished, who cared what inspections by the UN, CIA, Boston PD, or Springfield Gas and Electric Company would find? The goal had been achieved, and the end justified the means. {/QUOTE] See my response to the first paragraph above (Arrg-345) and I must add, that there was no justification for Bush's means for him to arrive at a decision to end peaceful inspections when they were working as seen by most of the world and world leaders in order to start a war just because he 'wanted' to do it. You'll note that this was more or less stated by President Bush and other senior officials after the war and after WMD programs were not found: the real issue, they said repeatedly, wasn't active WMD programs, it was that Saddam had "the capability and intent" to begin WMD production as soon as it was feasible, and that he was a supporter of terrorism anyway so the invasion was still justified. Ravenman is truly fooled by W if he won't call them out on that pack of lies and spin - after the embarrassing results of the WMD search was in. And why (Arrg-345) did they search for WMD for over a year costing over a billion dollars alone - if 'finding stockpiles' did not matter? What about this? Why do you pick and choose what they said late in the game. If they said what you cited in September 2002 I doubt there would have been an AUMF vote that passed in October. Why can't you find this kind of statement? April 10, 2003: Press Secretary Fleischer: War Is about Iraq’s Alleged Arsenal of WMDs - White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says, “… make no mistake—as I said earlier—we have high confidence that [the Iraqis] have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.” [White House, 4/10/2003] www.historycommons.org/timeline.j....on_of_iraq_tmln So, no. Once again you just don't get it. Bush wanted regime change, not inspections and verification, so there was no incentive to him at all to send more inspectors into Iraq. From his point of view, there were only potential downsides. Seriously, do you not understand that? So I agree. Bush had no incentive to let the CIA go in. Did the AUMF pass in Congress (Arrg-345) and then every one just sit back and go - 'well that's it, nothing we can do now' - Stupid Congress members and Senators VOTED for WAR.... Nothing can be done now. I argued with millions in the world that inspections were working. Marched in protest because inspections were working. I did that full well knowing Bush could not be trusted when he first brought up the 'axis of evil' line. And let me just call out something you said: you asked why unilateral US inspections for WMD wouldn't be a "much worse problem" after the war. Uh, hello? We're not playing alternate history games, that's what actually happened. No WMD were found after the war, and there were comprehensive reports -- two of the top of my head -- that explained why there were no WMD to be found. The fact that the US embarrassed itself with WMD claims is historically significant, but it pales in importance to the much more critical issues of the US launching an unprovoked war without international support, and the war was so botched that we had 150,000 plus troops there for a decade and sacrificed almost 5,000 American lives. The embarrassment of the US not finding WMD pales in comparison to those two outcomes. Once again Ravenman mistakes my point. I didn't want a hypothetical of why it would be much worse after the war... (Arrg-345) .... I wanted you to explain,,, well here it is again: "I would like to know why what you described in a potential defense argument for Bush to reject the offer prior to the invasion, would not be a much worse problem when after the invasion, the CIA was sent in to run the search for the alleged WMD - under much more fog and confusion of war." If you make that argument prior to the invasion, what changes to that argument after the invasion? I'm saying your argument is pointless. Can you make it have a point.

 

[Redfish]

Sheep much?


See nfbw xii,dcclic 241114 Vrvwgo12759

yes, as I said, he admitted that there were no WMDs, and that his staff lied to him about them. It's called being honest and telling the truth, something you dem/libs cannot comprehend.

 

[Redfish]

why you proved my point Right now.

what point? you have never made a valid point. just left wing propaganda postings, you are truly a sheep (known to your dem masters as a useful idiot)

 

[whutTHEYsay]

what point? you have never made a valid point. just left wing propaganda postings, you are truly a sheep (known to your dem masters as a useful idiot)

have you ever made a counterpoint to a point in your entire life?

 

[jc456]

Bush lied about WMD. You like being lied to do ya?

all of the war mongers in DC did.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Democrats have no credibility they lost that. Obama , attacking Libya without any Congressional approval, Obama trying to circumvent Congress by using an EO on immigration and it was found unconstitutional, Biden knowingly trying to pass an EO to forgive student loans that was ruled unconstitutional. Then you have the leaders of the Democratic Party try to pull of a fraud and lied to the American people about the mental health of Biden, they support the lie, perpetrated the myth that Biden was mentally fit, it was supported by Hillary and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and got the media to push the entire fraud on the American public, Only after they realized that the American people could no longer be fooled, when the realized he couldn’t win did they force him out. The Democratic Party was very willing to put America in jeopardy to keep power, so bitch all you want about the Republican Party, the left has no high ground.

 

[jc456]

NotfooledbyW xii,dcclic: The WMD Republican lie that “we found them” even though W his damn self admitted that “they were not there”. is what taught the Republican disinformation eco-structure that the loyal dittohead and Fox News consumer will take a tiniest shredded kernel of truth and turn it into a zillion cornfield acres of truth in support of Republican propaganda.

it was both parties, you should revisit history, your understanding was deleted.

 

[Papageorgio]

it was both parties, you should revisit history, your understanding was deleted.

The Clintons, Kerry, Gore, all knew what Bush knew and agreed with him but today Democrats lie about it. Neither side has a moral high ground.

 

[Frankenstein]

so, now your claim is Bush lied twice ?

Do what you want with the info! I would suggest since they never did abide with the cease fire agreement, and tried to assassinate a former President, much like democrats did with Trump we had every right to resume hostilities. Otherwise the men who died in the first Gulf war died in vain!
From the article,
The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.
The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

it was both parties,

But W was the Decider.

No Dem wanted W to force the inspectors out before they could finish the job of finding no WMD.

So you got that lie revived

thanks for reminding us

 

[jc456]

But W was the Decider.

No Dem wanted W to force the inspectors out before they could finish the job of finding no WMD.

So you got that lie revived

thanks for reminding us

nope, he went through congress and they were the deciders.

 

[jc456]

The Clintons, Kerry, Gore, all knew what Bush knew and agreed with him but today Democrats lie about it. Neither side has a moral high ground.

Clinton told Bush!!!!!

 

[Couchpotato]

Iraq had WMD. He used it against the Kurds. Against Iraq, and most was probably desteoyed in the 1st Gulf War. No one knew if any was left after his ammo dumps got wasted

The chemical weapons the US gave him?

 

[Couchpotato]

 

[Redfish]

have you ever made a counterpoint to a point in your entire life?

every day, you-----never

 

[Concerned American]

stating what you believe to be true is not lying. His staff lied to him. His mistake was believing them.

Democrats want to control how everyone thinks, acts and lives.