Thursday at 9 on MSNBC the truth will be told

Thing1 said:
Revisionist history is trying to pretend Bush didn't make the decision to invade.

And you can google it - Hans Blix reported in March of 2003 that inspectors had unfettered access to all suspected WMD sites. There was no need to rush to war.
Click to expand...

he also reported that as of March, there had been little progress since the February report.....

here are the last three reports prior to the war...
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/

as of March...
On 14 February, I reported to the council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there were still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you. As of today, there is more.
Click to expand...
 
Thing1 said:
That's factually incorrect. The "unfettered access" report was in March of '03, just prior to invasion.
Click to expand...


I assume you are referring to this statement?......
This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.
Click to expand...

despite what you imply by using quotes, the word "unfettered" cannot be found in his report.....
 
I don't really know what further "proof" anyone needs. The Brits said that the intel was being fixed around the policy. Guys in Bush's own admin said he made the decision right after 9/11. Colin Powell's aide said that he was given a "chinese menu" of intel and told to "make a case" for the UN. Paul Wolfowicz said that they "decided on WMD's" as the way to "sell" the war to the public.
 
Ok... for a moment we should return to the OP... what truth was told last night? Did anyone watch? What PROOF was in their propaganda piece? (I mean documentary)
 
christiefan915 said:
Click to expand...

This isn't a documentary; it's a leftist puff piece that still requires the willing suspension of disbelief. Rachel Madcow is a dedicated and determined leftist.

Comparing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the Joint Resolution is about as credible as comparing the tactics used in both wars.

You dunces are the most laughably stupid people on the planet to so willingly swill such leftist brand kool-aid in a vacuum of reality or the facts.

In order to swill Rachels special brand of stupid, we need to pretend that Saddam had not defied UN resolutions for a decade, invaded a peaceful neighbor and member of the UN, had never used WMDs in the past, posed a threat to the region and most importantly, pretend that 9-11 never happened that changed forever geopolitical opinion in the region forever; unless of course you are a gullible irrational Bush hating AmeriKa hating leftist dunce.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't really know what further "proof" anyone needs. The Brits said that the intel was being fixed around the policy. Guys in Bush's own admin said he made the decision right after 9/11. Colin Powell's aide said that he was given a "chinese menu" of intel and told to "make a case" for the UN. Paul Wolfowicz said that they "decided on WMD's" as the way to "sell" the war to the public.
Click to expand...

and Bush himself lied about the absolute certainty of the existence of stockpiles.
 
Superfreak said:
Ok... for a moment we should return to the OP... what truth was told last night? Did anyone watch? What PROOF was in their propaganda piece? (I mean documentary)
Click to expand...

This wasn't a documentary; it was a massive leftist revisionist piece intended to dupe low information dunces into hating their country. As evidenced by this thread, it worked.

These irrational Bush/AmeriKa hating dunces really are THAT stupid.
 
maineman said:
and Bush himself lied about the absolute certainty of the existence of stockpiles.
Click to expand...

No he didn't shit-for-brains; he believed the intelligence just as all the other Democrats and previous administration. But you're too stupid and dishonest to comprehend anything beyond parroting the brain dead talking points you are fed like a willing circus monkey.

The Joint Resolution contains more than 1,100 words of which only about 350 are devoted to the question of WMDs. Making his entire argument only about the WMD issue is small minded buffoonery.

But even if the facts are beat into dunces like you a thousand more times, it won't have an impact on idiots like you. You really are THAT stupid.
 
Truth Detector said:
No he didn't shit-for-brains; he believed the intelligence just as all the other Democrats and previous administration. But you're too stupid and dishonest to comprehend anything beyond parroting the brain dead talking points you are fed like a willing circus monkey.

The Joint Resolution contains more than 1,100 words of which only about 350 are devoted to the question of WMDs. Making his entire argument only about the WMD issue is small minded buffoonery.

But even if the facts are beat into dunces like you a thousand more times, it won't have an impact on idiots like you. You really are THAT stupid.
Click to expand...

PROVE this claim with facts
 
Superfreak said:
Can you guys take this to a new thread? Some of us are eagerly awaiting this new proof of why we went to war. It is going to be groundbreaking... so SHHHHH.
Click to expand...


The only thing new was the actual documentation that supplied the proof of what was always speculated, the war was for oil and so George W Bush could get Saddam. The End.

The Bush administration should be on trial for war crimes.
 
Sardonic said:
The only thing new was the actual documentation that supplied the proof of what was always speculated, the war was for oil and so George W Bush could get Saddam. The End.

The Bush administration should be on trial for war crimes.
Click to expand...

Can you link us to this documentation?
 
Sardonic said:
The only thing new was the actual documentation that supplied the proof of what was always speculated, the war was for oil and so George W Bush could get Saddam. The End.

The Bush administration should be on trial for war crimes.
Click to expand...

Go talk to Obama the drone king... I am sure he can help you out.
 
Sardonic said:
The only thing new was the actual documentation that supplied the proof of what was always speculated, the war was for oil and so George W Bush could get Saddam. The End.

The Bush administration should be on trial for war crimes.
Click to expand...

LMAO; can you document how much oil the US imports from Iraq to prove your claim? Or is this just another loony leftist, "because you say so. "

You people are shamelessly stupid, gullible and uninformed. No wonder you would believe anything produced by MSNBC and Rachel Madcow.
 
Sardonic said:
The Bush administration should be on trial for war crimes.
Click to expand...

This is the most repugnant and stupid claim any leftist can make. And you morons wonder why you get insulted when you make such repugnantly stupid caims.

But even when some of the Democrat morons brought this up when hey had both houses of Congress and the White House, their counterparts refused knowing how idiotic such a circus would be without any evidence.

War crimes? You truly are a repugnant fool.
 
Superfreak said:
Go talk to Obama the drone king... I am sure he can help you out.
Click to expand...

Talk about a meltdown, was your Friday cocktail canceled? Jeebus, you are a jerk today.

At least we know now you fully supported the Iraq War and the Bush administration.

I am fully aware of Obama's crimes. This thread is about Bush but nice try at changing the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top