Remember that ROCK SOLID evidence President Bush said he had a few months ago?

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard
So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

I see a caveat that allows you to denigrate Bush even if we dig up a thermonuclear device.

If that thermonuclear device is what President Bush was talking about, he would have had to have rock solid evidence of it's exitence back in September, right?

Judging by my response, I obviously understood your argument it the first time.

Argument? Just asking a question, dude. One that, it seems, a lot of you don't want asked. Myself, I don't see why asking this question makes me a bad person.

He said he had evidence.
I asked what it was.
I was told he can't say out of fear for our sources.
I see any danger to our sources as just about negated by now.
I ask if now we can be shown.
A lot of the flag avatar members take exception to this question. Why is that?

Our sources will not be safe even after the regime is gone, there would still be those who felt they betrayed the Arab world, they would be targets for the rest of their lives if we ever revealed their identity.

What if the evidence is actually proof a terrorist cell acquired WMD from Iraq and are holding onto them for future attacks? Did it ever occur to you that in a situation like this you would not reveal what you know, you would be tipping off the enemy.

 

[Dari]

Gaard, relax, the war is only in its early stages. Time will tell as to what he meant. The war started only three weeks ago, damn. The problem with the age of communications is that people (like myself) are very impatient.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: Gaard So are recent news stories confirming the evidence that we were told existed months ago? Mind you, he did't say that WMDs existed, he said "We have evidence". See the difference?

No actually I don't see.....

OK, let me try to explain. President Bush said "We have rock solid evidence." Now, if WMD are found, that doesn't show us what this evidence was/is, right? It simply shows that WMD exist. Follow me? My question is...if the reason we couldn't be informed of this evidence was danger to our source, what's to prevent showing this evidence to us now, if the danger is eliminated?

Why do you care? Why should the president have to produce intelligence that we had when the decision was made if we have hard evidence - like Rockets filled with toxins - that confirms it today?

Just because a regime is ousted, that does not automatically mean that a source is safe. Not only that, the US may want to retain the services of that source to continue to monitor post-war Iraq.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

A lot of the flag avatar members take exception to this question. Why is that?

I haven't taken exception to anything. I merely pointed out that you've taken a position which allows you to criticize Bush no matter what happens.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Alistar7

A lot of the flag avatar members take exception to this question. Why is that?

I haven't taken exception to anything. I merely pointed out that you've taken a position which allows you to criticize Bush no matter what happens.

Has anyone else noticed how handsome NightTrain is?????

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

For chrissakes edit your post before Morph or Moonbeam starts calling my house!

Ok I'm just messing with you now

I try and keep my quotes clipped but sometimes I snip the wrong part Sorry about that

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Alistar7

For chrissakes edit your post before Morph or Moonbeam starts calling my house!

Ok I'm just messing with you now

I try and keep my toenails clipped but sometimes I forget for years on end Sorry about that

:evil:

That's ok, I spew enough ignorant statements myself, I hardly need any more attributred to me..

 

[NightTrain]

 

[Czar]

time to update the news
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1512&ncid=1480

"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide

still no wmd's found

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: CPA
Is this enough ROCK SOLID evidence for you?

I wonder if that story will hold up, or if NPR will issue a retraction saying that their information was not correct?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Czar
time to update the news
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030407/wl_afp/iraq_war_wmd&cid=1512&ncid=1480

"Smoking gun" WMD site in Iraq turns out to contain pesticide

still no wmd's found

Still doesn't mention the supposed rocket/missiles.

 

[Sxotty]

Originally posted by: Gaard


I see. I was under the (wrong?) assumption that eventually we'd be shown this evidence. I was merely being facetious when I had previously (months ago) poked fun at our president..."We have proof. No, we can't tell you what it is. You'll just have to trust me that it's good enough proof to go to war over"...but it looks like I was closer to the truth than I thought. If what you say is true, that revealing the source might not be the reason for not telling us what this evidence is, than it's probably a good thing I don't hold grudges. How many times was I ridiculed by other members who basically said "Yeah right, Gaard. And have our source and his family tortured, raped, and killed?"?

The problem is that the source could still be killed if found out, I take your stance on this issue to mean you think the war was a bad idea, the most common excuse is that a democratic state will not actually come to fruition, if that is the case then the informer would never be safe. The guy that saved Lynch is the same way, the press should not have given so much info about him, because people will figure out who he is. Everyone is not going to be suddenly happy about things once the war is finished.

Presidents always have info the populace does not have, if you have a problem with that then you should address that issue not pick out this one little point.

Why don't you write Bush a letter and ask him? Asking us what the evidence is, is pointless anyway. See how far you get .

I personally don't care if WMD are ever found, and it is completely irrelevant if his info was correct in any case, the real important point is something that no one is likely ever to know and that is whether he believed it. If his intelligence was flawed and it pointed to WMD and seemed rock solid, it could still have been completely false. Since you will unlikely ever know the motive which is the important part you should let it rest.

If you find some memoirs saying ummm, I have no evidence and I want to attack for fun then maybe you will have something worth mentioning.

 

[morkinva]

Keep asking questions Gaard, don't mind these robots here. They've already been hypnotized.

 

[Insane3D]

Just curious...why do some of you feel the need to attack Gaard for simply posing a question. He has already been accused of being a "Bush hater" and a "liberal wanker" in this thread alone. Why are you guys so sensitive to questions like these? It seems like a reasonable question to me...should we all just not ask questions and be good little Americans? C'mon people...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: Gaard

A lot of the flag avatar members take exception to this question. Why is that?

I haven't taken exception to anything. I merely pointed out that you've taken a position which allows you to criticize Bush no matter what happens.

I assure you, that isn't my intention. Yes, I am critical of our president at times. Yet not for who he is or because of the political party he belongs to. There are far, far too many members here who think that if you belong to the same political party as our president, it'd be sacrilege to offer up even the tiniest criticism. And to the other extreme, there are far, far too many members here who will criticise every decision he makes due to partisan or other reasons. I adhere to neither.

IMO, at a time when motives for war were being questioned and support was nothing to cheer about, to make a staement like the rock solid statement knowing that use of the method/source excuse meant never having to pony up was a terrible mistake. It just begs that anyone who isn't prone to believe whatever the feds say without some kind of verification must ask questions.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Keep asking questions Gaard, don't mind these robots here. They've already been hypnotized.

:disgust:

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: morkinva
Keep asking questions Gaard, don't mind these robots here. They've already been hypnotized.

:disgust:

Come to think of it, that guy rolling his eyes *does* appear to be hypnotized.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: wizardLRU

Originally posted by: morkinva
Keep asking questions Gaard, don't mind these robots here. They've already been hypnotized.

:disgust:

Come to think of it, that guy rolling his eyes *does* appear to be hypnotized.

LOL

I think its going to take me a while to get used to these new emoticons

 

[DZip]

The Bush hating liberals will never stop until Bush is gone or they are themselves victims of WMD. Other victims don't count. I can't understand how people can think Saddom is the good guy and treats his people so much better than we who live in the US. I need to win the lottery so I can get tickets for them (one way) to Iraq so they can really enjoy the good life. To bad they could not have been sent over 3 weeks ago, then they could have helped by becoming martyrs for Saddom army. Maybe they would like to still volunteer.

I have not heard of any proof that he had destroyed his WMD. That is the reason for the liberation. He had 12 years to provide proof on the destruction of all WMD and did not provide it. The ROCK SOLID evidence is that Saddom produced no proof of complying with the cease fire agreement of 1991.

 

[bigdog1218]

The ROCK SOLID evidence is that Saddom produced no proof of complying with the cease fire agreement of 1991

so, guilty until proven innocent? I think you have a gun, you therefore have a gun, and I will come to your house until I find a gun.

And I don't think too many people believe Saddam treats his people good, I don't know why anyone would, but there is no proof that any government we install will produce any more stability or make better lives for the people of Iraq. Unless we start buying their oil and actually get their economy going, but we aren't there for oil.

BTW, They'll find some chemical or biological weapons sooner or later, I don't think Saddam had the time to dispose or move all of them.

 

[Soldat]

Remember that ROCK SOLID evidence President Bush said he had a few months ago?

no? and I don't care? I'll let you bleeding heart types lose sleep over the details.

 

[UltraQuiet]

so, guilty until proven innocent? I think you have a gun, you therefore have a gun, and I will come to your house until I find a gun.

No, guilty and not in compliance with the terms of his parole. We know he had a gun, he is on parole therefore he is not allowed to have a gun and he must turn it in. He failed to do so, so back to jail he goes. Using your analogy, of course.

 

[Gaard]

DZip - << The ROCK SOLID evidence is that Saddom produced no proof of complying with the cease fire agreement of 1991.>>

As much as I'd like to take the time to show you the faults in your logic, all the while insulting your intelligence, it's fairly obvious that you're just a kid and don't warrant taking any amount of time to point out the obvious to you.

Instead I'll just say that I don't think President Bush would agree with you. At least, I hope he wouldn't.

 

[bigdog1218]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

so, guilty until proven innocent? I think you have a gun, you therefore have a gun, and I will come to your house until I find a gun.

No, guilty and not in compliance with the terms of his parole. We know he had a gun, he is on parole therefore he is not allowed to have a gun and he must turn it in. He failed to do so, so back to jail he goes. Using your analogy, of course.

Isn't that a topic of this thread, the US knew he had a gun, the rest of the world didn't know he had a gun, big difference. Please show me your evidence that you knew saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the war started. Thanks.

And before the war started saddam was turning in some of his illegal weapons, but we attacked anyway.

 

[ReiAyanami]

our rock solid evidence is "he's saddam"

nuff said. that's all we need.