T1B

Has anyone id'd exactly what this photo depicted ?

Since it's alleged, it didn't depict what was claimed, then there must be something to counter it.

1. Either the items are labelled correctly, but are in a location not Iraq.

OR

2. The items aren't labelled correctly.

OR

3. It was a doctored photo.

OR

4. Both 1 and 3 are correct.

5. Both 2 and 3 are correct.


There must be something out there I am forgetting that documents and explains this photo, but I'm drawing a blank.


TIA

DrDetroit wrote:B, Bush was not obligated to reconicle facts to the policy.

The policy existed long before he took office.

Are you having difficulty understanding the significance of that?

Are you fucking kidding me???

Did you seriously try to imply that an incomming Administration is not obligated to reconcile facts to policy as long as it was the prior Administration's policy?

Seriously, stop huffing glue.

Tom In VA wrote:Has anyone id'd exactly what this photo depicted ?

I'm not sure, but I think this might be doctored.



But seriously, Powell did show those pictures. Go to CNN or something.

No nuclear weapons, no wmd's...right?

Sin,
Democrats

So the fact that the PResident's own Commission siad the intelligence was dead wrong was a glossing over as well?

Regime change was certainly a policy consideration well before W, and the ide a of going to war might have even been one of many actions under consideration. But actually making the decision to go to war was all Bush's and his neo-con buddies idea. And if I was President and my intelligence community failed me to such a huge degree as this one did, then I would looking to roll heads instead of putting Medals of Freedom around them. To me that is pretty damning.

Tom In VA wrote:

Has anyone id'd exactly what this photo depicted ?

A missile that had a range capable of striking you know who.

Just thought I'd let you know why you're dying over there.

OK, last try.

From YOUR article --

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Back to my question....how in THE FUCK did you get "fixed means that you switch the places of words in a sentence in British slang" ?

THAT was the question, you blithering fucking idiot. Not "what was the policy" not "were certain facts used to support the policy"....the question was "HOW IN THE FUCK DID YOU WARP THE BRITISH SLANG 'FIXED' INTO MEANING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS SAID??????"

What you interpret the article to say and what it says are clearly two different things. Shouldn't you be spreading rumors about how a plane never hit the pentagon?

That clear it up for you?

Dude said that "facts were being fixed to support a policy." You said that since he used the British slang(:hugefuckingrolleyes:-btw) "fixed" that it suddenly means he was trying to say "the facts supported the policy."

THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID!

Thanks for that, Beavis. We all read it the first time.

I was just trying to figure out which elementary school class you failed to be able to pull THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WAS WRITTEN out of that?

Comprende?

No habla conspiracese.

mvscal wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:No nuclear weapons, no wmd's...right?

Sin,
Democrats

Some major stockpiles of chemical weapons would have been nice.

--Intellectually honest individual

Just dinging the Dems for constantly running the above argument.

And you're right...a stockpile or four would have been nice.

I'm not so worried 'bout that, though. Where did the tons of weaponized material go?

Marty,

You're correct. The stability of the Mid-East would be at great risk had Saddam nuked Israel.


Mvscal,

Correct. But I am curious, is there any "strategic" capital gained from letting the world know we did not find any stockpiles, when perhaps we did ?


Bsmack,

Indeed, I just figured since so many can say with authority that "lies" were told and pictures inaccurate, that maybe someone here off the top of their head would be able to cite refuting evidence. But I'll do my own homework.

Tom In VA wrote:Marty,

You're correct. The stability of the Mid-East would be at great risk had Saddam nuked Israel.

Who has the nukes over there, you knucklehead?

Saddam was gearing up to nuke Israel...:roll:


Holy fuck Tommy, sometimes...sometimes...
Sheesh...

Just thought I'd let you know why you're dying over there.

I thought it was for oil. Damn that Bush!

See You Next Wednesday wrote:So the fact that the PResident's own Commission siad the intelligence was dead wrong was a glossing over as well?

Who suggested this?

The problem is the argument is not whether the intelligence was accurate or not. The argument the Left is making is that Bush lied, pressured intelligence analysts, and fabricated intelligence.

Regime change was certainly a policy consideration well before W, and the ide a of going to war might have even been one of many actions under consideration. But actually making the decision to go to war was all Bush's and his neo-con buddies idea.

Enough of the neocon conspiracy theory, dumbass.

And if I was President and my intelligence community failed me to such a huge degree as this one did, then I would looking to roll heads instead of putting Medals of Freedom around them. To me that is pretty damning.

I agree, Tenet did not deserve the Medal of Freedom.

Ah, yes, here we see the re-emergence of the 1960's hippy in all their pussified glory.

mvscal wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Mvscal,

Correct. But I am curious, is there any "strategic" capital gained from letting the world know we did not find any stockpiles, when perhaps we did ?

You mean would it be easier to take the heat for "finding nothing" than admit that France, Russia, Germany and China were violating the arms embargo with the full knowledge of the United Nations and then be forced to do something about that?

Possibly. I guess it really isn't any more far fetched than the idea of Saddam maintaining a bluff over WMDs he allegedly destroyed.

Exactly. Thank you and RACKS galore.

http://community.middlebury.edu/~bpyfrom/iraq.gif

Seriously, dude, I know you're smarter than that. Why do you post that garbage? If you want to say Iraq was a mistake or a quagmire, or whatever else, fine. But comparisons to Vietnam, other than that both were a police action/war, are just dumb.

They type of war, the type of enemy, the strategy used to fight, the strategy of the enemy, etc, etc, etc, all are different. Basically the only thing they have in common is that people are shooting at each other.

I think the left just has some sort of weird need to paint something as another 'Nam to try to wash some of that blood off their hands. It won't work, unless there was a 3-year period that I don't know about where only 1700+ died. ...didn't think so.