If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   David Kay tells Bush to "come clean" you dirty, dirty man   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 857
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

20994 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2004 at 11:25 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



857 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-03-03 12:31:30 PM  
Hello, the WMDs were a pretext! America needed to remove the shiat-eater known as Saddam for our own purposes.

Double hello -- no one really cares! Except for Kofi Annan and his biatches at the UN!

When you get to the bottom of it, you libs are taking the position that the UN is more important than the USA. Idiots.

If ever the majority of this country comes around to holding that stance -- which I don't think is the case, yet, at least -- then my friends, we will deserve to be hijacked, bombed and terrorized into oblivion.

\please, think of the children!
 
2004-03-03 12:31:44 PM  
greenpants

We were separated at birth.
 
2004-03-03 12:32:03 PM  
MrPerspicacious

Of course he had nothing to hide. He just didn't want anyone else possibly violating the rights of his people. He preferred doing that himself.
 
2004-03-03 12:32:10 PM  
Vote William Robert Brasky in 2004!

To Bill Brasky!

/ABB
 
2004-03-03 12:32:33 PM  
I'd like to thanks anathama for providing a perfect example of the type of previous statements to which I refer (although I don't think this was specificlaly PNAC... could be wrong)
 
2004-03-03 12:32:34 PM  
While I am a Bush supporter, one of my biggest beefs with him is his stubborness.

While I am an America supporter, one of my biggest beefs with us is our stubborness.
 
2004-03-03 12:33:21 PM  
Apologizing now would just *ruin* the swaggering, self-assured, arrogant cowboy style of the Bush cartel. Bush would just as soon die than apologize to the peasants.

Bush wasn't given bad intellegence at all. O'Niel said himself that bush heard only what he wanted to hear. Bush would have invaded Iraq with or without intellegence to support his premeditated decision. Halliburton wanted the oil contract ---> Bush invaded Iraq. End of story.
 
2004-03-03 12:33:21 PM  
Who can believe what is the official 'truth' any more? How is the common man supposed to know when our leaders are lying, telling half-truths or are truthful?

ANYONE?
 
2004-03-03 12:33:58 PM  
2004-03-03 12:30:06 PM MrPerspicacious
Why do you suppose Saddam wouldn't let inspectors in anyway? It's not like he had something to hide....or did he? Hmmm.


Saddam "wouldn't let inspectors in"?!? WTF are you talking about? Two questions for you: What are you smoking, and where can I get some? Or are you just making this shiat up as you go?
 
2004-03-03 12:34:00 PM  
Cyberluddite
My apologies about the neocon thing. I had the feeling that "neocon" was in reference to the foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers who call anyone they don't like as "liberals" as an insult, such as Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (among others). In short, that when right-wingers toss the word "liberal" around like an insult, that "neocon" was the "insult term" thrown back at them.
If that makes any sense at all.

Sorry for the confusion. I stand corrected.
 
YMW
2004-03-03 12:35:14 PM  
sniff.

i smells a repeat.
 
2004-03-03 12:35:18 PM  
Liberals are small minded people that attack any viewpoint other than theirs as pigheaded, wrong, and "Conservative".

Conservatives are small minded people that attack any viewpoint other than theirs as pigheaded, wrong, and "Liberal".

This is what I have gathered so far from this thread. Please continue.
 
2004-03-03 12:35:28 PM  
Can you feel it Neo-cons? Can you feel the decaying foundation of the house of lies this administration has created?

Information is MUCH more readily available to the masses, and the good ol' boy way of disinformation isn't quite as effective as it used to be.

Bush KNOWS he is in trouble come November, and even if he trots OBL out two weeks before election day, the only votes he will cull from the fed up masses are those idiotic sheep who still believe him.
 
2004-03-03 12:35:32 PM  
lets talk about how hans blix says there were no WMDs in iraq after 1994 and clinton and kay claim that air strikes wiped out WMDs in 1998.

can both assertions be correct? can both assertions be incorrect? is one of them a crackpot? are they all crackpots?
 
2004-03-03 12:35:43 PM  
You are right...its the damn dems too. Bush had bi-partisan support to go into Iraq. Does anyone dare argue that?

I'll remind everyone that there was NOT bi-partisan support for this war. There were as many as 600,000 people protesting in D.C., Many politicians and groups opposed this all along. (FYI this movement was not covered by the "liberal media" because war is good for the media business).

Kerry's statement, along with Edwards, et. al is that they were given the same (false or misleading) information we were about Iraq's WMD & "immediate threat" and they voted on a non-binding resolution.

Beefaroni's words about a War of Choice are straight up and scary, when you think about it. The united States is a peaceful nation. We should not regress to the politics of aggressive wars. One day, those wars will hit home in a way that will make 9/11 look insignificant.
 
2004-03-03 12:35:49 PM  
Happy Daddy
Why are you calling me an idiot? Look back at your initial post. Can you not see why someone would wonder whether you were being sarcastic or simply mistaken on the whole spelling thing?

Believe me, I edit and proof copy every day. Those commonwealth spellings cause lots of people to scratch their heads. You wouldn't have been the first.

Name-calling is unbecoming. And frankly, it's beneath you.
 
2004-03-03 12:35:54 PM  
typosaurus
Who can believe what is the official 'truth' any more? How is the common man supposed to know when our leaders are lying, telling half-truths or are truthful?

Here's a clue- when Bush's lips are moving, he's lying...
 
2004-03-03 12:35:55 PM  
Cyberluddite

Think back einstein...Many times, inspectors wanted to go into a complex, but Iraqi guards were turned away, or told "Come back tomorrow".
 
2004-03-03 12:35:59 PM  
Halliburton wanted the oil contract ---> Bush invaded Iraq. End of story.

Big Corporation/Government conspiracy theorist fools are funny.
 
2004-03-03 12:37:18 PM  
Cyberluddite The Bush adminstration does have its share of influential neocons, but most of the Dubya ass-licking cult members on Fark are traditional right-wingers, not neocons.

True enough about the neocons but I'd like to point out that traditional right-winger is of course not the same as a traditional Republican.
 
2004-03-03 12:37:40 PM  
Who can believe what is the official 'truth' any more? How is the common man supposed to know when our leaders are lying, telling half-truths or are truthful?

The truth exists. People find the truth by doing their own research, instead of expecting truth to be some sort of "fast food" that one gets through the drive-thru window.

As long as people choose words over results, we're going to be stuck in this miserable 2 party system, where much back-slapping and high-fives occur, but little good happens.
 
2004-03-03 12:38:05 PM  
Bush's biggest mistake was making too much of a big deal about the WMD's to begin with. There were other good reasons to take out Saddam and it was a mistake to put so much emphasis on WMDs. I know he listed them, but the public perception was that WMD's were the primary reason.

Rookie mistake...can't go back and fix that now.

Having said that, I think the economy will be a bigger issue in November unless Iraq gets worse. Looks like a repeat of the 2000 election coming our way. Yawn.
 
2004-03-03 12:38:38 PM  
HotWingConspiracy

You get an A for the day.
 
2004-03-03 12:38:50 PM  
2004-03-03 12:29:07 PM Mr_Fabulous


2004-03-03 12:21:22 PM manderx
iraq was about way more than WMD. get over it. WMD was just something to put on the banners so the common folk could understand it.

I think you are 100% correct. And I think that sometimes, "the people" have to be hoodwinked a little bit in order to do the right thing. Like FDR getting us into WWII, or Lincoln violating some constitutional rights in the Civil War.

Yeah... it was great how FDR "hoodwinked" the nation into WWII. Nothing to do with Pearl Harbor I'm sure.

2004-03-03 12:31:30 PM PhillyLatvian


Hello, the WMDs were a pretext! America needed to remove the shiat-eater known as Saddam for our own purposes.

Double hello -- no one really cares! Except for Kofi Annan and his biatches at the UN!

Uh... I think the reason why people are making a big deal about this is because (drum roll please) THEY REALLY DO CARE.

Our government is premised on the idea of consent of the governed (you know, of the people, by the people for the people and all that). Deceiving the public of the facts in order to maufacture that consent is not only fraudulent, but it undermines the very nature of democracy. There is no logical end point to your rationale which would prevent our nation from becoming a dictatorship by deception.
 
2004-03-03 12:39:03 PM  
Mr.Bastardo

lets talk about how hans blix says there were no WMDs in iraq after 1994 and clinton and kay claim that air strikes wiped out WMDs in 1998.

Nice try at rewriting history, but what Clinton bombed was a WMD production facility, NOT WMDs.
 
2004-03-03 12:39:40 PM  
typosaurus

That's the crux of the situation, isn't it? America (the world) has settled into taking sides, content to argue amongst ourselves while our leaders feed whatever line they wish. Society and media are so advanced, populations so large, that any crackpot can come out had instantly have supporters in the millions if they have any charisma at all. Toe a certain party line a little, pander (through use of little lies) to certain groups, and soon your name will be on the public's lips.

All the while honor, trust, and faith in our leaders dwindles leaving us to lament in text in an on-line forum. If I knew how to change it I would.
 
2004-03-03 12:40:24 PM  
"2004-03-03 12:23:46 PM Confabulat


Question: Why is anyone who does not like Bush labeled a 'liberal'?


Because so many different groups of people hate Republicans that it would take all day to call them all out by name.

So they made up a word."


1.) I think most people that you consider hating Republicans actually hate the Reagan/Bush dynasty. The same people who hated Voodoo Economics back in the 80's still hate it today. The same people who voted the first Bush out of office after one term still dont want him in power today. I know plenty of people who have in the past or who currently define their political ideals as more Republican like (less government, less spending), and still hate the Bush lineage.

2.) "They" didnt make up the word "Liberal" for people who hate Republicans. Are you people dense? Do you honestly think that Conservative means Republican, and Liberal means Democrat? Did you ever take a political science class? Have you ever bothered to learn what those tems mean, or have you learned all you know from network television?

This may come as a shocker, but there are Liberal Republicans, and Conservative Democrats!

The last two Presidents are examples of both.
 
2004-03-03 12:40:34 PM  
Saddam "wouldn't let inspectors in"?!? WTF are you talking about? Two questions for you: What are you smoking, and where can I get some? Or are you just making this shiat up as you go?

Personally, I must be smoking "memory weed" as I seem to remember the Iraqi army turning away inspectors all the time, and often times only letting them into specific areas with a "oh, over there? Oh, there is nothing over there. Continue this way please." attitude.

Please refresh your memory of history before you start the histrionics. Thanks.
 
2004-03-03 12:40:52 PM  
You're not the only one who seems confused about the term, Morrigan. Here is a brief rundown of what the term means, and what neocons believe. While I'm not a fan of either neocons or right-wingers, they're not necessarily the same thing. Neocons focus on more limited issues--primarily involving U.S. domination of world affairs.
 
2004-03-03 12:40:56 PM  
Farkowski

So many people here are quick to take David Kay's words and use them against the President, but keep in mind, Kay aslo told a subcommittee after he resigned that there was no question in his mind that Saddam was trying to obtain nuclear weapons.

And as far as your arguement about Kerry using only the info that Bush provided, what info was he using when he signed onto this:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
 
2004-03-03 12:41:03 PM  
Nice try at rewriting history, but what Clinton bombed was a WMD production facility, NOT WMDs.

Contortionist- One who contorts, especially an acrobat capable of twisting into extraordinary positions.
 
2004-03-03 12:41:15 PM  
drivinghighway61, with regard to Bush deciding to go to war with Iraq from day one of his term, I guess you missed former Bush Admin member Paaul O'Neill stating as much earlier this year? It was a pretty big story.
 
2004-03-03 12:41:48 PM  
This may come as a shocker, but there are Liberal Republicans, and Conservative Democrats!

The last two Presidents are examples of both.


YES!
 
2004-03-03 12:41:55 PM  
Will all those whining about Haliburton, WMD, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, et al. please come up with an appropriate list of Iraqis you think should now be dead or should have been executed in the next several years, but are instead alive and will live because Saddam's government is out of power.

Take your time.

--h
 
2004-03-03 12:41:59 PM  
PhillyLatvian

Hello, the WMDs were a pretext! America needed to remove the shiat-eater known as Saddam for our own purposes.

Double hello -- no one really cares! Except for Kofi Annan and his biatches at the UN!

When you get to the bottom of it, you libs are taking the position that the UN is more important than the USA. Idiots.


I don't even know where to start with this.

How's this - try to grow some brains some time, and then try to use them.
 
2004-03-03 12:42:09 PM  
Saddam used mustard gas, sarin and other chemicals against the Iranians...isn't that horrible?

The US sold some of these chemicals to Iraq knowing they would be used against the Iranians, isn't that horrible too?

It is time to stop distributing horrible weapons to unstable regimes in order to make a profit. Just my 2cents
 
2004-03-03 12:43:16 PM  
with regard to Bush deciding to go to war with Iraq from day one of his term, I guess you missed former Bush Admin member Paaul O'Neill stating as much earlier this year? It was a pretty big story

Well, he did mention that he wanted to do so in the 2000 debates, and regime change has been the policy in accordance to Iraq before Bush took office, so why does this surpise anyone again?
 
2004-03-03 12:43:39 PM  
MrPerspicacious

American corporations, like the offshore Halliburton subsidiaries, did illegal business with them too. The US sold them weapons to kill Iranians that they used on Kurds, Kuwaitis, and our own troops. No one is blame free but those countries didn't start a war for increasingly suspicious reasons.

We also don't get to vote in their elections or have any real say in what their leaders do. You can choose to support and defend this way for America. I prefer leaders that will work with allies to make a change instead of screwing them over.
 
2004-03-03 12:43:43 PM  
typosaurus

My 2 cents is that WMD's have been found, but they were stamped "Made in the USA". Can't really have pictures of those showing up on CNN now can we!
 
2004-03-03 12:43:54 PM  
Generally, one addresses a group by stating exactly who that group is, instead of overgeneralizing and calling someone an ass when they point that out.

It was in response to Malachilenomade's ridiculous overgeneralizing post. It was a parody.

Apparently not a very good one.
 
2004-03-03 12:44:02 PM  
Something fun that all the Bushiates and the "liberal media" seem to ignore:

UN weapons inspectors in Iraq just prior to IWII (Iraq War II) had stated that after a few false starts, they now had the full cooporation of Saddam Hussein. The UN nor any of the inspectors suggested the idea that Iraq wasn't cooporating.

George W. Bush said that the United States would not invade Iraq if Saddam cooporated with the UN weapons inspectors. It was George W. Bush who said that inspections weren't working, NOT the UN, and NOT the inspectors. I'd like to see Georgie apologize for THAT big fat lie as well.

It's rather obvious that George was intent on invading Iraq, regardless of what happened. He pushed every single political obstacle out of his way, made an enemy of nearly everyone outside the United States, and presented falsified information (on several counts) to the American people. "WMDs" or not, September 11th or not, America was going to war against Iraq.
 
2004-03-03 12:45:35 PM  
greenpants: Big Corporation/Government conspiracy theorist fools are funny.

The fact that corporations drive policy and bankroll their preferred candidates into office is anything but funny.
 
2004-03-03 12:45:37 PM  
hdhale cleverly
injects a false dichotomy
To respond to that post's poop
Can't I choose from U.S. troops?
 
2004-03-03 12:45:41 PM  
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk

"Contortionist- One who contorts, especially an acrobat capable of twisting into extraordinary positions."

Coming from one who knows.
 
2004-03-03 12:45:42 PM  
I read a book about Scientology once, and the woman writing it (who is now out of the cult) described how she so strongly believed in Scientology, and how it framed her complete world-view, so that she simply COULDN'T not believe it.

When she got to the upper levels, when L. Ron Hubbard starts talking about ancient alien criminals coming to earth and setting off H-bombs in volcanos to cure overpopulation, her brain locked up. She knew what she was reading was ridiculous, but she believed so strongly in Scientology that her brain simply stopped functioning at any critical level.

I imagine that is what a lot of Bush supporters must be feeling these days. After supporting sending Americans off to die in Iraq, only to find out it was for a pack of lies, well, that's got to cause some serious cognitive dissonance.
 
2004-03-03 12:45:46 PM  
Oh, and if JFK2 is actually elected I hope he's killed just like the first one.... DIE DEMOCRATS DIE

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Don't let little little pieces of skull fly through your eyeballs on the way out JFK2.

Hey, just because I'm conservitive doens't mean I can't be wishfull....

/me sits in my mansion awaiting my time to vote for Bush
 
2004-03-03 12:45:51 PM  
CaptainFatass

Yeah, the O'Neill story was pretty big...until people realized that the guy was a disgruntled terminated employee, and his story didn't hold water.
 
2004-03-03 12:46:10 PM  
It was in response to Malachilenomade's ridiculous overgeneralizing post. It was a parody.

Apparently not a very good one.


I've missed the point before, I'm sure that I will do so again. If that's the case, then forgive me.
 
2004-03-03 12:47:18 PM  
Oh, and if JFK2 is actually elected I hope he's killed just like the first one.... DIE DEMOCRATS DIE

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Don't let little little pieces of skull fly through your eyeballs on the way out JFK2.

Hey, just because I'm conservitive doens't mean I can't be wishfull....

/me sits in my mansion awaiting my time to vote for Bush


Moby? Is that you?
 
2004-03-03 12:47:28 PM  
Churnin Urn of Burnin Funk

So where are the WMDS?
 
Displayed 50 of 857 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report