hard to narrow it down to just one.
now, let's get you to debunking... please follow through... don't just erase the question b/c you were proved wrong (again, as you have today).
2007-11-20 02:47:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
yes, you can debunk anything...then maybe bush should hire you as his new press secretary...or were you that planted "reporter" and con blogger who turned out to be a gay porn star?
if you call debunking saying "no huh" to piles and piles of steaming hot truth, then perhaps you can debunk anything.
WMD, big lie. But the real lie was using WMDs as the lie in the first place.
We went to Iraq because the Oil for Food Program, corrupt or not, was legally producing oil, but the work as being done by French and Russian companies, excluding poor ol' Exxon and Haliburton.
Isn't it convenient we managed to alienate both of them, so that when we it came time to reconstruct, they weren't allowed to participate. Now Exxon and Haliburton own the whole burrito, no France or Russia.
All brilliant, except that the American taxpayer gets to foot the bill -- $10,000,000,000,000 and counting...
2007-11-20 09:50:45
·
answer #2
·
answered by Archduke Gumbercules 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
-WMDs - there were none, never was any - a proven lie
-Iraq supporting Al Queda - proven time and time again by our own and other intelligence agencies - another proven lie.
-Bush famous words "Bin Laden Wanted Dead or Alive" and then just a few months after the invasion he states that 'Bin Laden not that important, Bush doesn't spend much time thinking about him" - a lie and worse yet a con
-We went into Iraq to 'free the Iraqi people' - not even a good lie - the real reasons were obvious from the start.
-Iraq trying to purchase yellow cake uranium - forged documents and another proven lie
-Warrantless wire taps to protect us AFTER 911 - the illegal wire tapping started in early 2001, prior to 911
The list could go on and on and on.
2007-11-20 09:50:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by ndmagicman 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Hmmn, lets see.Bullshitting us into thinking Saddam had the capability to launch a ballistic missile, laden with nasty chemical or biological weapons off the back of a camel from 7000 miles away to land on the white house lawn, yep,makes sense to me.
Not bothering to put any effort into catching Bin Laden, who actually did kill Americans (unlike Saddam, who didn't, aside from war), yep, makes sense to me too.
Our illustrious intelligence agencies being forced to make crap up to justify the war, yep, makes sense to me.
Iraq, lies ? The whole thing is just one big fat festering pile of pure 100 carat bull crap. You know it and i know it.
2007-11-20 10:40:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by batfood1 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Weapons of Mass Destruction: There were none, there are none. And if I am uneducated or uninformed then please show evidence. Not reports from the right wing press, not supposed belief on the part of you and your followers, but show me a nuclear war head found in the deserts of Iraq
El Quiddia in bed with Sadaam; The 9-11 report (Chaired by a republican) said there was no connection
It is pointless to continue to defend that we are Iraq for good reasons, the question is now how do we get out while still supporting the people there whose lives we have ruined?
2007-11-20 09:43:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Thomas G 6
·
5⤊
6⤋
George W Bush KNEW that the "yellow cake" bullcrap he spit out several times and even had Colin Powell ruin his career with, was already debunked by the CIA and Englands spy network.
He still spewed out THAT LIE to sell his war !!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html
http://digg.com/politics/Ex_CIA_analyst_Forged_yellowcake_memo_leads_right_back_to_Cheney
And we now know, thanks to a leaked British memo concerning the head of British intelligence, that the Bush administration -- contrary to its explicit denials -- had already made up its mind to attack Iraq and "fixed" those bogus allegations to support its decision. In short, Bush and his top officials lied about Iraq.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/19/lies/
2007-11-20 09:53:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
Iraq is unstable.
Or did we forget, we were inspecting daily, and had the borders under our complete control with fly-overs, troops on the ground as support, and oil flowing freely?
Iraq was not "Unstable" until it was MADE unstable.
BTW,...WMD"S? The retort is " They were moved". So...Where are they, and why have they not been used? Do they really want to lose? Makes no sense, sorry. ....Thanks
2007-11-20 09:47:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
George Bush, the Connecticut cowboy, the good old boy from Yale is a man of mediocre intelligence, little imagination, and great stubbornness and vindictiveness. He may be the Decider but his handlers have long known how to manipulate him. The key is to hook him with short, simple sells. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice know that once he has consulted his gut and perhaps his higher father his decision is forever. So whoever gets to him first is likely to carry the day because he doesn't like to be challenged and is, quite simply, too lazy to change his mind. The Bubble is a natural consequence of this decision making process where logic, reason, and facts have little or no role.
....Bush's Presidency began in the shadow of a contested and likely stolen election and promised to be unsuccessful in a largely forgettable and unremarkable way. 911 changed all that and transformed a plodding, and essentially AWOL one termer into an accidental hero. Enormous power flowed to his office but Bush had no idea how to use it. He liked to campaign, not govern. In those around him, he prized loyalty over competence and honesty. A believer in the notion of "to the victor go the spoils," he was the perfect mark for every conniver, bumbler, bungler, hack, hanger on, and would be crony that Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and their friends could find. In the normal course of things, this would have spelled failure. Post-911, it was catastrophic.
....At this critical juncture in our history we needed an adult but got an adolescent. Instead of responsibility, we got a truant. In place of flexibility we got obduracy. In the face of great and complex challenges, we got strawmen, a black and white universe, my way or the highway, regurgitated stump speeches, and a steadfast refusal to compromise not just with opponents but with reality.
....What all this comes down to is that George Bush should never have become our President. He is not just a bad President but the worst one we could have had, the worst our country has ever seen. This is a judgment that many Americans have come to but which our political establishment and media, even after 6 years, have yet to acknowledge, accept, and act on. This is the tragedy and crime of our times.
2007-11-20 09:43:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
6⤊
7⤋
What truth in Iraq?
2007-11-20 09:41:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
4⤋
This should be good. Great question by the way. to keep from getting reported, the answer is no lies were told.
2007-11-20 09:43:26
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
6⤋