Exactly...but Democrats try to portray that as a personal matter:rollseyes:

 

same thing you would do if you got a bj from your secretary and the boss asked you if it happened.

but whats worse, getting a blow job and hiding it or attacking another country on, what is now called, "questionable evidence" as the whole reason for war (WMD) has not been found? The UN didnt want us to go in because we didnt have enough evidence to go in the first place. We went in, we still havent found anything. We're not $billions in the hole when were were $millions in surplus. We're dragged into a war that will take a VERY long time to clean up and get back from, and we just made half the middle east hate us even more.

I personally would take the blow job.

 

This is something Joe Scarborough would place in his segment entitled "There you go again!"

There are two possible outcomes for the WMD. 1) They are still in Iraq but very well hidden, or 2) They were given to another nation or terrorists before they could be secured or destroyed.

Now I know what the liberals are going to say here...they did not exists in the first place...just like Alger Hiss was not a Communist working for the US Government. But they did exist and were documented by the UN and Iraq back in 1998 or 1999 before the UN weapons inspectors were kicked out. So where did these weapons go?

And what "questionable evidence" are we talking about here? Is this the same "questionable evidence" that the British government had about Iraq trying to obtain plutonium from Africa? The same Information that MI5 (British CIA) and Tony Blair insist is accurate and true? Blair even spoke in front of the House of Commons stating that it was true and legitimate.

So back to the two possible outcomes I posted above. If number 1 proves to be true than the war is most certainly justifiable, even moreso than it already is...and the latest polls have the American public in favor of the war at 63%. If number 2 is found to be correct then it is the fault of the multilateralism within the UN, and the great efforts of France and Germany to prevent the war from happening sooner that the WMD were let go. War with Iraq would still be justifiable, albeit too late.

Either way you slice and dice it though the Bush administration was right to lead a coalition of true friends and allies into Iraq. Like I said above 63% of the American public, a very strong majority, agree.

It is a very simple picture to read...I am not sure why it is debated. I guess it all boils down to what I said before...

 

Oh and I would take attacking a country with known WMD over lying about a BJ anyday.

If we had not gone to war and a nuclear dirty bomb went off in NYC and the source of the radioactivity came from Iraq, the same Democrats that are arguing about the credebility of the WMD and the justification of war would have been the first to go on the attack and say why didn't we go in and get them when we had a chance?

 

You're such an idiot. My boss wouldn't drag me to the highest court in the land and televise my trial to the entire country :slap:

 

3) Iraq destroyed most or all of its arsenal after the Gulf War, unfortunatally with minimal documentatuon, leaving nothing to be found by UN Inspectors except a few long forgotten mustard gas shells in an abandoned wareshouse.
4) Iraq never had Nuclear capibilities, albeit they may have had ambitions and perhaps the knowledge and documentation to do so, they never had the means.

Also, the UN Inspectors weren't kicked out
of Iraq, they we're pulled out for their safety by the UN before allied UK and US airstrikes were carried out on Iraqi targets.

And there is much "questionable evidence". The claims that Iraq sought Nuclear material from Niger was based on a poorly forged document. Of course, after this came to light, the british government insisted that they had plenty of, previously unmentioned, other intelligence from foriegn sources that was concrete. Of course, they claimed that they couldnt unveil this evidence, even to the US.
More "questionable evidence"? Of course.
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
- Secretary of State Colin Powell before the United Nations, 2/5/03
The problem is that much of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN relied on information from the British Intelligance Dossier on Iraq: "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation." It was later discovered that most of the dossier was plagerised from an essay written by a California graduate student, Ibrahim al-Marashi. That questionable enough for yah?

 

Again here is another liberal failing to accept the evidence as it is. The first Gulf War was over in the early 90s...in the late 90s (1998 0r 1999) UN weapons inspectors documented WMD that are now missing! Why is it that the liberals on this board fail to address this issue? I already laid out the two possible scenarios that could exist...but still they fail to acknowledge this fact!!

 

as Blackmajik said ..

"way to totally take that out of context" :goodjob:


:rollseyes: I dont know why I even read your posts. At least DVPGSR and Blackmajik makes some sense.

 

Ok ... the weapons arent there. Lets attack Iraq anyway? How about try and find what happened to them? I mean, you do have a good point there, DVPGSR, I'll give you that. But instead of dragging us into this war that will last years and years (not just fighting, but occupation and rebuilding) when we coulda done some detective work and not stirred the hornets net?

 

well let's think about that. how many times were the inspectors kicked out of iraq? also those same inspectors, up until early 2002 weren't allowed to search the palaces and the bunkers underneath them. i believe the old adage goes "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me."