Just heard a tape of Rumsfield saying he knew exactly where WMD's were, and then denying it in a press?
540099
I watched the press conference on CNN the other day when Rumsfeld still wouldn't answer any questions. They were arresting people and removing them from the room when asked why he couldn't tell the truth. One of them was a CIA agent, Rumsfeld still wouldn't answer. He is a joke to the American people and needs to be removed.
877696
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110306K.shtml\n\nI didn't think anyone could be that crazy, but apparently the Republican majority required the Admin. to publish facts regarding pre-war intelligence to prove (politically) that Saddam had WMD's...and some fool put that info on the net in Arabic
1136952
How funny.  Just last week, people were talking about lying about WMD.  Now it's changed to imminent threat to America?
1087100
Well. look at his statements, and how they tend to change when light is shed on the unlikelihood of their veracity. It's almost like a con-man trying to tailor his answers to fit the new questions.\nSeriously though, you talk about at least four different issues: \n\n• WMDs and the case for the war with Iraq;\n\nEveryone but bush (to his discredit) has admitted that clearly, more information was needed to justify going to war. Moreover, it was the clear politicization of intelligence (and probably more than a bit of corporate interest) that led the White House to be concerned with the Mideast growing unstable and interrupting the flow of oil from the region. By taking the initiative of utilizing the troops already in place in the region, he made the critical error of not arranging to have larger, more powerful countries back his play. An argument has been made that he chose to make America the powerful lead partner in this war/venture so as to ensure that America had primary superpower access to Iraq's oil supplies (and not have to quibble with Russia or China). A fairly reasonable course of action, if you are practicing realpolitik (like Kissinger and Rumsfeld do)...and consider the lives spent protecting oil interests a bargain.\n\n• Regime Change;\n\nWell, let's face it: Saddam was a pretty icky man, and his two sons were strong candidates for Dick of the Week when they eventually assumed the reins of power from dear old Dad. That being said, it should be important to note that the bush Administration does not intend to allow either an Islamic fundamentalist or America-unfriendly government. Watch and see if I have not foretold the future here...\n\n• Democracy int he Mideast; and\n\nThere is no saying that our flavor of Democracy is something that should be instituted over there. we have spend some time fine-tuning it so it (debateably) works forus. The folk in that region - well, in that part of the world, I think - are used to having their fortunes dictated to them at the point of a gun. Not much freedome there, black or white. No shades of gray, as democracy is (and to my reckoning SHOULD be).\nAsking them to adopt a government like ours is like throwing a 6-year old into shark-infested waters and expecting them to not only learn to swim, but to eat the sharks as well. Democracy is truly brain-bending work..maybe a bit out of the reach for folks trying to find a way to keep the lights on and the bullets out of the guns. they need time, not someone looking over their shoulders all the time telling what they should be doing.\nWhat might work better for these sorts of places is a theocratic (meaning religious-based) republic set into place. A moderate government will almost always lead to eventual democracy, but it allows the government to control the rate at which these freedoms are introduced. so as to acclimate the citizenry to them gradually.\n\n• the viability of the democratic process in Palestine.\n\nIt is viable, but it's going to take a long time. Old wounds held for over 60 years (and not millenia, as some uneducated cretins would have you think) do not heal overnight, or even in a single generation.\nGrace is required on all four sides (the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Islamic support arising from nation-states and NGOs, and the capital-driven remainder), and patience as well.\nIf Hamas wants to be taken seriously, it cannot  - I repeat CANNOT - condone violence with the end product being the destruction of the Israeli state. Advocating the erasure of another people's society is not a good way to get that society of people to help mend fences and let go of old grudges. Countries - and people too - are a lot alike in that way. \n\nSo that was the long answer to your question. the short answer is as follows: Bush changes the purpose of why we have soldiers on the ground in Iraq because he's searching for a way to maintain/manipulate the American people's focus on HIS goals, w
701978
The reason is is that people believe anything that confirms what they want to hear.As recently as a few months back failed  senate incumbent from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum stated wmd's had been found, he later backtracked on this. Yet many of the most gullible ideologues started claiming "See, see their are weapons in Iraq."
773392
Yea I mean they say NYT is committing treason when they report about wiretapping and other things every body know. NYT now point out really technical information on nuclear technology which is more advanced than where Iranians are now, posted on freakin internet. They're still trying to dig up anything to say Sadaam had WMD and their nuts. People like Rick Sanctorum bragged about finding old cache of chemical weapons materials found in Iraq that are just ancient garbage and have been sitting in dust for years. He said 'we found WMD.' While Rumsfeld led invasion allowed people to steal materials meant for chemical weapon development.  \n\nIraqi invasion basically turned up no WMD, but gave away materials to make WMD to people who were allowed to cross borders. That's just nuts. Some of these nuts don't deserve a seat in congress.
567510
The truth is... nobody knows... because the wiretaps don't need any oversight... and that's the scariest idea in the world...\n\nthey could listen to every potential democratic congressman and nominee 24-hours a day and we would never know\n\nIf you want to trust Bush go ahead, but I wonder where the "WMD" are?
1018839
Some of us with brains always knew Saddam had WMD's...only a liberal bonehead would of ever believed otherwise.\n\nHmmm guess now they will have to think up some other b.s. to throw around as their idea of what a fact is lol
827210
I find it amusing to see that people are still in denial over the WMDs we found.\n\nI guess that if they pretend we did not find them they can change the truth.
552747
I answered that in your repeated question... these are out-dated lies, after more people got involved in Iraq, no one found what your bush claimed.
50168
Following the formula of something yet to be discovered must be there defies physics. The analogy of losing something in your home and knowing it's there doesn't work because we didn't live in Iraq and physically lose, misplace or hide weapons of mass destruction. Iraq did not have plenty of time to hide weapons because resolution 1441 from the UN recalled previous resolutions that stated what would happen if there were weapons found and that sanctions should be applied unilaterly through the UN. It is doubtful that our sattilites and other technologies could not track these weapons, but could accuratly find them and define them with great detail before the war. Powell when addressing showed pictures of trucks "where" chemical weapons were made. But you can't track semis through the dessert?  There were wmd's in Iraq which came from various administrations in the 80's that were used to fight Iran. But most of that was used and the rest accounted for and destroyed by weapons inspectors. I find if very interesting that Saddam had these weapons at his disposal and decided to "hide" them instead of using them against the troops when we invaded. Not only were wmd's not in Iraq, but Iraq lacked the capabilities to launch these missles to isreal let alone the US as he had no missles with a range further than 90 miles and once a missle hit it's target there was no way to deploy the warhead (wmd) without vaporizing it. What is also interesting is that bush claimed Saddam had at his disposal airforce training planes that would spread these weapons. How is it a single engine prop could not be detected especially if we knew about them and not destroyed before refueling 40 times and days later if it were to attack the US? Yeah I agree Iraq is better off without Saddam, but one cannot change the motive after an action to justify the lack of a motive in the first place. He should be allowed to run his mouth as even he is entitled to free speech, but then again few could listen and find justification for what he did.
56387
I think just the opposite, because if the country finds out they did lie then they would be out of power.\n\nI am sorry to tell you this,  but George Bush did not lie to you about Iraq and the WMD.  He really believed they were there.  Now yes we didn't find a big giant nuclear missile,  but he thought there were WMD there.\n\nI'm really sorry to tell you this,  but if government didn't want you to find out, they wouldn't tell the reporters who report the story.\n\nEverything you see in the media,  someone was chosen to leak it. It was orchestrated.\n\nThere are no "secrets" that these guys unearth in the media.  Everything you see was chosen by someone to be released.\n\nThey all play a game and dance about how "sources told us" but the reality is there was a decision to get that to the paper to make it a story.
725964
He said he was talking about Bush, but I don't believe it for a minute.  That's just a convenient after-the-fact excuse.\n\nI'm sure he got nothing but stunned silence after saying what he did.  If he was truly talking about Bush, he should have immediately clarified what he meant.  He didn't.\n\nHe's made disparaging remarks about the military before, especially after returning from Vietnam.
1167567
Is the story really true about the hotel and gas station?  Did they really have a video of what happened and did the FBI really come in and conviscate the videos?  I would like to meet the person who investigated all that to see if it is true.  You would think that someone took some video shots of what happened at the pentagon.    The object in that video doesn't even look like a huge jet liner.   The little hole in the Pentagon was not produced by a jetliner where are the jet engine holes in the wall?  If there are any video footage it will been tainted after the Gov. finishes with it. will the world ever know what really happened on 911?     Bush doesn't seem to be too concerned about Bin Laden, He even said so himself on National TV.   They aren't really looking for him.   If they were they would have found him.  There are too many people in this world that would love some reward money to tell us where he is.  Somebody knows out there\n\nhey rocknroll5  if they have all been released, where do you view them?
126089
"Do you really believe in anything of what you're saying, or you're taking the whole world for a bunch of idiots?" And if he asked me for examples of what I'm talking about, I'd mention the War, the bombs he consented to on September 11th., the weapons of massive "distraction" as a pretext to keep stolen oil...
1129575
Did he ignore them or not believe they were correct?\n\nMaybe that is why he then believed the reports of WMD in Iraq.
805735
i dont need to watch the video to know that he difinately DID say "stay the course"  I've seen him say it several times!\n\nIts ridiculous for that man to think he never said that since hes living in the age of information. \n\nthat just goes to show how deluded and truly insane he is.\n\n**i watched it anyway... that man is CRAZY!