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.

(Yahoo)   Bush checks under couch, joking, "Those weapons of mass destructions have got to be somewhere"   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 1197
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

28034 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2004 at 1:39 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1197 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-03-25 03:52:48 PM
Did anyone actually see video of Bush that night? He was trying to do poorly-written Jon-Stewartesque material. His delivery was part confused, part terrified, all uncomfortable. Actual joke:

"Do you know what Rummy's favorite show is?"

(loooong pause)

"Queer Eye... for the Straight Guy."

(loooooonger pause)

"I'm thinking of calling.... the Fab Five.... and have them.... make-over Ashcroft."

(laugher and applause from obviously lobotomied room)
 
2004-03-25 03:53:10 PM
Are you claiming knowledge of geo-synchronous spy satellites? The distances are a bit inconvenient, wouldn't you say? Barring that, there's always these things called "night" and "weather", but of course, blah blah blah, you'll come up with something while trying to evade the fact that it's not possible to watch every place all the time.

Yes, I am claiming that. Here's a few links to support my theory. Is western Africa too inconvenient? We're not talking much further to head to Iraq. Frankly, I do believe its possible to watch certain places at all times. Weather could be a problem, but Iraq essentially has a desert climate -- meaning little cloud cover. The article about the triangulation of spy satellites is interesting.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d285/

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/nro_preview_010906.html

http://www.centralsatellite.com/store/catalog/product_17189_CLOVER_OC245_INDOO R_NIGHT_VISION_CAMERA_COLOR.html
 
2004-03-25 03:53:19 PM
What is wrong with you people!!! THIS IS FARK!!!! The place where you can joke about EVERTHING!!! That's why I come here. Bush jokes about WMD, not soldiers deaths, but because one person tried to make some half ass correlation between the two the rest will follow like sheep. Do you ever take a step back and think about what you are complaining about? "Oh Bush said something, lets complain."

/rank over
 
2004-03-25 03:53:20 PM
Anti-Bush people: Think about how you present yourself. Try to be a bit more civilized in your approach. Who knows, maybe you have something valuable to add to the conversation...maybe you'll say something that will make me look at a situation differently.


Have you ever listened to talk radio?
 
2004-03-25 03:54:09 PM


The only appropriate response.
 
2004-03-25 03:54:16 PM
rank=rant
 
2004-03-25 03:54:21 PM
> When Bill "the intern" Clinton was in office I kept my mouth shut.

Well, you must have been the only one then. Certainly he got enough flaming from enough people for doing something that pales in comparison to what Bush has done.
 
2004-03-25 03:54:31 PM
2004-03-25 03:49:15 PM Anagrammer

Nice comparison of deaths -

Chicago Population (2000 census)- 2,896,016
US forces in Iraq - 140,000

Never let reality get in the way of an argument on Fark.
 
2004-03-25 03:54:36 PM
Arnold T Pants


What is wrong with you people!!! THIS IS FARK!!!! The place where you can joke about EVERTHING!!! That's why I come here. Bush jokes about WMD, not soldiers deaths, but because one person tried to make some half ass correlation between the two the rest will follow like sheep. Do you ever take a step back and think about what you are complaining about? "Oh Bush said something, lets complain."

/rank over



Just like the bushies who blast kerry for anything he does because he's "Running for president", i think we have the right to blast "the president" when he makes asinine comments...
 
2004-03-25 03:54:48 PM
Max Reax, the elitist argument rears its ugly head...only dumb, poor people joing the military for money for college, not anyone who cares about defending the country or freedom.

Joining the armed forces and not appreciating the fact that you may go to war is like joining the football team and being surprised about being tackled.

Oh and if only people who support the war should fight, then what should the ones who oppose it do? Human shields? Fight for the enemy? Sit back and sanctimoniously enjoy the freedoms that are bestowed on them by those who risk all? Yep that was rhetorical.
 
2004-03-25 03:55:28 PM
It's odd to have such a long thread with no mention of Hans Blix.
Wouldnt he be the guy, other than Saddam himself,
that knew the most about there being weapons there or not?
 
2004-03-25 03:55:31 PM
Max Reax

how about they get a job and go to college when they can afford it? or maybe some community college? sure, maybe they won't be able to go at college when they are 18, but i'll tell you what, they wouldn't be the first.

They had options. Military wasn't their only choice. They happened to chose it because they didn't think there would be a war and they wanted easy money. Just because some people want to use the military like some sort of government social program/welfare doesn't relieve them of the gravity of their own decisions.
 
2004-03-25 03:56:35 PM
Anagrammer
only 599? chicago just isnt trying anymore.
stl in the hizzouse
 
2004-03-25 03:56:36 PM
republicanhero

Actually he didn't say that COndi Rice didn't knwo what Al Queda was. He said that when he briefed her and named Al Queda as the biggest threat, that she had a look on her face as if she had never heard the name.

Now I know that Rush told you he said she didn't know what Al Queda was, but if you actually hear his statement. It comes off a little different.
 
2004-03-25 03:56:41 PM
Dr. Rosenrosen,

Please, the Bush administration was in office for 200 days before 9/11. The terrorists who flew the planes had been here for several years plotting the attack. Besides, Bush went after Al Quaeda and Bin Laden after 9/11, Clinton/Clarke did nothing after 4 seperate attacks. Oh, and if Bin Laden is still alive, prove it. Where's the video, a picture of him with a newspaper. The man is worm food and we'll probably never know.
 
2004-03-25 03:56:50 PM
Krieg - It seems it YOU who doesn't have a very high opinion of the military.
 
2004-03-25 03:57:02 PM
Dick CLark has really lit up the conservatives. They are spinning themselves crazy lately.
 
2004-03-25 03:57:05 PM
Blade2567

No one here is presenting you with an unsolicited opinion. You are in this thread by choice. Anytime you've had enough, you are free to leave.

If you truly believe in the Bush administration, you are welcome to do your best to defend them using whatever arguments you can muster. Here's a hint: "Everybody shut up!" does not qualify as a rational argument.

Otherwise, you are welcome to go stick your head back in the sand anytime you choose.
 
2004-03-25 03:57:53 PM
No seriously that dinner was a hoot. All the boys did sketches and stuff.

Rummy did this classic where he dressed up like a woman with a wig and everything. Then he was all screaming and crying and he was like "you bastards you took my only son for nothing" and he looked totally like someone whose son had been killed in an entirely pointless search for weapons that weren't there.

I had a few too many glasses of Jack and don't remember much after that, I do remember Condi beating me at six degrees of separation between Kevin Bacon and Osama but she's a doctor and really smart. Then I fell down.

/George's diary.
 
2004-03-25 03:57:56 PM
Anagrammer responding to sarcasm --->

 
2004-03-25 03:57:56 PM
KazamaSmokers

how so?
 
2004-03-25 03:58:11 PM
Republican hero will start talking about his 2 dollar bill experience with taco bell.
 
2004-03-25 03:58:30 PM
Max Reax

Another point, if you are poor, it's not like your only option is the military. Shiat, just wait for another Clinton to come along, and you can just not work ever and live off social security.
 
2004-03-25 03:58:46 PM
Xtremehkr
Dick CLark has really lit up the conservatives. They are spinning themselves crazy lately.

interesting, to say the least. oddly enough, no one seems to address the actual allegations...
 
2004-03-25 03:58:56 PM
2004-03-25 03:51:52 PM Blade2567
I don't know how well this will go over...seems to be ALOT of liberals in this thread.
==================
Right. If you think Bush is an embarassment you're automatically a liberal.


As opposed to the fiscal conservatives who are sickened by him.
 
2004-03-25 03:59:14 PM
Xtremehkr


Dick CLark has really lit up the conservatives. They are spinning themselves crazy lately.



I know... interesting how 4 government officials gave over 15 interviews, in just the day after his book was released... Makes you wonder what gave them ants in their pants, eh?

/Haven't even heard them attack Kerry recently..
 
2004-03-25 03:59:21 PM
NutznGum

Clarke is also a liar. Either now or before. That is a fact. And I don't believe our government failed us like he said. I don't blame Clinton or Bush. You can't prevent all terrorist attacks. At best you can lay some blame on intelligence.
 
2004-03-25 04:00:16 PM
djh0101010

OK, evasion noted. So, why then did he get rid of his WMDs? Or, are you saying he didn't have them? Or, are you saying he didn't get rid of them?

Evasion noted? Like Saddam's WMDs were noted right before the war, eh?

There was no evasion in my post. I am not interested in answering your question, and if I was, I wouldn't, because it's addressed to "Lefties" which isn't a term I would apply to myself.

My post was simply a personal observation about how you twist reality so that it appears to match your beliefs, rather than altering your beliefs to accommodate reality.

This is not a slam. Everyone does this to some extent. It's just that most folks are less obvious about it.
 
2004-03-25 04:00:20 PM
Kyngnothing:

Where was anything I said previously proved to be untrue? All you have done is pasted alot of stories that show a systemic intelligence failure and not an outright program of deceit and misinformation by the Bush administration as you claim. Democrats, Republicans, the British, even the French all believed that Iraq had WMD's based on the intelligence AS PROVIDED.
 
2004-03-25 04:00:58 PM
2004-03-25 03:54:21 PM the_god_ninti

re-read my post and tell me if you think that was the point.

2004-03-25 03:53:20 PM Confabulat

Have you ever listened to talk radio?


Yes...but I can turn off the radio. I was actually followed out of my gym yesterday by a guy ranting the liberal line after I informed him the conversation was at an end for his use of foul language toward me. NOT an isolated incedent...

and that ninti was the point.
 
2004-03-25 04:01:02 PM
Oops. shiat. Sorry about the all-bold post.
 
2004-03-25 04:01:27 PM
lws, that's a MiG-25 that will never fly again.
 
2004-03-25 04:01:36 PM
WMD's were not the sole reason we were there.

An assassination attempt on a former President was one.

Strong evidence of al Quaeda support was another.

Monetary rewards for Palestenian suicide bombers was another.

Brutalization of his own people - men, women, children, relatives - was another.

Collusion with Iran, Lybia, Aretria, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan (sp.) and others in black-market weapons dealing, esp. to terrorists was another.

Threatening the oil market and OPEC on several occasiosn was another.

Consistent stalling on UN resolutions and defiance of that international body and the international community at large was another.

His presence as a destabilizing force in the region breeding anti-American animosity was another.

We're going to make Iraq a great new democratic nation, and plant the seeds for the destruction of the terrorist theocracies that currently exist in the mideast through real freedom, human rights, and democracy. The only way to win this war with the Arab world is to change the Arab world - living in fear of their threats is no way to live, and it is not freedom. In every mideast problem the West has encountered, Iraq and most specifically Saddam Hussein were at least funding and aiding the problem and cause - and at worst were the cause themselves.

There is a much larger picture here than WMD's, kiddies. Too bad you have to have one overriding reason to go in to military action, and are confused with any more than one reason. But, if you must prattle on and on about WMD's b/c you don't like that Bush is mentally slow and can't talk, then I direct you to the right honourable Prime Minister's remarks on the subject on the eve of allied military action:

When the inspectors left in 1998, they left unaccounted for:

* 10 thousand litres of anthrax
* a far reaching VX nerve agent programme
* up to 6,500 chemical munitions
* at least 80 tonnes of mustard gas, possibly more than ten times that amount
* unquantifiable amounts of sarin, botulinum toxin and a host of other biological poisons
* an entire Scud missile programme

(http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3294.asp)

I would encourage you to read the entire speech. There are some nuggets of wisdom in there, such as:

"That is why this indulgence has to stop. Because it is dangerous. It is dangerous if such regimes disbelieve us. Dangerous if they think they can use our weakness, our hesitation, even the natural urges of our democracy towards peace, against us. Dangerous because one day they will mistake our innate revulsion against war for permanent incapacity; when in fact, pushed to the limit, we will act. But then when we act, after years of pretence, the action will have to be harder, bigger, more total in its impact. Iraq is not the only regime with WMD. But back away now from this confrontation and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating."

Read it - it'll do you some good.

You people sicken me.
 
2004-03-25 04:02:35 PM
tedZilla

I'll take a stab at your rhetorical question.

Freedoms are always restricted during times of war. Always have been (ask the japanese american interred during wwii or read the patriot act I & II). Now if you go to war where there is not an immediate threat to your freedoms, you are restricting freedoms while getting nothing in return. Therefore if you are pro-freedom, you had to be against this war.

There ya go.
 
2004-03-25 04:03:05 PM
Okay, I see. EVERYONE should have joined the military, right?

My father served in WWII. My brother served in Vietnam. But because I didn't join up, I'm wrong.

I'm not saying because I was a female I didn't join. I didn't join for many, many reasons...least of which was that the military didn't even offer programs for women when I was looking at it, except in nursing.

I say why not - why not just institute the draft again. Would that make you happy? Or would mandatory enlistment be more along your lines of thinking?

Just because you're a Vietnam vet doesn't make you right.
 
2004-03-25 04:03:09 PM
Arnold T Pants
"Clarke is also a liar. Either now or before. That is a fact."

care to back that up toughguy?
 
2004-03-25 04:03:11 PM
Arnold T Pants

well....ok. if you want to lay the blame on intelligence services, why the hell does tenet still have a job?

i notice no one gets out the big Clinton brush to tarnish this fella....why?
 
2004-03-25 04:03:13 PM
2004-03-25 03:58:30 PM brhein
and you can just not work ever and live off social security.
================
What social security?
 
2004-03-25 04:03:33 PM
carlga92


Dr. Rosenrosen,

Please, the Bush administration was in office for 200 days before 9/11. The terrorists who flew the planes had been here for several years plotting the attack. Besides, Bush went after Al Quaeda and Bin Laden after 9/11, Clinton/Clarke did nothing after 4 seperate attacks. Oh, and if Bin Laden is still alive, prove it. Where's the video, a picture of him with a newspaper. The man is worm food and we'll probably never know.



Clinton bombed camps in Afganistan after the USS cole attack and was accused of 'wagging the dog' and trying to hide from blowjobgate. Clarke was always reccomending bombing the terrorists. He presented reports and lists of suggested targets after every attack on US interests. Clinton was too afraid of being accused of wagging the dog to do anything else. Yes, Clinton has his share of the balme. Time for Dubya to take his. What did HE do about terrorism before 9/11? He was to busy with the missle defense project and trying to figure out how to bomb Iraq.
 
2004-03-25 04:03:39 PM
2004-03-25 03:57:05 PM Edsel


Blade2567

No one here is presenting you with an unsolicited opinion. You are in this thread by choice. Anytime you've had enough, you are free to leave.

If you truly believe in the Bush administration, you are welcome to do your best to defend them using whatever arguments you can muster. Here's a hint: "Everybody shut up!" does not qualify as a rational argument.

Otherwise, you are welcome to go stick your head back in the sand anytime you choose.


********************************

I think this more than makes my point. Read my post again and you will see I DID NOT say the internet...I said in the "real world". Read my post again. Then you can apologiize anytime.
 
2004-03-25 04:03:48 PM
BigTuna
djh0101010
You appear to be a fan of facts, which makes it all the more disappointing that you ignored my post.


I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't see it as much of anything. You focused on one aspect of my sentence, while ignoring the basic premise of same which was and is "Why is it OK for Kerry support action in Iraq, but not for Bush to do the same? They were both working off of the same intelligence, and both came to the same conclusions based on the evidence available to them at that time".
 
2004-03-25 04:04:21 PM
KyngNothing

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq sought uranium from Africa despite the fact that the CIA expressed doubts about the credibility of this claim in two memos to the White House, including one addressed to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice....


That's why the quote passes the buck off to the British intelligence services. The claim was dubious because the British got intel from another country that didn't want to be named, and since the US couldn't make the claim with certainty using their own info, while the British said they could, the US simply chose to trust the British and quote them. It's basically saying, "They know more than we do, and they say this, so we'll trust them on it." For all we know, it might well have been true anyway, because the IAEA has already confirmed that Iraq sent diplomats down to Niger for business purposes, though exactly what sort of business is up in the air. The major exports of Niger are uranium, livestock, and agriculture, and I don't think Saddam would sell them oil just for cash; he already had plenty of that.

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."
Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it suggested that Iraq posed an urgent threat despite the fact that the U.S. intelligence community had deep divisions and divergent points of view regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet noted in February 2004, "Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat."


The urgency Bush was talking about was that we had to act quickly before Iraq became an imminent threat, not that we had to act quickly because of an existing imminent threat.

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons."
Source: George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002).
Explanation: This statement was misleading because it professed certainty when the intelligence community provided only an "estimate." According to CIA Director George Tenet, "it is important to underline the word estimate. Because not everything we analyze can be known to a standard of absolute proof."


Considering almost everybody on the planet believed those weapons were there, the most I would say Bush is guilty of would be of overstating the case; misleading, as you say, but not lying.

In addition, the statement failed to acknowledge the Defense Intelligence Agency position that: "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Stockpiling = producing and maintaining
Bush said only that Saddam was maintaining weapons, not producing new ones, so his claim that Saddam had (maintained) weapons and the DIA's claim that Saddam might not be stockpiling weapons (because he wasn't producing any more) are compatable.

Bush stated as fact, in defiance of the entire intelligence community, things that we have since found out to be false...
The intelligence community said that they were not certain the claims were true, not that they were certain they were false.

That's not lying?
His advisors told him these facts were false, and not certain, he stated them as fact...


Nothing you listed showed that Bush knew any of those claims to be false; just that they weren't 100% certain. If Bush still believed it, even if he wasn't absolutely certain, then he was just wrong, not lying.

/looks like a lie, smells like a lie...
More like exaggeration, which I do fault Bush for, not but lying.
 
2004-03-25 04:04:25 PM
...Just like the bushies who blast kerry for anything he does because he's "Running for president".......

What else is he supposed to do? Kerry and the rest of the dems have been throwing barbs at Bush from the day they announced their candidacies. The first jab Bush throws back (after months of saying nothing), and he's suddenly the mean one running a negative campaign.
For liberals to take this position is positive proof that they are nothing more than brain-dead hippies.
 
2004-03-25 04:05:00 PM
jiggs:

That post makes no sense...name me one freedom that has been restricted?
 
2004-03-25 04:05:05 PM
So, how long does anyone think it will take to find those WMDs?

Or how long it will take the terrorists to take over Iraq when we have left and the token police force is dispatched of?

Do Spaniards think that the world is a safer place now?

After Bush, being conservative and harping on politicians for lying is going to be interesting, especially when it is about really consequencial matters like getting a BJ.

Dick Cheney phoned into Rush Limbaughs show this week, now that is desperation, they must be really panicked if they are calling to bolster the support of Dittoheads.

As hard as they try to discredit Clark, every important whitehouse official has been out defending Bush this week. Conservative talk radio has devoted every day to trying to discredit the story.

Is this the worst to come? The panic coming out of the whitehouse is becoming more apparent everyday.
 
2004-03-25 04:06:39 PM
2004-03-25 04:04:25 PM MonkeyFlingingPoo
Kerry and the rest of the dems have been throwing barbs at Bush from the day they announced their candidacies. The first jab Bush throws back (after months of saying nothing)...
====================
Say what? I guess you don't own an AM radio.
 
2004-03-25 04:07:05 PM
MonkeyFlingingPoo

What are you talking about. Even before the primaries Rove was attending Dean rallies and spreading rumors about how 'liberal' he was. Remember that Rove said that Dean was the candidate they wanted?

The smear campaign started in the elephant echo chamber years ago.
 
2004-03-25 04:07:17 PM
Arnold T Pants:

What's he lying about? Give me an example? Is he lying now or was he lying then? Back it up. and then answer this: Why would a career public servant and republican lie to embarass the REPUBLICAN preident.

I saw him Larry King last night. He said George Bush Sr. was great on national security, he calle dhim an expert and praised his coallition to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This guy isn't a 'liberal muckracker". He's a republican and he's not going away.
 
2004-03-25 04:07:28 PM
Just an observation i've noticed over the past few years...about people calling Demo's crybabies, and sore losers...may i remind all of you asshats that do that of how much whining, and crying YOU did during the 8 years of the Clinton administration.

/neither a Democrat, or a Republican, just annoyed at asshats who do that. GO BACK TO GRADE SCHOOL!!!
 
2004-03-25 04:07:59 PM
i'm glad dubya can joke about the WMD's, the billions of dollars spent, the lives lost....

this must be this "compassionativity" i heard so much about.
 
Displayed 50 of 1197 comments

First | « | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report