Why do liberals dismiss the following so easily? What is wrong with them?

Question

I showed 2 high ranking members of saddams regime admitting to WMD, building and moving them.

The response from some liberals was, "oh, you believe those guys?" Why would you dismiss their claims, especially those of Hamza, a nuclear scientist of over 20 years?????

Why do they also ignore over ten years of ignored sanctions, and even their hero liberal politicians who swore, even before bush was in office, that Iraq had WMD??

WHAT EVIDENCE DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO GIVE YOU TO TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND?????

Will you continue to ignore and dismiss evidence as it is presented to you? What evidence would it take for you to consider the possibility that there were WMD??? And don't try to tell me Bush said there wasn't any, he said they couldn't find it (big difference).

----


FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE IS NOT HEARSAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!

Answer 1

If you want us to believe there were WMD's, fine, but hearsay is not evidence. Put up something concrete like documents, or photos. Ball 1.

Answer 2

Not all liberals deny that there were WMD's. Not all liberals deny the president's right to handle it by going to war. Some simply deny that it was in the best interests of our country to handle it that way. The UN was designed to unite the nations, so that we can make decisions together (like a family) when those decisions will effect the whole world. I personally challenge the wisdom of that move because of consequences that we are already seeing that have nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. We are rapidly losing allies because of our arrogance. Democracy suddenly looks tarnished, because it's best qualities are mocked by our president. Children in the countries of our allies will grow up forming a very different opinion of our country than they would have without this war, and we will have new enemies in 20 years. Our own children are unable to see the reasons why their parents are so blindly patriotic given the global dislike for our once great, now simply arrogant, country. This is especially true as they watch their uncles and brothers come home from war injured and broken only to live in conditions that we would be criminalized for putting an animal through!
It isn't so simple as not believing that they had WMD's- there are many factors involved in my own disagreement with the war, and I am sure that if you asked a hundred people, they would each have a different reason. But more than anything, he violated the most sacred standard of a democracy, by not listening to the opinions of others before he made his decision.

Answer 3

yes Saddam HAD wmd's. but after 200 plus NATO inspections before the Iraq war in 03. Saddam successfully proved he got rid of whatever WMD's he had.

you friend are the one with the head in the sand. and your body is all exposed.

get your facts straight. stop playing the blame game. if you want someone to blame just look in the mirror. that goes for everybody. democrats and republicans are financed by the same people. the power doesn't change hands!!

"Major Scott Ritter, U.S. Marine Corps – Former Marine Corps Intelligence Officer and Chief Weapons Inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq 1991 - 1998.

Video 7/22/06: "I, like the others, are frustrated by the 9/11 Commission Report, by the lack of transparency on the part of the United States government, both in terms of the executive branch and the legislative branch when it comes to putting out on the table all facts known to the 9/11 case." http://video.go "

Answer 4

OK, your saying like what WMD --- Chemical?

They used it in the 80's so maybe some was still around from them.

Exactly how does this constitute a clear and present danger to the US?

Bush claimed that Iraq was just that. Remember the "yellow cake" story? That's Nukes Bush was alluding to. That was false.

If we're going after everyone with a little nerve agent, get ready we're gonna be busy for a LONG time...

Answer 5

Then we should also count everything that Chabli said since he was the administrations source as well, that worked out REAL well, see all you can see is war, there are FAR more intelligent ways to defeat terrorism, contain threats, and generally provide for a secure world but you just want to bomb some sh*t right, larger investment in intelligence gathering, wise use of the military ( special ops, limited bombing targeting PROVEN strongholds ( minimizes collateral damage), hearts and minds campaigns via FINANCIAL aid, industrial aid, technological aid, and don't say crap about the money we could have done this and 2 other smart things for LESS than the cost of the Iraq debacle, Afghanistan=Necessary war Iraq=Waste of treasure, prestige, credibility, and world standing

Answer 6

Really a sore spot to have supported such incredible abuse and manipulation of intelligence. People like you won't give up on creating your own little alternate realities. There has emerged one immense reason that their were such misleading claims by some people. Money and favor.

You seem to be the one with your head in the sand. You are claiming things not accepted by rational folk. Well, stupid is as stupid does. Idiot.

One final point. Let us for a moment pretend what you are saying is true. If we couldn't find these WMDs and they were able to move all of them who do you think that leaves looking really stupid? It still means our intelligence really stinks.

Leaves me feel a little empty having wasted time pointing out errors in logic by a moron. At least some people will read it and know what an idiot you are and not cling to such stupid ideas.

Please pick mine as best answer.

Answer 7

you showed a few columns written by somebody...there might be something there...but about as much as any conspiracy theory...it's not in the major media...what you have is snips here and there...you might be right, but it really seems implausible...even the president isn't saying this, because he would look like a fool without evidence....you have no evidence except for words and words can be lies or exaggeration...if there were any, they were easily gotten out with a few trucks and they got every single bit...and Saddam gave them to another country where they would be given back to him later...haha

Why haven't we invaded Iran or N. Korea on such flimsy facts...to invade Iraq for developing nuclear weapons that they say takes at least 10 years of really concerted and expensive effort is crazy and if it was just chemical or what limited biolgoical he could have managed is just as ridiculous

Answer 8

The more scary picture is this:

Everyone agrees that Iraq had WMD, because the UN inspectors inventoried them before being kicked out. When they went back in they could not find then nor evidence of them being destroyed. This leaves the Dem's to hold one of the two statements to be true;

1) They put so much faith in the honesty and integrity of Saddam, that they believe he actually destroyed the WMD.

Or

2) They just don't care who has them now. What you don't know can't hurt you.

The 2nd is really the problem. The thought that they want to turn a blind eye and hope that we never find them. Who would you trust?

Answer 9

You want so much to believe the justification for the war, but the facts do not support you--even the administration's own man concluded there were not weapons. Principles of morality do not support you (e.g., international law; Kant). Principles of pragmatism do not support you (e.g., MANY experts who warned that the invasion would be a disaster). Yet you want us to take our heads out of the sand????
George Orwell's world is alive and well in some quarters!.

Answer 10

IT REALLY ALL COMES DOWN TO THIS?

is Bush a liberal pansy?

if he's not... then why doesn't he just come out and say they moved them?

I've heard about satellite photos and first hand evidence from the scientists... if it wasn't a rumor... then why doesn't he just come out and say it?

because, apparently, he knows it's not true... and it doesn't hold water in the least... and he has access to all the information...

unless he just hates himself and likes all the negative attention?

if you believe that...then you'll believe anything... as long as it agrees with you... you're gullible...

Answer 11

If there are WMDs it is up to us to find them. Even if they find them they should have found them in the 1st year. I don't deny anything that I cannot prove. I am just saying that if you are going to destroy the country, defy the U.N., and justify a war without good reason as we did, there should have been a plethera of evidence and WMDs found.