Laugh at Liberals

20 Responses to “Bush lied about WMD….I mean there may be Some.”

1. Kelly Says: May 1st, 2004 at 5:31 am

   Now that’s just low. Bush convinced everyone, including me, that the WMDs were there. Now a year has ticked by, over 700 American dead, and still no WMDs. But KERRY is the inconsistent one. Talk about misplaced aggression. Why can’t some people just admit that Bush had Iraq in his sights before he even started campaigning for the presidency. It’s just so obvious, that you’d have to be an idiot or a liar to say otherwise. I probably would have done the same if I were President, but I would’ve done it on the grounds that Saddam was a colossal mass-murderer and it was the international community’s moral obligation to get rid of him. Clinton was able to do it with Milosevic. Of course, Bush can’t compare to Clinton when it comes to building coalitions and international diplomacy in general, but why did Bush have to rely on this gossamer theory of WMDs? It’s the Bush pattern. “Intelligence Failure” should be the catchphrase of his entire administration. At least Kerry is acknowledging the possibility that we may still find them, and who wouldn’t want it to be at least partially true, just so America can save some face in the eyes of the rest of the world. Thanks to Bush, the U.S. would be a laughing stock if everyone wasn’t so afraid of us.

2. Buck Says: May 2nd, 2004 at 12:43 am

   Did Kelly actually read Zack’s article? Hello? Jordanian security officials captured al Qaeda terroists with enough weaponized chemical agent to kill 20,000 thousand people. THAT’S AL QAED WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. They were captured coming into Jordan from Syria. GUESS WHAT? Weapons inspector David Kaye testified before congress saying that we will probably not find WMD in Iraq because Iraq probably either A.) Destroyed them, or B.)Trucked them out of the country to…..Where?…..Wait for it….
   Sryia! There is ample evidence, according to Repbulicans and Democrats alike, that Iraq had WMD programs that could have easily been ramped up to full production. Do you have to see someone you know murdered by terrorists in order to get the point?

3. Kelly Says: May 4th, 2004 at 8:05 am

   Zack, Zack, Zack. As far as I’m concerned, this IS the “Laugh at Conservatives” website. Aw, just kidding, seriously though, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings, although I’ve looked over my comments again and I can’t seem to find any examples of name-calling directed at you personally. We’re just talkin’ politics, right? The trick to keep from getting all flustered like that is to not take it personally, okay Zack? Besides, I don’t mean to sound as if I like Kerry that much. There’s plenty to dislike about him, but he’s a genius compared to Bush, and he’d have to eat a live baby on national television for me to dislike him as much as I dislike the lobotomized puppet currently in the White House. As far as the details of Kerry’s views go, nobody knows as much as they think they do at this point. There’ll be plenty of time for clarity in the months before November and, frankly, if Kerry can’t beat an illiterate jerk like Bush, then he deserves to lose.

4. Kelly Says: May 4th, 2004 at 8:06 am

   Buck, it took me a while to get through your comment because of the barrage of spelling errors, but I think I got the point. That’s all very interesting about the WMDs about to be used by an al Qaeda agent who trained in Iraq and got the stuff in Syria and then went to Egypt to see the pyramids and then got drunk at Oktoberfest in Munich before going to Jordan to kill people. The only problem is, it doesn’t link anything directly to SADDAM HUSSEIN, the guy who, according to Bush, was supposed to be brewing up the WMDs to begin with. Everyone already agrees that al Qaeda is a massive threat. They proved on 9/11 that each individual member is a WMD. But even if someone from al Qaeda once set foot in Iraq on his way to killing Jordanians, it doesn’t prove that Saddam was complicit, and in the case of WMDs, Saddam is innocent until proven guilty, regardless of whatever Bush says. All of this would be so much easier if Bush would just apologize to the U.N. and admit that he (himself, not just the CIA) was wrong about the WMDs, but right about removing Saddam. But Bush doesn’t have the guts to do that, so the right-wing campaign to prove that Bush isn’t a complete moron has to make up for it, and it’s reached a sad level of desperation. I know what David Kaye said, but there are other intelligence experts who say that it is highly unlikely that any WMDs could have been destroyed or transported to a neighboring country without us seeing it, and you know we were watching. This is why the rest of the world is laughing at us. There are so many Bush-worshippers looking for all kinds of little scraps here and there, hoping that they can find six degrees of separation between Saddam and something more dangerous than an AK-47, but they’re failing and they can’t stand it. If they ever do find something, Buck, believe me, it will be major news and everyone will hear about it and there won’t be reason for any more pathetic excuses. And if and when that happens, no one will be happier than me to see my country cleansed of some of the shame brought on by Bush. In the meantime, some of you guys are going to have to consider the possibility that you were conned with the rest of us. Either that, or go on kidding yourself, connecting the WMD dots in the sad hope that they will one day lead to Mr. Hussein. How much time do you have to waste speculating before YOU get the point, Buck?

5. zack Says: May 4th, 2004 at 2:10 pm

   Let me get this straight…….we have a commission, (9/11 commission) who has made it their job to look back at the 7 1/2 months Bush was in office before 9/11 (forget the 8 years clinton was there) and find, out of the tens of thousands of scraps, threads and hints of intelligence, ten words or so that MIGHT have indicated that planes could be flying into The WTC. And how Bush SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION. Yet with the mounds of intel, photos, witnesses, past use, dead bodies, threats, admissions and other tell-tale signs of Saddam having WMD…..”He was innocent until proven guilty??” And we should have waited to be sure???? REALITY! YEAH, REALITY! THAT’S WHAT BUSH-HATERS ARE OVERLOOKING! Look, the argument that there were no WMDs and no connection between al Qaeda an evil dictator who has used WMD in the past, been humiliated by our President’s father, had al Qaeda training camps in his country, is the last bastion for Bush-haters. It’s a wild stretch, but I guess you’ve gotta grab what you can reach, even if it IS on the lowest shelf, huh. You argue well, Kelly. You should be on Kerry’s team, on TV, where out of 300 million people….someone’s gonna buy it!

6. Emory Says: May 4th, 2004 at 10:23 pm

   Kelly, I am in complete and total agreement with you on one point: Buck’s “barrage of spelling errors.” But, my jaw dropped when I read your comment that Saddam is “innocent until proven guilty.” I guess you could say that Hermann Goering was innocent until Nuremburg, but I think Zack pointed out the dead bodies speak for themselves and they aren’t saying “Saddam is innocent.”

7. Grunt11B Says: May 14th, 2004 at 2:38 pm

   Whatever dildo. “Why can’t some people just admit that Bush had Iraq in his sights before he even started campaigning for the presidency.”
   your a moron if you dont remember clinton targeting Iraq also. and if my memory serves me right “and it does”, clinton passed on a chance in 1994 to take out bin laden. take your liberal ass and go live with al-quada in afghanistan.

8. Nancy Wells Says: May 15th, 2004 at 8:13 pm

   One way to conduct a dialogue is to seriously debate fundamental ideas, without personal attack, using an agreed upon common vocabulary to facilitate understanding and communication. Another approach is to speak without listening, employing derision and dismissal, using language which distorts and obfuscates to further a predetermined agenda. A particular case in point: the term WMD. To most Americans, the initials are frightening. Yet there is little common understanding of what they represent. The term “Weapons of Mass Destruction” has until recently been reserved for the greatest threat of all–nuclear weapons. But in the past few years some high-ranking government officials have chosen to use this term to include chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, such as nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax, etc. While these are indeed frightening, as are “conventional” bombs which can kill large numbers of people and destroy a great deal of property, they cannot be labeled WMD’s without the definition also including other conventional weapons. And so to use the term without clarification is to confuse. And to use the term to frighten without clarifying the level of danger (an envelope of anthrax cannot be equated with the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) is to be dishonest and manipulative. Such language abuse in no way furthers the exchange of ideas or joint progress toward solutions to the complex social and political problems of our world.

9. draco Says: October 18th, 2004 at 6:21 pm

   Nancy, you are so typical with your semantic dissections. They (radical Islam- the Jihad/third caliphate- which spans the entire middle east- despite your innocent and naive outlook) want you dead Nancy, despite what you think, you are a typical liberal- a solipist. I am a recovered liberal, so prepare to meet more than your match. We don’t have to insult you, but’s it’s just so frustrating when you constantly weep for dictators like Saddam, Hitler and Stalin, and try to justify these tiny points of contention. The truth is, as a conservative, I don’t care whether he had WMD’s or not- it seems to be the only branch your ilk can cling to, though. The Bush administration did not fabricate the suspicion that they had them. Faulty intelligence may or may not have been a factor. As to rules of engagement for a serious discussion: this site is called “laugh at liberals” it’s a comedy site, Nance, a fact you may have overlooked! proving furthremore that liberals are so clouded by faulty reasoning that they can’t even muster a sense of humor- if you want serious debate, there are plenty of sites out there- this is where we blow off steam- you can probably head to your local beatnik coffeehouse and discuss “the glass ceiling”, how opressed you are in america, and how prostitutes should be able to use abortion as a form of birth control on my tax dollars. You’re the ones giving the weight to the WMD term, not us- we could care less, you daft trollop. You don’t understand a damn thing about the social and political problems of the world and I can prove it- if you’d like a serious debate, that is, not one based on your solipism or “feelings”, I will give you one- but I doubt you can handle it. and to Kelly: you made absolutely no point whatsoever! allllll you did was call Bush a “big dummy head” so to speak- he did manage to become president- what have YOU done lately? what is your point? are you just jealous? what is your brilliant suggestion with how to deal with a nazi-like mobilization of people who consistently chop off heads, suicide bomb, and murder schoolchildren as a means to an end? you don’t have one, and you never will- because you don’t live in the real world. The only reason you are able to prosthelitize is because you live within the borders that a man like Bush can keep safe, by agrressively dealing with enemies. and guess what, genius: the world has always envied and feared us, as well they should- we have a higher cause and are clearly the liberators of the world. Next time you want to criticize a government, why don’t you pick one that’s better than us- oh wait- there isn’t one.
   bring it on, nancy and kelly- I haven’t even started my facts assault on you yet. Enjoy your freedom, girls, cause if the taliban won, I’d take serious delight in enforcing their draconian beliefs and methods like: beating women like you about the face and ankles for speaking your mind and showing your skin or being on the streets after dark- see the irony? what do you think you know about the “complex social and political problems of our world” anyways? P.S. how come liberals never focused on people like JFKennedy saying “cuber” when he meant to say Cuba? are these the things you focus on? someone’s accent and grasp of spelling? Bush knows enough to call a spade a spade when he sees one.(the shovel you cretin, not the derogatory term)
   -yours in Democracy
   the Freedom Fighter

10. Serbian National Says: October 18th, 2004 at 6:55 pm

    You’re going to have to tone down the vocabulary in your posts, draco, if you want them to understand what you’re trying to say.

    You said it yourself, Kelly - EVERYONE thought that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now, even though we can’t find any (yet) I doubt that everyone thought he had WMDs because he didn’t. The intelligence community, though a bureaucracy in every way, is not completely defunct and they are not idiots. Any red neck can understand that Saddam wasn’t just going to leave his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons out in plain sight for us to just find the second we looked!

    I’d also like to say that, even though Buck might have made a few spelling errors in his post (most likely because he was incensed with the stupidity of yours) his point was still clear and the errors in no way clouded his meaning. For you to point out a few minor spelling errors is trivial and pitiful, as if that would help strengthen your paper-thin argument.

11. gonna cry Says: December 29th, 2004 at 11:22 pm

    Why are liberals Commenting on at this web sight,We are just going to laugh at you.
    losers

12. Reedie Says: December 30th, 2004 at 10:28 am

    All I see is vanity and ignorance. I sigh, and turn my head.

13. Sean Says: December 30th, 2004 at 5:03 pm

    Serbian National,
    How many times must it be said. Saddam did have WMD’s, we found WMD’s, we just didn’t find large stockpiles of WMD’s! We found Chemical and Biological weapons. We found evidence of a Nuclear program. We also found missles that had range capabilities in excess of the UN restrictions (you know the UN that you people praise so much).
    Every intelligence agency: British, Czech, U.S. etc. said he had weapons programs and we found evidence of weapons programs. Most of the weapons were most likely moved out of the country, to Syria, before we arrived as was shown in CIA sattelite photos. Try reading the entire Kay report, not just what was reported by CBS!
    Oh and draco doesn’t need to tone down a thing. His response nailed you on every single issue, that’s why you couldn’t respond to it.

14. Sara Says: May 5th, 2005 at 7:48 pm

    George W. Bush is a liar. HOW DARE YOU INSULT LIBERALS!!!!!! I am a liberal and I am proud of it!!!!! Republicans are ignorant stupid people who lie.

15. bonniem Says: May 5th, 2005 at 11:47 pm

    Sara, don’t get so uptight about being insulted as a liberal, when you have the gall to call George Bush a liar. And for your last sentence in comment 14, I wonder, How old are you?! You sound so childish.

16. ROB TAYLOR Says: May 7th, 2005 at 5:50 am

    GW I’M SURE WILL BE REMEMBERED AS THE ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO ATTEMPTED TO DESTROY THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. DESTROYING THE LIFE LINE OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR RETIRED AMERICANS..BLOW THE WORLD APART FOR HIS FORM OF FREEDOM..IN LYNN CHENEYS WORDS..’HE IS A BAD MAN !’

17. bonniem Says: May 7th, 2005 at 8:50 pm

    Rob Taylor, That is just your opinion. Remember that! There are millions who may agree with you but there are millions, just as intelligent (or maybe more so) who know better.

18. wojopaul Says: January 17th, 2007 at 2:04 am

    Scott Ritter our own US weapons inspector said in 2002:

    “There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.
    We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.
    If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.
    As of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance.”

    And on 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer. Guest host John King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

    “But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”

    And during a press conference on February 24, 2001 during Colin Powell’s visit to Cairo, Egypt said;

    “We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…”

19. Kolran-Fett Says: January 17th, 2007 at 4:46 am

    Wojopaul cometo some of the active blogs, such as Same Sex Marrige Ban Initiates…. Just click on blog home and blog on the ones near the top. As far as Weapons of Mass destrucution goes, the whole senate voted to go to war in Iraq, if the president would have veteod it, the senate would have voted and overroad his veteo. On top of this people would have said he didn’t care about 9/11 and that he was a weenie. The democrats now said that they were ‘mislead’. They had the facts, mislead my butt.

20. Kolran-Fett Says: January 17th, 2007 at 4:46 am

    Wojopaul cometo some of the active blogs, such as Same Sex Marrige Ban Initiates…. Just click on blog home and blog on the ones near the top. As far as Weapons of Mass destrucution goes, the whole senate voted to go to war in Iraq, if the president would have veteod it, the senate would have voted and overroad his veteo. On top of this people would have said he didn’t care about 9/11 and that he was a weenie. The democrats now said that they were ‘mislead’. They had the facts, mislead my butt.

Leave a Reply