Guest 2pac Posted August 31, 2003 Report Posted August 31, 2003 Just see this as a example Donald Rumsfeld died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St.Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?" St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move." "Oh," said Rumsfeld, "Whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie." "Incredible," said Rumsfeld. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life." Where's Bush's clock?" asked Rumsfeld. "Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."
madhaha Posted September 1, 2003 Report Posted September 1, 2003 I don't know, the ending is sort of telegraphed from the beginning.
Aileron Posted March 16, 2004 Report Posted March 16, 2004 nah, its too old. I think it has been used with every President since Nixon.
Dav Posted March 16, 2004 Report Posted March 16, 2004 lmao i like that one. The fact that we all relate to it shows how corrupt the us goventment is tho.
Aileron Posted March 16, 2004 Report Posted March 16, 2004 No, it just shows how negative idiots can be.
Dr Brain Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 Let me get this straight... You are complaining about a prez who didn't know that the intel was bad (And the Brittish still say it was good). When you want Clinton back, a president who lied under oath?
Aileron Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 That is true; There is a difference between lying and being incorrect. There was very good reason to believe Iraq had WMDs. Couple this with the fact that Iraq was the first nation in history to actually disarm when told to disarm by force. Bush played the probabilities, and the less probable situation was the reality. You can't really blame him for that.
Dr Brain Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 I personally think that the question isn't weather Saddam had them, but rather where are they now? If he didn't have them, he would have had no reason to not submit to inspectors.
Vile Requiem Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 Bush is hardly a saint. All one needs do is check out the Niger "do-*BAD WORD*-ent" history for proof of that: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quan!@#$%^&*ies of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.A little over a month later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed this allegation as a fraud, based on a crudely forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent which had been sold to the Italian intelligence service and then was passed on to the British and the US. The Bush administration nonetheless stood by the charge for another three months. On Sunday, July 6, former amb!@#$%^&*ador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that he had traveled to Niger in February 2002, at the request of the CIA, to investigate the claim, and had found it had no credibility. Among other things, he discovered that Niger’s uranium reserves were controlled by a four-power consortium. Germany, France and Japan, among others, would have been notified of any Iraqi attempted purchase. “It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?†- Joe Wilson Sure, that indicates the intel was bad. However...In the preparation of an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, in which Bush first elaborated to the American public his policy of a war to “disarm Iraq,†Tenet personally intervened with the White House to remove a reference to seeking uranium in Niger from the text. So dubious was the claim that when Secretary of State Powell laid out the US case in his February 5, 2003 speech to the UN Security Council, only a week after the State of the Union speech, he refused to include the Niger allegation, even though he agreed to include several equally specious charges, such as the claims about Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes and the suggestion that Iraq had close links to Al Qaeda. Now, let's do some simple math. Jan 28 - Oct 7 = 3 months, 3 weeks since a speech in which the CIA DIRECTOR (ya know, the intel guy) told Bush not to reference the Niger claim. That's enough time for a kindergardener to learn shapes and colors, much less someone who graduated from Yale to figure out that a "badly forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent" with the signature of a guy who hadn't held said position for 10 years before the signed date probably isn't a good idea to use as it would be lying to the american public. There's no need to even venture into the rest of that SOTU speech, of which most of the claims about Iraq were proven to be, class? FALSE. But sure, blame Clinton's Penis for the 540 dead soldiers. He did it.
Tascar Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 What would you suggest that be done about the current terrorist threat. Are you proposing that it would have simply vanished if Gore would have taken office? What DID slick Willy do to prevent international terrorism? Surely there is some value to your statements VR?? Doesn't appear that you have an answer...only blame to assign.
Dr Brain Posted March 17, 2004 Report Posted March 17, 2004 Bush is hardly a saint. All one needs do is check out the Niger "do-*BAD WORD*-ent" history for proof of that: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quan!@#$%^&*ies of uranium from Africa." – President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address. A little over a month later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed this allegation as a fraud, based on a crudely forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent which had been sold to the Italian intelligence service and then was passed on to the British and the US. The Bush administration nonetheless stood by the charge for another three months. On Sunday, July 6, former amb!@#$%^&*ador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that he had traveled to Niger in February 2002, at the request of the CIA, to investigate the claim, and had found it had no credibility. Among other things, he discovered that Niger’s uranium reserves were controlled by a four-power consortium. Germany, France and Japan, among others, would have been notified of any Iraqi attempted purchase. “It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question, what else are they lying about?†- Joe WilsonSure, that indicates the intel was bad. However...In the preparation of an October 7, 2002 speech in Cincinnati, in which Bush first elaborated to the American public his policy of a war to “disarm Iraq,†Tenet personally intervened with the White House to remove a reference to seeking uranium in Niger from the text. So dubious was the claim that when Secretary of State Powell laid out the US case in his February 5, 2003 speech to the UN Security Council, only a week after the State of the Union speech, he refused to include the Niger allegation, even though he agreed to include several equally specious charges, such as the claims about Iraq’s purchase of aluminum tubes and the suggestion that Iraq had close links to Al Qaeda. Now, let's do some simple math. Jan 28 - Oct 7 = 3 months, 3 weeks since a speech in which the CIA DIRECTOR (ya know, the intel guy) told Bush not to reference the Niger claim. That's enough time for a kindergardener to learn shapes and colors, much less someone who graduated from Yale to figure out that a "badly forged do-*BAD WORD*-ent" with the signature of a guy who hadn't held said position for 10 years before the signed date probably isn't a good idea to use as it would be lying to the american public. There's no need to even venture into the rest of that SOTU speech, of which most of the claims about Iraq were proven to be, class? FALSE. But sure, blame Clinton's Penis for the 540 dead soldiers. He did it.Bush said in his state of the union that it was Brittish Intel that Iraq had attempted to purchace the uranium. The Brittish STILL stand by this intel. If the do-*BAD WORD*-ent was the only thing the Brits were going on, don't you think they would have changed their stance by now? But do you realize that every major country thought he had a WMD program? There was NO question from ANYONE (at the time) as to weather or not he had it. The only question was if it was worth it to disarm him. Now, it turned out that a single do-*BAD WORD*-ent was a bad peice of intel for his nuke program. That doesn't say anything about the other programs everyone (including the French, Russians and Germans) believed he had. Now, lets do a little recap, shall we? #1. If he didn't have them, why the heck would he risk military force to keep "nothing" hidden? #2 He WAS in violation of the Cease Fire that ended the gulf war. The token missiles he destroyed a few weeks before the invasion removes ANY doubt about that. #3 Did anyone believe that if we left him alone, he WOULDN'T aquire WMDs? I'm not blaming Clinton for any of this terrorism. He had oppurtunites to stop it, but that doesn't mean he is responsible for it. Only the terrorists and those who supported them can be held accountable. Look at that number of dead. 540. Do you know how many Iraqi people Saddam killed a week? Do you know how many American people died in the WTC attack? Put things into perspective. I think that 540 dead soldiers liberating a country that was a clear and present danger to the security of the world is a small price to pay.
Vile Requiem Posted March 18, 2004 Report Posted March 18, 2004 Since when was Saddam responsible for 9/11?Oh ya, the OTHER bearded guy did that, the one who hates saddam's guts.19 of the 20 hijackers were SAUDI, not IRAQI. No questioning as to the validity of the war? Then why the Freedom Fries?And the prevention of UN action thanks to Russia's Security Council veto?Or perhaps you think Micronesia's fighter planes, Azerbaijan's panzer units, Rwanda's AIDS wmd, Japan's complete and total lack of ability to enter a conflict thanks to their cons!@#$%^&*ution (written by the US no less after WWII) and Mongolia's Genghis hoardes are helpful to this "coalition"? Danish troops haven't seen any fighting period.Polish troops are there so that Poland can buddy up with the US after that whole Warsaw Pact thing (total: 200 troops.)We saw what just happened in Spain, and their troops are going back home (they are thusly out of said Coalition as of yesterday).Britian's run by Tony Blair, who just happens to be a moron who does what Bush says (Note: Britian HATES Tony Blair for supporting bush) NO arab country members except Kuwait, which is a US puppet.The czechs sent a chemical/biological warfare unit (VERY USEFUL).South Koreans have turned against us.Estonia's using Priit to hack into Saddam's secret computer files. Quite a few eastern-european countries are looking for the US to give them money through NATO for their "support", estonia being one of them. Only El Salvador, Nicaragua and Colombia, where the US is funding a huge anti-drugs war are members from the West. Only Britian and Austrailia have provided significant troops towards the effort. So this mainly comes down to George Bush and Tony Blair's jolly little venture into Iraq. Now, it's pretty obvious that the alleged stockpiles the US claimed Iraq had are not exactly Terrorists themselves. Terrorists have the uncanny habit of being small and easy to transport, allowing themselves to slip right into other countries. WMD do not. WMD need to be contained in cool, dry enviroments, of which Iraq has little of. Even if we're expected to believe that Saddam gave the weapons to others, why in -*BAD WORD*- would he do such a thing? Even a 5 year old could recgonize that he has LESS army then got whipped in Desert Storm, and none of the cool stuff like scuds either.Thus, odds are he's going to be captured and lose power. Why would such a man give up a huge american-killing-oppurtunity as a massive stockpile of WMD, which is the ONLY WAY he could have won this war? It's very simple. Saddam knew he had jack -*BAD WORD*- up his sleeve, but didn't want to get invaded and lose power. Therefore, he bluffed like any sane person would do. Bluffing has 2 advantages...1) You might not get caught, and you keep the people afraid of you (which prevents INTERNAL rebellion), and 2) You get to go down a martyr. 2 is key here. As we're seeing from the internal fighting against the US now, Saddam had quite a few loyalists who wouldn't have been inspired if he just turned himself in. He also could probably see that because of said fighting, the country was going to go down the -*BAD WORD*-ter. What better way to get back at George Herbert Walker Bush (a man he tried to have killed) then to make his son look like a fool? Now, as for the aquiring of WMD...it is certainly possible to buy things on the black market. However, Iraq had no economy to purchase these weapons with. Otherwise, why would we need to rebuild the country with clean water and electricity?Bagdad was pretty much the only city even close to US standards. For more about why saddam had token missles, let's look at the Republic of Japan. Japan as we all know lost World War II to the Americans. When their cons!@#$%^&*ution was drawn up, McArthur added in a clause stating that the only military Japan could possess would be for defense of their nation only. Iraq is a nation that was formed out of 3 seperate factions that hate each other. And as we can see now, there's a LOT of rpg's and machine guns in the country that odds are Saddam had NO IDEA ABOUT. Therefore, what he had was the only line of defense between Iraq being stable, and Iraq desending completely into chaos. Therefore, Russia didn't see enough of a threat in Saddam having a few token missles to go in and put a end to him or to commit UN troops to do such. And even if you ignore all that, shouldn't the massive anti-war protests all around the globe perhaps raise a bit of a red flag that perhaps Bush is lying to get revenge against the man who tried to kill his poppy, with Oil as a side bonus? Nah, the Project for a New American Century wouldn't want you to know that. What's the PNAC? They are a fun little neo-conservative lobbyist group that seeks to project American Dominance upon the world in the absense of the Soviets. Basically, make sure America remains the sole superpower in the world by securing the resources and world favor/fear to accomplish this. Members? Nobody much, except:-*BAD WORD*- Cheney - Vice PresidentDonald Rumsfeld - Secretary of DefenseRichard Pearle - Thinktank DudePaul Wolfowitz - Deputy Undersecretary of DefenseJeb Bush - Florida Govenor and bro of Pres. BushDan Quayle - GHWB's Vice PresidentSteve Forbes - Far less important then the others, just a recgonizable name And many more people that I don't have time to research PNAC to Clinton Letter - Note that Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, and Perle all co-signed. Note where those men are today. Note that they wanted to invade Iraq in 1998, not to mention securing interests (oil, "friendships", security) around the world. Fun Quote:It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. Let's recall that we thought that the oil fields would pay for the country's reconstruction. Let's also recall who is in the PNAC. Furthermore:Bush Letter, 2001Bush Letter II Both of these letters lobby Bush to do the exact same thing they wanted Clinton to do...go in and take Saddam out of power. Pardon me if i'm not just a tad scared that a group of radical neo-conservatives have taken the power in Washington and that's why Saddam is gone today. Bush is an unfortunate puppet in all of this.
Bacchus Posted March 18, 2004 Report Posted March 18, 2004 Guess what? I'm with stoopid There's so much -*BAD WORD*- coming out of the white house it's a wonder why some ppl still think Bush is clean...it's borderlike ...omg, dare i say it...YES! INTEGRISTS! americans, killed? oooh my, aint' it bad...c'mon get real. off course it's bad, sad and a very profound wound that'll never heal, etc. But it's reality baby, you're messing with the world, the world messes with you. yea, geopolitics is a -*BAD WORD*-. In my mind's eye, Bush & Cheney '04 Inc. is as much a terrorist group as anything else. i'm drunk so... "don't worry america, i'm just having fun...you know i love you" anyway, peace (before all the flaming).Have fun, be nice, take care.bye.
MonteZuma Posted March 19, 2004 Report Posted March 19, 2004 ...I think that 540 dead soldiers liberating a country that was a clear and present danger to the security of the world is a small price to pay.Regardless of what people thought about WMDs it is clear that Iraq wasn't a clear and present danger. Hindsight tells us that. Blix et al told us that before the invasion. The French and Germans et al didnt think he was a clear and present danger either. 540 dead soldiers is only a small price to pay if you aren't one of the dead - or one of their family or friends. Not to mention the seriously injured and permanantly disabled. Not to mention the civilian and Iraqi soldier deaths. This conflict can't be summed up by saying it is worth it coz only 540 westerners died.
Recommended Posts