Why didn't the mainstream media cover this?

What a crock of shit. The suck-up media gave Bush a free pass for five years and have only recently started to wake up from their neocon-induced coma.

 

Because Hussein was a secular enemy of the fundamentalists. Our half-assed cut-rate occupation has turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground, and diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan where the terrorists had been on the run.

 

No, not quite. It's just amusing how many people get their panties into an uproar when someone presents a viable possibility (or even dares to explore more off the wall scenarios) that goes against their core beliefs. Furthermore, it shows just how many people have come to conclusions based upon a lot of haphazard stuff. It tends to separate generic, cookie cutter Bush-haters from those with rational reasons.

So, excuuuuuuUUUSE me for not being quick to judge, or not simply nod my head yes because everyone else in the crowd is doing the same thing.

 

Although likely true, they would have had a common goal. It is possible they could have kept their differences at bay because of this. It's not unreasonable to say their hatred of the U.S./Israel/Jews could eclipse whatever differences they might have shared, and Saddam turn a blind eye to such activities within his border.

 

And I thought that Bush had trouble speaking coherently.

 

I don't think you have been watching enough Fox, or reading enough redstates.org.

Facts

 

The central feature of their 'differences' had to do with who ran Iraq.

The US has reconciled that problem.

 

This "argument" tactic of yours is getting tedious. When someone raises facts you don't like, or even reasonable questions as I've done, you change the subject, yet in an attacking manner.

No, Squid, your stated "big question" is big only to YOU, and only for the purposes of this particular thread. To other reasonable people, including the rest of the world, the big question IS the proof.

So take your puerile accusations of someone (me) "spinning more theories", and your smug declaration that you know in advance what I would do, and your rolling eyes, and STICK THEM ALL WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE.

A further question: if this appeared 1/26, a day short of three weeks ago, why hasn't the "news" exploded into our consciousness? Because the "liberal media" are suppressing the proof? Aren't there any plain vanilla, middle-of-the-road news people---say, in Baltimore, or Miami, or Dallas, Salt Lake City, Seattle, San Diego, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Cleveland, Indianapolis---or USA Today, or US News and World Reports, or Reuters---who, unlike the fascist Fox/Wash. Times and the Communist NY Times/ABC News, could follow up on any of Gen Sada's claims?

<_<

 

I am unsure if MS is a troll in Prius clothing, or just a clown who imagines himself the witty life of the party -- buy either way, feeding him is a poor idea.

 

Carful jack, you might rupture something....



:lol:

 

First of all, by my grace, I excuse you. But you failed to point out who was in an uproar in your eyes and why you think that? Because people aren't agreeing with you and pointing out errors in your logic then THEY must be in an uproar?

"It's just amusing how many people get their panties into an uproar when someone presents a viable possibility..."
By your standard, how does a possibility that requires little or no evidence become viable?

And now you admit that your scenarios are "off-the-wall." Good, we're breaking ground here. Please explore those scenarios all you like, just don't expect others to agree that basing real world decisions on "off-the-wall" scenarios is a smart thing to do.

"Furthermore, it shows just how many people have come to conclusions based upon a lot of haphazard stuff" Please specify the haphazard stuff. I'm only suggesting that it is wiser to base decisions on known evidence rather than blind wishful potentials scenarios. I guess if you can't understand something then it would appear haphazard to you--my bad for not being a good enough teacher, sorry.

see still smiling, no uproar here. Peace be with you brother.

 

Likewise!

(seriously, even through all the jabs and insults!)

 

wow.. fun topic.. the way i see things. We were promised results. we got none. We had many other promises that were broken. I have no faith in liars. anyone who lies is no better than the criminals themselves... then again.. i guess that's just politics isn't it?

 

I'm on the other side of the issue from you (well, mostly), but I have to admit I heard it all over the "main stream media". But, its from a book being released, so the "hard news" guys are being cautious about it. I think that's appropriate. The publisher will try to stoke the fires of controversy to sell more books, even if the statement is only opinion and not verifiable fact.

The one thing I'm interested in is why people think North Korea has nukes. Or that Iran is trying to make nukes. We don't have any more proof that they have them than we did that Iraq had them (in the case of chemical weapons, we know Iraq was capable of using them, as they did in the war between Iran and Iraq).

 

I don't find the "proof" today of North Korea or Iran's "atom bomb plans" any more compelling than the "proof" of Iraq's chemical weapon WMDs. It all seems to be based on the same type of "intelligence" sources that we trusted before. Iran denies they are enriching uranium for bomb making purposes, just as Iraq denied they had chemcial weapons.

[Edited for clarity about "intelligence sources", and to remove a phrase about "switching sides depending on which party is in power" that looked a lot stronger than I meant it to be].

 

HAH! When and where?

 

You've stopped me dead in my tracks. The only thing I've read about N Korea was about them lobbing a missile into the Pacific (I think). What DO we know? But if Kim Jong Il doesn't have 'em, he's crazier than reported to threaten anyone that he does.