where are the weapons of mass destruction thats all i want to know ..did i miss something

=============================================================
where are the weapons of mass destruction thats all i want to know ..did i miss something
=============================================================

Another gratuitous assertion...here, I'll reply to it gratuitously...

Gratuitous replys
1. Bush never said that Iraq had WMDs
2. What are you talking about, the WMDs were found. It was all over the news.
3. The WMDs were found, but the illuminati covered it up.
4. Martians took them.
5. They were used on our troops and resulted in the death of 100 trillion Americans.
6. They were eatten by hungry Iraqis, who then turned into Zombies and they are even now rampaging across the Middle East.
7. Bill Clinton stole them to use as sex toys on Monica.
8. John Kerry stole them and then used them to kill innocent Vietnames citizens.
9. Al Gore took to and plans to use them in his fight against Man-Bear-Pig.

Do you get the point? I can say ANYTHING if I don't have to offer proof. You guys are setting a standard that accusations can be made with no proof offered to back it up.

Clearly you missed something, there was an entire discussion regarding that stuff. Unplug your right ear please. It seems only your left ear hears at all. I'm not here to educate those who ignore facts. With the right mindset though you can pretend the discussions never happened. Cheers.

There was a lot of concern about biological and chemical weapons. Biological weapons are easy to make, simple to hide and easy enough to move. Saddam had an ongoing biological weapons program. He was required to prove he got rid of them, but he offered no proof. He had an ongoing chemical weapons program, he killed enormous numbers of people with them, no dispute about that. He was required to prove he had gotten rid of them, he did not offer that proof. So the question was not whether he had them, but whether he met the terms of the cease fire and proved their destruction.

These were the things that led to the second Iraq war, not lies. These were always the foremost issues, not uranium from Nigeria being denied by a moveon.org primary supporter (Wilson).

Read up on Wilson and his report, his politics, and what was not included in his report. Then consider whether in fact it might have been his report that was a lie. The general consensus at this time is that he didn't investigate the matter but simply reported that the uranium connection with Iraq and Nigeria was a lie. He never gave it credence enough to investigate it. He also ignored more significant evidence of Iraq uranium activity in greater Africa. Get over it because one obvious liar can not make the case that Bush lied about the same matter. If you can't recognize that there is no reasoning. Please vote for Ron Paul as an independent in the general election.

In the last days before the recent imbroglio in Iraq, large numbers of people escaped to Syria and took large amounts of cargo with them. So if it upsets you so much that you never saw Biologicals or chemicals in Iraq, consider that much of that may have gone to Syria with the running elite.

If you refuse to consider that possibility, than you are have a closed mind to significant details. If you ignore facts, you can't be helped.

well it says that the cia never found weapons of mass destruction and that anything found wasnt even useable also you say that the weapons went by way of syria...wheres the proof..like you said you can say anything is there anything tangible other than other peoples words i want to see them if not ..no proof..spidercmb

tombraider,

philosopher gave you a great break down.

1) We know Saddam had WMDs.
2) Saddam refused to offer proof that they had been destroyed.
3) Saddam refused inspections
4) Convoys were photographed, by satellites, leaving Iraq
5) Caches of WMDs were never found.
6) Individual WMDs were found throughout Iraq.

Now you have to take all that evidence and use it to support an argument. If you say "There were no WMDs". Then you are ignoring facts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and only accepting item 5 as factual. That's being very closed minded and shows that you have a conclusion and are looking for evidence to support it.

no i really havent formed a conclusion i just wrote on the computer search and asked "did president bush ever lie about weapons of mass destruction on iraq"and it states that he did and that none were ever found although hussein didnt comply with the u.s and said convoys left iraq i still havent seen any tangible proof all seen is words and pictures of what i know not ,im not saying its not possible i just need tangible proof,im not arguing with anyone ..now as far as putting hussein to death what was so different as to what he did versus what we did ti hiroshima and nagasaki..would you not agree what we did to the people of japan was a mistake as far as my understanding there were no military targets we just wanted to test the bomb ..i just find taht some of the things we do as hypocritical..im not on anyone side just looking to understand thats all

tombraider,

Yes, I completely disagree with you. Every study done on WWII has shown that the government had no plans of surrender, even though they were clearly losing. The death toll would have been much greater, if we hadn't hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Did Bush lie? Well, a lie is a known falsehood. Since the Intelligence community had been saying since at least 1998 that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his WMD programs, what Bush said was true to his knowledge. Many democrats had the same intelligence as Bush had and they came to the same conclusion. So while it is possible that Bush was wrong, it is extremely unlikely that he lied. Especially when you look at 2000, just one year before he took office, and you see Clinton, Gore, John Kerry and John Edwards all talking about Saddam's WMDs. So the Intelligence was possibly wrong, but the whole thing could have been avoided if Saddam had simply lived up to the peace agreement which he signed.

Fark the Dems and fark the reps, they all suck. GO COLBERT!

Ok, so you guys are whining about a lack of evidence, to something that if anymore obvious, would bite in the @$$. Then go through the trouble of proving a pretty decent point, that he's not backing any of this stuff up. Just to turn around, and do it yourself. Who said, and "backed it up" that they actually found anything, in irac. Personally, I think whether or not they had umd's, is irrelivant. Saddam, was evil. With or without them he should have been deposed. The point though, is that bush went in there with no plan of action past, get saddam, Yeah! Which resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people between them and us. If you really want a list of his lies, deceptions, and criminal behavior, you'll have to give me a couple years to write it all down for you. The list is just soooooo loooonnnggg.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist to look at what they told us about 9/11 to know they lied, about at least some of it. You don't have to be brilliant, to see price gauging in gas prices, or to wonder why this just happened to occur, when we elected a man who's family fortune is made in oil. So far as clinton lovers. I think he was crooked just like the rest, but at least he respected the system enough not to make a mockery. If there is one thing bush has proven, its that if Clinton hadn't ALLOWED us to attack him about monica lewinsky, none of his troubles would have occurred. Bush has proven that its dang near impossible to get anything out of a president who doesn't want to give it up. Not to mention that, the fact that he holds onto his secrets so tightly, probably denotes some pretty bad skeletons in his closet. Though, you're right that, "probably", isn't exactly evidence of wrong doing.

The reason noone wants to point out the obvious to you, though, is that it would take too long, and the things you want proven to you, would be aquivalent to trying to prove its daytime. You could pull up a chart with time zones, and astrological diagrams and equipment proving the exact location of the sun in relation to the spin of the earth, but why go through the trouble when all this idiot has to do is open a window. The fact is that there is more evidence that he is lying, in the form of documentation, books, articles, and testimonies, plus a little common sense,and first hand experience, than there is proof than he isn't lying, and decieving. So, how about you prove that he isn't lying, and provide evidence. Because we aren't talking about, someone who said "unicorn exist, prove me wrong." we're talking "grass is green, prove me wrong." if you can't figure this one out on your own, then you probably aren't going to be able to keep up with someone proving what a bad guy bush is.

I'm sorry if I offend, but how blatant does it have to get, before people stop asking us to point out the obvious. The skiyrocketing prices of not only gas but everything else. The national debt. The debacle that is Irac. The abuse of american citizens, in airports, train stations, and bus stops, by security. We could walk on that plane naked and terrorists would still find a way to blow it up. The alienation of the rest of the world, by this administration. Lobbying a 700 mile wall to stop immigration, whilst not once asking what might be wrong with our immigration policies, that would cause a person to risk DEATH crossing the desert, rather than walking down the street to do it legally. Part of the reason some people want to make it easier on the illegals is because some of our hardest workers are illegal immigrants. Criminals aren't the only people trying to cross our borders. I could go on and on, about all the mistakes of this administration, but what would be the point. If you don't see it yet. You have blinders on, so huge, you probably would have believed Hitler was a pretty swell guy, if you had lived back then. Bush has preyed on the trust of the american people, and used it to gut us. I don't care who gets elected next year, but they're certainly going to have their work cut out for them.

if you use an internet source for an argument

you should post the link

and just because you have an internet source

does not make it true

media watch..did someone actually say liar that was one of the links..i looked it up under"did president bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in iraq"there are several links that says he lied and since no one was there i think all the information comes from the media ..who you believe is up to the individual..thats my only conclusion

if the plan was to get saddam ..whats wrong with one man ..one sniper one bullet..no war

Adj made a point I was going to make. This is an internet age. On the internet you can find plenty arguments to support any position you want. They can be extremely wordy and still ignore the facts.

Somehow people have to filter the things they read because otherwise you have to believe opposites. When you read articles you need to take a look at its source, the writer, publication, whatever and add some weight for veracity.

If you consider sources, then consider other facts and think about whether what you are reading fits with the rest of the facts it will be a lot easier to resolve.

Quix, nice try, but mostly I disagree with all you said. I see where you are going with it, and at least you have given it some thought, but I think a little more time at the drawing board wouldn't hurt.

Hillary won't be president, nor will Obama. For that matter, even Condi will never be president.

Why, you ask?

Simple.

There are FAR too many rednecks(on both sides of the political fence)living in this country that will NEVER vote for a woman or minority for president, despite their political views. Talk is just talk until you enter the voting booth.

Who'll win in 2008?

I don't know, but I guarantee it won't be Hillary OR Obama. A primary victory by either of them guarantees a Republican winner in 08, no matter who they choose as a running mate.

well the only major party candidate i would even consider voting

for is ron paul and that is still a tad bit iffy

but i will vote for someone

maybe even steve by write in

wouldn't that be ironic if he won with a write in campaign

wonder how that would be handled

hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

interesting thought

wonder if the mishandling of that would start a revolt by the people