Ok so there were almost 200,000 guns in Iraq and they are gone... SO conservatives whats the excuse on this one?
I bet it's inthe same place all that oil and money that dissapears over there is....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/index.html?section=cnn_latest
2007-08-09 08:58:12 · 26 answers · asked by Chuckles 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I KNEW it!! you all think nothing is his fault....
Would those guns be in Iraq without Bush?????
Did HE send the guns over???????
As president is he ultimately responsible????
why not?
2007-08-09 09:05:23 · update #1
clinton made bush do it
damn that evil clinton
2007-08-09 09:01:46 · answer #1 · answered by Nick F 6 · 4⤊ 6⤋
You're having a laugh. According to this 'report' we are supposed to believe that in the middle of a war-zone, 200,000 US issue guns are misplaced and nobody knows in who's hands they are now in? I have no doubt that this administration can be a bit daft sometimes, but this is just too farcical for even them.
We are to believe that this is some sort of oversight on their part. What a load of b0ll0x.
What next? Have they accidentally misplaced a few thousand nukes over there too?
These people are in the habit of running wars, and running a country. To allege that over 200,000 weapons have been unaccounted for is absolute drivel.
They will probably be classified as having fell into Iraqi insurgent hands, and that they are being used to fire at our troops...what a surprise then that the occupation of Iraq and the war on mud-huts will have to continue...
Short of actually coming and telling people that the whole show is a farce, I really don't know what else they an do...it's only funny, becuase it is happening in front of everyone, and they still continue to get away with it.
If the report is true, and I doubt it very much, an Iraqi awaiting the spreading of Bush's wonderful democracy, must be thinking that they have replaced one vicious idiot, and put in another one who doesn't even speak their language!
That's over 200,000 weapons which have been lost, and 200,000 weapons that can then be sold on the black market to the highest bidder...excellent work.
2007-08-09 16:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by lee h 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't see how Bush is responsible, am I missing something? Taken from the headline:
"Pentagon lost almost 200,000 weapons in Iraq"
Does Bush work at or for the Pentagon? Last I heard he occupies the White House. I must be so misinformed...
"Loose record-keeping caused the Pentagon and the U.S. command in Iraq to lose track of about 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols provided to the new Iraqi national police and army, the Government Accountability Office told Congress."
So, it got lost after the Iraqi National Police and Army got a hold of them. Well, you can't entirely blame it on Bush then can you, because clearly these guys had them last. Actually, the article doesn't even mention Bush at all.
I guess I fell into your 'trap' because I managed to defend Bush. Two points for me!
2007-08-09 16:19:27 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably why our troops were originally sent to Iraq with little to no armor at the beginning of the war. Hell, even the chem suits they had at the beginning of the war were deteriorated. Imagine if Saddam actually had WMD. A majority of the American troops would have been obliterated at the beginning of the invasion.
It is better to fight weaponless and armorless enemies than to fight fully equiped forces. Guess the government felt sympathy for the insurgents and decided to give them away to fully protect themselves.
These careless blunders have definitely helped keep us in Iraq.
2007-08-09 16:09:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
They never secured the weapons upon invading. They didn't secure the money Saddam had as a billion in US curreny left without a trace. Until last year they didn't try to secure the border. Why does this surprise you?
2007-08-09 16:19:11 · answer #5 · answered by Deep Thought 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're mistake was thinking just because they couldn't defend Bush logically, they wouldn't. It's insane that they think it's not his fault. But they've supported him this long so it's not like they oculd be sane.
2007-08-09 16:35:43 · answer #6 · answered by crushinator01 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everything in the world past, present or future, can and should be blamed on George W, or rather on the puppet masters who control the dumb SOB
2007-08-10 08:18:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thank Gov. Bush for eliminating all those guns from Iraq. If they are truly missing, I think the world is a safer place.
2007-08-09 16:05:07 · answer #8 · answered by rebecca v d liep 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
When one considers the most excellent, in-depth planning that went into America's invasion of Iraq it is highly surprising to hear of this news !!! One would almost think Pres. Bush and Co would be unable to organize a pi$$ up in a brewery.
2007-08-09 16:09:20 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Let me address this, even though I am a non-con.....
Global Warming is now thought to be true by Republicans who recognize that it has caused the Bermuda Triangle to shift from the Atlantic to precisely over Iraq and Iran (hence, why everything from guns, WMD, a functioning government and freedom is missing from Iraq).
We can now combine the War on terror with the new War on Warming and subsequently invade Iran...
2007-08-09 16:04:19 · answer #10 · answered by outcrop 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Do you pseudo-conservatives understand what it means to be the commander in-chief? Let me spell it out for you.
R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y
As president, you find out what happens when 190,000 weapons vanish.
2007-08-09 16:22:05 · answer #11 · answered by St. Bastard 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋