posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 02:35 PM
Freddie, what good exactly has Bush done? Why not give some reasons for us band-wagoneers to not hate this empty-eyed, puppet?
(1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is
no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is
time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and
biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.'
Sounds like Saddam had a signifigant stockpile going on, where is it all now? Destroyed, 15 minutes before the war started? Buried in some
unwitting Iraqi's backyard?
(2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the
President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for
the production of biological weapons.Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.'
The aluminum tubes evidence turned out to be bogus. Nice compelling evidence there.
(3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It
possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear
weapons.And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had
used to produce chemical and biological weapons.'
Once again, one cannot simply get a U-Haul and move these facilities or bury them in some backyard. Where are these surveillance photos anyways?
And I mean real photos, not the roof of some alleged building.
(4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no
doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.'
Again, where? We are supposed to have the most advanced intelligence community in the world, but somehow *snap of the fingers* we can't seem to
find these massive stockpiles the administration insists Saddam had.
(5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson
stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.'
Where are these facts? Or is he referring to slingshots as weapons?
(6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President
stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei
frankly is wrong.'
Again, you cannot simply hide a nuclear weapon in your backyard.
(7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `Intelligence
gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.'
Where is the proof of this? The Niger claim? The aluminum tube claim? For all the proof they claimed to have, they sure are content in giving us
the worst of it.
(8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated:
`Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.all this will be made clear in the
course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.'
Where is this evidence???
(9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of
Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical
and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized
and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been
established.'
If that is true, why weren't these weapons used during the war?
(10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of
Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.'
We know where they are, but we have yet to find them? That doesn't mean you know where they are if you can't find them, it means you don't know
where they are or.......you lied and they don't exist.
Just how is history gonna prove us foolish? Where is there any truth in anything Bush says? I have asked this question many times and no one has yet
answered it.
This is not a matter of Saddam, it's a matter of innocent Iraqi, and American lives (that the hard right-winger could give a damn about) it's a
matter of principle, it's a matter of being lied to. It doesn't matter if we removed Satan from power in hell, if we did so based on lies, it
doesn't make it any more noble. (Just like the 2000 election mind you, despite whoever had the most votes, the recount was not completed, and Bush
was appointed, not elected, plain and simple)
Just how much more of the lies have to be fed to you everyday before you start calling it for what it is...
[Edited on 23-7-2003 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]