False pretenses! False pretenses!

okay, let's start from the beginning here.

bad intelligence:
okay, if intelligense is false, there's a big red light on each paper thet brightly glows indicating that it isn't to be trusted, amirite?

forewarning:
if it's announced on public television that tomorrow, the police will be inspecting your house for illegal substances, and you've got say, weed, wouldn't you be getting rid of it?

how long would it have taken saddam to bury his WMD's in the massive, bland desserts like the victims of his mass graves?

oh, and also, let me point out my rage against the yellow journalisim that only lets out the ABSOLUTE worst news frim iraq. whens the las time you heard anything positive out of there, and think of this: is it because there is none, or because it doen't have the eyeball-retaining shock value news channel sponsors crave?

Is there good news in Iraq? Last I heard they are just a bunch of   .. impoverished...  uh, what was I saying?
Oh ya, impoverished goat herders... um.. (brain seizing up.. must find topic that isn't idotic... POP!)
Ah, forget this.
Maybe you should talk more about Saddam's victims. That might keep my attention for a minute or 2.

Lies are false no matter how you dress it up.

>>3
Lies are false yes.
But not all falsehoods are lies.
Understand this.

So which is which? How do you know it wasn't just an exercise in cherry picking and bullshit?

They haven't been able to find much at all. That takes quite some organization on the part of Saddam. Which makes me wonder: if he had them, why didn't he use them, or at least keep them on standby?

>>5
this isn't exactly all or nothing, he could have been starting to get them, and not have been ready for the threats he was going to make with them. which would be a better choice for saddam to make:

1. attack or threaten with an incomplete stockpile of WMD's, or

2. hide, or even destroy them, and then damaging america's credibility and maybe gaining some for himself.

>>4
this is pointing out that just because what bush said about WMD's wasn't proven, it doen't mean that he was fabricating the story. when it came to the topic of incorrect intelligence, it seemed to me that they were speaking as if there were a giant red lablel indicating that the information was false on the front!

he could have been starting to get them

Manufacturing deliverable chemical and biological weapons is no small endeavour. Where are the facilities? These things are almost impossible to hide from someone taking samples, even if you try.

hide, or even destroy them, and then damaging america's credibility and maybe gaining some for himself.

Which would achieve him what? He's stuffed either way.

Given the dearth of weapons found, I think it's a simpler explanation that they were simply never there to begin with.

>>7
didn't we conclude he was BUYING them, not MAKING them, considering all the other weapons he ordered though the oil for food scandal?

and i imagine he'd want to get rid of them as soon as he heard US inspectors were coming, so what if your weapons acquisition was back to square one? the alternative to getting rid of them completely would be tha they be discovered, and amrica has a war WITH the backing of other countries. far away from a good scenario for him at all.

and, maybe they weren't there, but let's keep in mind bush himself didn't go to iraq and say he saw them, he was given intelligence that said they were there.

>>8 Fox News might have concluded he was buying weapons, then discreetly retracted the info.
All we know for sure is that he had chemical weapons at one time; we gave them to him in 1984 when he was at war with Iran.

The only reason Bush thinks that WOMD still exist in Iraq is because America has the freakin receipt.

Sand Niggers are WMDs! Just think how much they blow up stuff.

According to the US Constitution there is no law against falsifying the news.

>>7
Saddam had a very aggressive nuclear weapons program as well.  If you have not yet read it, I suggest you seek out a book called "The Bomb In My Garden" by former Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi.

Bits and pieces of things like centrifuge components are still being dug out of vegetable gardens by US troops; the level of dispersal was so high that it may take decades to find even a significant fraction of it all, assuming truckloads and trainloads weren't hurriedly moved to Syria and Iran in the days leading up to the 2003 war, the better to carry on the fight against the Great Satan.

>>13

Saddam only wanted to control the middle easy, regardless. So it's a moot point. He never planned on taking on the entire US. And besides that, we had him very well contained.

>>1

But when people say they same about the holohoax, you librals just cover your ears huh?