This is a REAL turning point on the war on terror.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

And every Dem. candidate should emphasize this. We went into this war because it was part of the war on terror. We couldn't let the WMD fall into terrorists' hands. Now we've got Saddam. Full interrogation time, sleep deprivation, lie detector tests, everything. It is dire that we find out what he did with all of those weapons. This is crucial to fighting the war on terror. It will be a huge failure if we can't account for all of those weapons, which even Clinton said existed. This is our NUMBER ONE concern. This is why we went to war. This is why we couldn't wait for pin-head inspectors. If the weapons are still there and terrorists are pouring into the country, then we've got to do something to get ahold of those weapons. Please, Mr. President, lead us in this war. Find out where those weapons are. The man who knows their whereabouts is in our custody. For the safety of the American people, do everything we can to get info. from this man to show us where those weapons are.

Thank you, Mr. President, for this HUGE step in the war on terror. We can now find out where all of the WMD are, secure them, and make America safer. This is a great day.

[Guaranteed]

1. Interesting. nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. yo ...haven't you heard Saddam's men did NOT fly those planes into the WTC

on 911 and there are NO fucking WMD's

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

7. Nonsense.

The president said there were WMD, and he's a man of integrity and honesty. He's looking out for our safety. Therefore, I expect him to use all means necessary to find out where they are. This is why we went into Iraq, so that the WMD couldn't fall into the hands of terrorists. Saddam can tell us where they are. Or he can tell us where he sent them. Our president can now fully justify this war for the non-belivers and get Saddam to show his cards, to show us that he is the terrorist our hones, plain-spoken president told us he was.

Once we find those WMD, which have to be there, I will sleep much better at night. The president will lead us. How can he not? We've got Saddam!!!! Joy.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. bye

[skypilot]

15. Oh really??

Will you still sleep much better at night knowing that Pakistan has the bomb and that Islamic fundamentalist are gunning for Musharaf? But we've been wasting too much time and resources in Iraq to even think about that. But you go right ahead and sleep.

[rwork]

23. Satirical

right?

[GiovanniC]

35. Obviously, blatantly satirical.

Sarcasm doesn't usually tend to translate well across message boards, but this was dripping with it.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truth2power]

50. This is sarcasm, I think.

"We've got Saddam!!!! Joy." Yep, I think it's sarcasm.

[kentuck]

3. Clinton and a lot of leaders around the world thought Saddam ........

had WMDs, but they didn't go to war because they "thought" something. They didn't get our troops killed or kill innocent Iraqi civilians because they "thought" Saddam might have certain weapons, biological and otherwise. They needed proof. Bush invented proof.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sir_Shrek]

5. I agree with you....

I think that Saddam is going to prove to be a substantial intelligence source, not in just original information, but in corroboration of other informants. And I don't think that many in custody are going to be too excited to come to his defense, seeing the way he surrendered. If the Dems poo poo this too much.....

[Blue_Chill]

6. Check please

...

[skypilot]

10. Oh sh*t

The freepers have obviously decided to celebrate Saddam's capture by invading DU!!!

[mmm]

19. ain't it sweet?

They would sooner waste time amusing us than...
trying to think about the world. The concept of Humanity
is forever lost on them.

[CMT]

9. yes

where are those pesky WMD that Bush was so certain were in Iraq. Let's see if Saddam provides any clues. I have my doubts. Nice pro-Bush post though.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

12. Saddam has to have clues

He's an evil-doer. He's a main crux in the war on terror. Our president told us he had WMD and we went to war on this. We MUST find the WMD before they fall into the hands of terrorists. Saddam knows where they are. I DEMAND that the president find at, at whatever cost to Saddam's menatl or physical health. Those WMD are the most pressing point. Gosh, I do hope the president doesn't lose sight of this. And golly gosh, I sure hope people don't let him forget.

[Bandit]

45. People here don't seem to appreciate your humor

I do though :toast: :beer: :bounce: Let the torture of Saddam begin.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. You are absolutely right. Besides, we have the sales receipts

from all the stuff we sold him :D

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmm]

13. Is this a clown post?

If not, let me clue you in:
you got your 'facts' wrong. All of them.
Go back about two thousand posts and start reading-
you've got a lot to learn about the world.

[Zero Gravitas]

31. You're missing his point.

1) There are no WMDs (they were destroyed following the Gulf War, we know this)

2) Saddam had no connections to terrorism. He was a greedy brutal dictator but was secular and a-political The terrorist supporting countries are run by religous/political fanatics.

3) Bush* said we must go to war because Saddam has WMDs and he might give them to terrorists who might use them against us.

4) Now we have Saddam we have no excuse not to find them. We can use tactics on Saddam to tell us anything we want to know.

5) We should therefore make the WMDs Issue #1. They have no excuses now, they must produce the WMDs, they have invaded the country and have captured enough key figures in the former regime to have access to all the pieces of the puzzle.

WHERE ARE THE WMDs MR BUSH?

If they can't find them now then the only conclusion is the Bush is a Liar, and that he lied about something much more significant than a blow job.

[karlschneider]

14. Heehee...I notice some of us have missed the irony in your little satire..

;-)

[mmm]

24. Heeheehee! Ya think!?

Thanks for the belly laugh, that was fun.

[Granite]

27. LOL! I caught it too

I think the poster is saying that we should focus on the WMD's. When Saddam tells us that he doesn't have them and never had them, just like he said pre-war, our "honest, straight-shooting President" who told us what a threat he was because of these non-existant WMD's is going to be exposed.

But of course, I know republican friends who say this stuff everyday with a straight-face, so this could be a serious post! ;)

[jpgray]

32. Yeah, it threw me

It sounded remarkably like a true-believer statement. It's pathetic when irony is so near to reality--but now the guy is saying things like "golly gosh", so I hope not too many more will fall for it.

:)

[jpgray]

16. Most unintentionally funny post I've seen for a while

Anyone who thinks Bush went into Iraq to "fight terrorism" needs to try firing up their single brain cell again. Go read a Vanity Fair where Wolfowitz says WMD "was the only reason everyone agreed on" for invading Iraq, and how they had been planning the invasion for years before. They pitched it to Clinton, remember?

Terrorism is an excuse, and the "war on terror" is a sham.

edit: if it's INtentionally funny, cheers.

:toast:

[Jackpine Radical]

26. What makes you think the humor is unintentional?

I thought the satirical flavor was obvious.

Translation for the sarcasm-impaired:

We got Saddam. Now, Georgie, oh brave leader, it's time to lay down your cards. You were betting like you had a full house (of WMD). We're calling. Let's see it, Georgie.

[jpgray]

29. Read the edit

:)

The heavy irony does sound remarkably like a freeper post.

[Silverhair]

17. ???? Are you serious? OK, let's assume that you are.

Saddam didn't need to have the ready-to-use weapons on hand. Let's look at the catagories.

1. Nukes. He didn't have them. Those do need to be built in advance.

2. Biological - Militarily these are of little use, and hard to control. Because they are a life form, they have the possibility of coming back to bite you. And they are to slow and imprecise. And they require some serious brainpower to make.

3. Poison gas. This is the one of choice and he has used it before. It is old technology (It was used in WWI) so it doesn't take a lot of brainpower or fancy equipment. A facility for making gas can be a dual use factory, and even the raw material can be dual use. So the factory is making XYZ and gets a call to whip up a batch of Mustard Gas. In a couple of days it is done, and the factory is back to making XYZ. He uses the batch of gas and it is gone.

So there are no WMDs to be found. Made as needed, used, gone. And the factory is an XYZ factory.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zero Gravitas]

20. ha ha Good One

right. And since we already know that Iraq destroyed all of its WMDs over 10 years ago we need to beat this issue to death, so that when the non-existant WMDs are still non-existant in November, Bush looks like a bigger idiot than he already does.

[Frances]

21. Are you being sarcastic?

If not, and if you are a real Bush supporter, you should keep quiet about the WMDs. I don't think Saddam would have been hiding in a hole if he really did have WMDs.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. tick tock..... tick tock.......tick tock.....

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[XNASA]

28. More hyperbole, I'm afraid.

Using words like "pinhead" to back up your incredibly naive assumptions won't win you any points on DU.

President Clinton hypothesized that the Iraqis had WMD because he was aware of the history between Saddam and the Bush Family Evil Empire.

Afterall, the BFEE held the receipts, so it's wise to assume that Iraq possessed WMD. In reality, the BFEE robbed Saddam blind. They took his money, then made false accusations. This has been their MO for decades.

Bush is not a leader, nor was the capture of Saddam crucial to anything.

But I'm happy for you if it makes you feel better. In the meantime, you better get down to your local Wal-Mart where your talking points will be better received.

:crazy:

[jpgray]

30. It's irony, I think--the poster says "golly gosh" somewhere above

:D

[skypilot]

33. Oh, now I get it.

D'oh!!

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

36. Of course, my posts here are goofs.

But it's political ju-jitsu. You use their repeated arguement against them. I'm tired of the "Dems need to keep quiet." "Dems. need to be careful." Nonsense. Give the mouth-breathers what they want to hear. That this is a huge part in the war on terror--going to Iraq to secure the WMD, which the administration told us they had. I would go so far as to say "whatever means necessary" in interrogation of Hussein. We've lost 450+ of our men and women, and we own't torutre this guy to find the WMD? Is that how serious we are about this war on terror? We won't forcefully interrogate this monster until he tells us where the WMD are. I KNOW there are no WMD. That's the point. We went to war to find them, and we must not let the public forget this. So you side with the war on terror to expose the "war on terror." If I were a candidate, I would demand that we find out where all of those WMD are, so we can be sure of the safety of the American people. Even if there are none, we have to interrogate the hell out of Saddam to make sure.

This should be the dem. response. Go after both Saddam and Bush. Rationality won't work with the mouth-breathers in this country. Use their sheeple idiocy against them. PLEASE, MR president, MAKE US SAFE. PLEASE FIND OUT WHERE THE WMD ARE.

Put this guy's balls to the wall. Out "war on terror" the "war on terror" to expose the "war on terror" for the fraud that it is. It's the only way, my friends. This is the perfect message for any of the candidates, but maybe especially the "hawks."

Oh yeah, and they can't be sarcastic in delivery :-)

[ProfessorGAC]

38. Methinks You Waited Too Long

From your prior posts, i knew this was a goof. But, not everyone would remember your screen name. I think you triggered alerts based upon your posts, and you were being sardonic.

I think the mods job is hard enough without you making it clear at the end of you first post that it was a satire. Even though i agree with your sentiment, at the end, it might be best not to make the mods jobs harder.
The Professor

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

39. Yes, well I was always a fan of Andy Kauffman.

No accounting for timing, I guess.

[XNASA]

40. It is too late to say, "Me too."?

Then again, I was really taken by the whole Jerry Lawler thing as well.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Do you write for "The Onion"?

Sometimes it's hard to separate satire from reality.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FDRrocks]

42. Sorry, Clinton blew up all the WMD's.

Fuck George Bush. Fuck his bullshit war. Fuck You, Mr. President.

That wasn't satire :)

[gasperc]

43. Saddam tells interrogators "No WMD"

Truth? Lying? Who knows?

The fact is, he was found in a fucking dirt hole with a bunch of AMERICAN money, obviously not coordinating the attacks, if there are any WMD's (which I'll go out on a limb and say there's little if any), they are in the hands of rouge terrorists, bathists, resistance fighters, general lunatics that will at some random point point use them against are troops. Which is a puzzle that IF THEY HAD WMD, why not use them against the troops now?

But, yeah let's torture Saddam to tell us everything we want to fucking hear, plant the WMD's and then close the chapter.

Actually, WMD's can now be planted anywhere, say that Saddam told us they were in location X and someone comes out looking like a rose.

God knows the Bush administration isn't going to allow Saddam to blurt out in front of a world court "No, of course not. The U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."


<snip>
Citing a U.S. intelligence official in Iraq, the report said that when asked if his government had such weapons Saddam replied: "No, of course not. The U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us."


The news magazine reported that the official, who read a transcript of the interrogation of the former Iraqi president, said the interrogator asked: "If you had no weapons of mass destruction, then why not let the U.N. inspectors into your facilities?"


Saddam's reply: "We didn't want them to go into the presidential areas and intrude on our privacy."


The U.S. intelligence official, who was not identified, told the magazine that Saddam had not been very cooperative and did not answer any of the initial questions directly.
<snip>


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=1&u=/nm/20031215/ts_nm/iraq_saddam_interrogation_dc_1

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

44. But Saddam's a lying evil-doer, right?

I would love to hear the media begin to ask questions about WMD. I would love it more if the dems. started pressing the issue from a war on terror angle. "We must find out what happened to them." We can't let them fall into the hands of more evil-doers, especially if they're now pouring into the country like our president has suggetsed (and which other more reliable sources discredit). So we have to act now to find out the truth (or we can wait until sept. 2004, even oct. 2004--when Michael Moore's Farenheit 9-11 comes out). For the security of the nation, we have to find out where the WMD are. Quote Bush: "One vial could be enough to wreak havok on any major city. We cannot wait for that threat to become imminent" (or choose your favorite--the above is a paraphrase not a direct quote). Getting to the bottom of Saddam's deceptions is #1 priority.

We have to keep bringing WMD into the picture. We have to set the agenda and their agenda (since this is what the press loves to cover--the administration's agenda).

You're absolutely correct that there is no WMD or very little. But let's find a way to let Bush admit this himslef, all the while play the war on terror card against him. I'm not taking Saddam's word for it. I want to hear our honest president address the issue. And I want to see a dem. candidate press him on it, out hawk him to reveal his lies, to show that the "war on terror" is not a war but an excuse.

[Uzybone]

46. Is this a joke?

What does a disshevelled (sp) Saddam have to do with the war on terror.

edit: yes it is :-)

[tableturner]

48. Make this into a conundrum for Bush:

"Okay, you say there are/were WMD, and for the time being, we will go along with that. You now have Saddam and the concomitant intelligence goldmine. Therefore, your job is to find the WMD to make sure they don't get into the hands of terrorists."

If he does not find them (and of course he won't) then either he was lying, or he was not lying and instead he is incompetent in allowing them to remain unaccounted for and thus in danger of getting into, or already being in, the hands of terrorists.

Using this paradigm, Bush loses either way. Either he was lying or he is incompetent. Honestly, even if a person thinks Bush was telling the truth about WMD, Bush is still hurt by this train of thought, IF this train of thought is pushed often and hard.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

49. Yes, of course.

Agree with the mouth-breathers but them tell them to put up or shut up. Great, we have Saddam. Great, our mighty war-leader won this war. Great, he's endowed with Reagan's spirity (for you, Peggy Noonan). But now, let's get REALLY serious/. We have to get those weapons. The American public won't be safe until we have a full accounting for them. And we won't rest until Saddam is racked until he tells the truth.

[veracity]

51. Sad, sad, view

Saddam, brute that he was to those who opposed his rule inside Iraq, was NEVER a threat to the US. Not a single American civilian was ever threatened or killed by him. He was a tool for PNAC. No more, no less. The goal towards military domination of the Middle East was set in the nineties and implemented with the advent of 9/11. There were no WND's. Everyone knows that now...except a few holdouts who want to beleive that a man who was under 24 hour surveillance would have a death wish and attack the mightiest nation on the planet.

The world is not only not safer, but far more perilous since this invasion. It's so sad that you cannot see through the PNAC thugs and their quest for global supremacy. Read their treaties...and see their faces.... (Rebuilding America's Defenses) - and learn who runs things.

Then applaud this PR ploy for what it is.
www.tvnewslies.org/html/pnac_neo-con_artists.html

[Padraig18]

52. I hope this is satire.

:shrug: