bush admits Iraq did not have WMD - Is this adapting to win?

[BOSSHOG]

Today bush ponied up what fucking lunatic liberals have known all along. Is this a new rovian strategy - tell the truth?? No doubt the base is easily trick fucked. In two months, liberals will be war mongering baby killers to free republic members who enjoy being lead around by their noses.

- A shout out to all the dumbass conservatives on the gulf coast who write letters upon letters to the Sun Herald about those evil WMD's. You were fucking wrong bitches, now start your new spin cycle.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Well, Chief...

Are you gonna take this opportunity to write an LTTE of your own?

Don't waste this anger. Channel it into something you can be proud of. ;-)

[BOSSHOG]

4. I've gotten a couple through

the editorial chop. The neanderthals just hate it when some liberal starts spouting the truth.

Did you know that Valerie Plames was just an unimportant desk jockey?

[ixion]

2. it's a mea culpa to war crimes

IMO. :grr:

[unpossibles]

3. ha!

Sadly, I doubt we'll hear any mea culpas - there have always been no WMDs and we've always been at war with Eurasia.

[LynnTheDem]

5. One day even the stupidest MFing rightwingnut will wake up to the FACT

that they've been played, conned, duped, suckered, punk'd by their bush-gawd.


NO "WMD" in Iraq. NO "WMD" found in Iraq. Not before bush's illegal invasion.

Not after bush's illegal invasion.

NONE.

FACT.

[BOSSHOG]

7. And then they'll bow their heads and admit

that the reason they had no WMD is because of the maintenance of the No fly zone over Iraq under the leadership of Bill Clinton in the 90's. Saddam's air force was neutered, the weapons inspectors did their jobs and there was minimal loss of life or violence. No don't that just suck for the prolife religiously insane "conservative" wack jobs in this country?

[Jim__]

8. Unfortunately, loss of Iraqi life under Clinton was not minimal.

The sanctions against Iraq, maintained while Clinton was president, were deadly.

I agree, the no fly zone and the weapons inspections were effective. We probably could have instituted a less deadly, yet effective, sanctions policy against Iraq.

[Solly Mack]

6. It's about "not leaving a failed state behind" now

so said Bush

He said it's not about how we got there, but not leaving Iraq a failed state by leaving Iraq before the "mission is completed"

He enumerated a few of the reasons given for invading, claiming he was always concerned about freeing the Iraqis, so he always gave a legitimate reason for invading, in other words...

so, yeah, it's part of the laying of foundation for the aftermath - the shaping of official history...and spinning it as a win (with ever changing definitions of winning) ...and now the only way to win is to not withdraw...and if you support withdrawal, you support terrorists "following us to America" (so says Bush)

If Bush can keep the troops there until 2009, then the next President is responsible for the failure...cause if they had just done what Bush was doing...we'd win...that is, if the next President withdraws instead of "staying the course"...but if we can put enough pressure to withdraw before 2009, then this spin won't work


I think Bush and Co knows withdrawal is coming because conditions are so bad...and this way they can blame the next administration...at least, spin it that way

Bush and Co knows it's a failure, they're just trying to hold out long enough (and let more people die) so they can spin their failure onto the next President..