officially pissed off by the "no weapons of mass destruction in iraq" propaganda

[pinklola]

so according to the united nations, iraq COULD still have weapons of mass destruction within its borders, could be working on these weapons within others borders, OR could have sold or had them stolen. YAY!!! just cuz whitey hasnt been found doesnt mean he doesnt exist...hell he could be on his home soil, if we cant catch him what makes us think

Comments

[guitarzan]

i certainly agree that election years can give both parties an excuse to dance to the center, to not want to say anything radical (or anything that might be factually misinterpreted or just plain wrong). bush and cheney and the republican campaign are trying there damndest to word things in a way that disillusion the american people about the reasons for going into Iraq, just as much as kerry, edwards, and the democratic campaign are wording things to confuse people about why as senators they voted for one bill and not the other and so on. the ABC article (which isn't the best on the subject but just an example of what's out there) isn't countering the CNN article, moreso the context of your comments. you said the article claimed that WMDs could be out there, and the ABC article shows even those who were once strongest behind the notion that Iraq had WMD now admit they were wrong.

I was being wreckless in using the words ill-founded, as neither you nor i nor really anyone could truly see what we did and didn't know before going to war, but the point i guess i'm hitting at is still the same: I never asked for war. I think most of the American people (politicians included) would never ask for a reason to go to war. War is a last-resort neccesity, or at least should be. Bush's decision to go to war was based on intelligence that was a far cry from infallible. Whether he knew that and conciously ignored it, or had an inkling of a notion and decided to proceed with ulterior motives, or simply didn't realize the intelligence was flawed, is moot. As President, as commander in cheif, and as perhaps the single most influencial person in the world, he had a duty to make sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that those weapons were there and war was the last viable strategy, and he clearly did not do that.

I appreciate your opinion to the counter, and if you want to talk about this further feel free to email me: sellars.a@neu.edu. Or, you know, to just say hi. It's been a while.

[pinklola]

all i was saying was that we cant just exclude the possibility that there could be weapons of mass destruction out there. course dick and bush (giggle) are gonna say they were wrong to avoid looking like cocky knuckel heads. in order for bush to go to war, he had to have the house of reps behind him, so why arent they given crap for it? it was an overwhelming majority afterall. how can you actually say he was flawed in doing so? k...step into his shoes for just a minute...ur dealing with a country who has known to oppose america and torture its own people, meanwhile undermining sanctions...is known to have had weapons of mass destruction in the past. k, now...the "intelligence" says that they are a potential upcomming threat. what do you do? do you risk the possibility? being commander in cheif, id like to think youd have the best interest in your people and be scared shitless of what could potentially happen. if you dont act on it, and we are attacked and many killed...the blood is on your hands. how do you act? i think its the duty of "perhaps the signle most influential person in the world" not to play russian roulette with his country. he didnt, and now hes given crap for something we cant even prove beyond reasonable doubt...that weapons of mass destruction arent being deveolped by iraq. This intelligence that said there was a threat in Iraq is the same that says theres no weapons of mass destruction...obviously they aren't infallible..yar, has been a long time indeed...hows college etc?

[merryc]

thank you andy, thank you so much for putting into concise words what i have been trying to explain to people for months.

as a side note, eisenhower was torn apart by the decision to send our boys to war before D-Day, and that was a WORLD WAR. bush can try to make this out to be a world war, but it's not. it's his personal mission. eisenhower didn't want to send out troops out in a world war, because he understood what it meant to send young boys to war. this president doesn't know what the fuck that means, he doesn't mourn, he doesn't care. as my grandmother said today, "if my son or my husband were there now, i would find bush and shoot him." (yeah patriot act, track me down) i'm not as articulate as andy, but goddamn it this president makes me sick to my stomach.

[merryc]

and my above comment should be entitled, "officially pissed off by the 'this war is necessary' propaganda"

[pinklola]

uh...what propaganda says this war is neccesary? ive seen none. please let me know where it is...ill research it...and if its actually propaganda ill either concede or show you a much larger collection of propaganda defacing credibility of our soldiers. note: i never said this war was neccesary...hell i never said i liked it, fuck...i never said we should be over there...but we are...so are we gonna jump on the bandwagon where mass communications are easily swayed and believe everything we read or see on TV...or will we have more analytical minds...open to possibilities.. cuz if you take a side u can just as easily be wrong as correct...bush wasnt the only one to start this war...kerry was right behind him, as well as an insane majority of the house of representatives....do you attempt tp tear them each apart?

[pinklola]

i think that is absolute bull shit. you think someone would be so callous as to send over people into a war for his own names sake? if thats honestly your thought and piece of mind, you disgust me. i do have family, 4 people ive grown up with over there so dont tell me about loss, from the sounds of it, you dont have anyone you love over there you could lose, i do. so from the sounds of it to me, your complaining simply just for the hell of it. yeah, ill be defensive here cuz im honestly insulted. he doesnt mourn....he doesnt care....wow....do you really think that? have you paid attention to his speaches? ive seen him cry on several occasions on tv when talking about these things...not the sobbing, but you can see the tears. where do you get off with this? remind me not to vote for you if you run for president...again, i know im being a dick...i dont mean to but just as youve surely been towards others about this subject, im sick to my stomach reading your accusations

[merryc]

jon there was no reason to personally attack me like that. i don't have family in this war, you're right, but i have had many family members fight in every other war so do not invalidate my opinion on this. i also have friends who i care about over there right now. i didn't insult you with what i said, so there is no reason to get personal. it's really easy to look like you care in speeches, but has he been to one funeral? there has been plenty of propaganda with this war... start with the patriotism shit that we've been bombarded with in the past few years. i'm not going to try to argue with you on this, and i wasn't trying to in the first place, but i'm not going to let you personally attack me just because you don't agree with something i said. that's the beautiful thing about this country jon, i have as much of a right to an opinion on this as you do.

[pinklola]

Q: whos funeral would he go to? hes held the children of soldiers that arent comming home and told them that somethin he did is stopping them from havin a mom or a dad. i think thats harder than a funeral. anywho...weve already been over the rest of that stuff...so no need to go over it again. hows other shit...with life and such?