Posted on 06/21/2006 2:39:13 PM PDT by COUNTrecount
On Fox right now
Well Yea! Bush has had (how many)years to move these weapons to Iraq? [sarcasm off]
Andy,
What are you saying here...
After they settled in Syria we went and got them and kept it quiet?
Or the Syrian's still have them hidden?
Or am I off base here.....
I'm listening to a discussion between Kerry and Warner on the floor...Kerry is sooooooooooooo blind. He's presenting his bill for pull-out..
He absolutely insists we are now in a civil war in Iraq.
Everybody should see frontline from last night...valerie plames husband--david kay--all the usual suspects..plus, what seems like hoards of disgruntled CIA agents...all enemies of the president...It will make you MAD...It's a wonder that the president got any info on anything!!!!''''
it's supposed to be on their leftwing horrible network..I can barely stop myself from writing them a real nasty letter...nannaj11
I support this administration so much that I'm called a bushbot, a label I wear proudly. (Of course, on other threads I get called a troll but that's a different story. LOL)
Anyway, I've said for a year or two now that the president's PR campaign is as bad a campaign as I've ever seen. He has permitted it to become an article of faith that Al Qaeda had no relationship to Iraq and that the war has drawn jihadists and AQ to the region.
This is not only stupid public relations wise, it's not true and it's demonstrably not true.
It's the same with the WMD issue, as you pointed out.
I know the president isn't a stupid man. And for all those who say he's playing poker and waiting until the right moment, the right moment to talk about the relationship that went back to the early 90's between Saddam and AQ/OBL was in the fall of 2004 before the election.
I think you're right and that the administration has decided not to rehash an old issue and do the important work that needs to be done and not get distracted with playing a game of defense.
It's understandable and to an extent admirable, but letting people think the president "lied his way into war" has also had the unfortunate effect of reducing support for the war and the military and that has been most unfortunate.
bttt
Why would they need to be?
Bless you for listening to C-Span; I cannot listen to them redefine cut and run into "redeployment".
Nobody cares. < \soros>
Kerry's just trying to relive his Vietnam glory days. I wish he'd move into the 21st century.
I wish he'd move to Pluto.
He did not turn them over because the DELIVERY SYSTEMS are unique.
You can't disperse chemical/bio with just any old artillery round. If you're going to have a quick reaction, just-in-time chemical capability, you need to have the delivery systems available for placing the newly manufactured chemical into.
(They're not saying yet on TV that the chemical in these shells is degraded.)
Too bad Hannity doesn't know about freeper jveritas translations about how Saddam put his military on a war footing before 9/11, knowing full well that 9/11 was coming and thinking we'd be coming after him (Saddam) in Iraq.
That's called "consciousness of guilt" by attorneys.
It's a courtesy that presidents extend to their predecessors.
And people should realize one thing right away: Before the 2004 elections, Bush knew this. Kerry was lying right through his teeth. Hell, we knew it. The Dueffler report stated that we had found WMD's, but the conclusion was that there were none. Yeah, you figure that one out.
The whole "Bush Lied" mantra could have been stomped flat. Instead, the man put his presidency on the line to keep quiet and keep being viciously and untruthfully attacked when he could have made political hay with this. And for 2 years later he still refrained from destroying the democrats with it. Why?
This introduces what I call:
The calculus of death and media.
I saw it suggested that the "Bush Lied No WMD" crapola was sufficient for the terrorists - that they knew if they actually used WMDs then their pro-terrorist sympathizers in the Democratic party would no longer give them free propaganda. That, essentially, NOT USING the WMD's meant free anti-war spin and that was more useful for them than the few thousand deaths they could gain by using, say, a dozen sarin rounds in the Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Or in a US base in Iraq.
Conversely, it seems Bush valued the safety of our troops in-country more than he did the ability to stop the constant personal and political attacks on himself. He refrained, and allowed us time to further solidify the hold of a non-insane government in Iraq, which would eventually allow recovery and destruction of the WMDs.
It follows - that to release the info now, the administration recognizes the fact that we need to slap the hell out of the faces of the lying sh*tbags that have done so much to denigrate and destroy our country. Their bullcrap "Bush Lied Goats Died!" mantra is now shown to be an utter insane farce, a deliberate and clearly self-serving, un-American LIE to the American people for over 2 years. And this will also force the MSM to review the stated and clear reasons which led us to attack Iraq. None of which, by the way, have EVER been "proven" wrong by the left, nor have EVER been realistically argued against.
Now, the idiots on the left are standing around, realizing they have been found out as deliberately lying about the war, about Iraq, and will be seen as obstructionist for the pure simple reason of lust for power and hate for America. They now have to return to the dozen or so other reasons we voted on back in 2003 and try to prove that one or more of them was false. Which, may I remind everyone, is impossible. (Hell, the whole "WMD Stockpile required to justify the war" garbage was false on its face - and they seem to have forgotten it)
They're going to be drinking heavily tonight, I think.
"Andy,
What are you saying here...
After they settled in Syria we went and got them and kept it quiet?
Or the Syrian's still have them hidden?
Or am I off base here....."
I am asking a question. What happened to the trucks if we were tracking them? I can speculate here. Maybe Israel was right and they are in Bekaa? Maybe Russia took the WMD back to Russia so they would not be implicated? Maybe it was determined that the only things in the trucks was cash and valuables for Saddams family.
Point is, there were trucks. Powell brought it to the UN, it was shown on TV. So, where are they and why hasn't the press said anything? You would think that the press would have a field day, blaming bush for incompetence in letting WMD leave the country.
Santorum's statement tries to explain why there was so much time taken to declassify:(a) fear the terrorists would realize that stuff was out there (b) fear of revealing intel sources
If a pre-1991 chemical weapon is fired in my vicinity I simply refuse to die! :)
Chemicals degrade slowly over time. They may be very potent still.
(b) fear of revealing intel sources
Is where I would put my money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.