Subject: Neal gets aggressive

Was Iraq an actual military threat?  

Again?
Are you still stuck on that?
Do you figure to wear me down?
How many times can I explain "the simple" to you?
 

The answer was obviously, no, even if no one knew for sure 
that Saddam didn't still have a little degraded Sarin left from th '80s.  

Dude, when you type drunk, you get confused - you're not making sense.
"No one knew" that Saddam "didn't have" - that means he had WMDs.
Did you forget which side you were on?
 

But Bush had a "war hardon,"  as somebody said.  

That somebody was me.
It was true then, and it's true now.
 

Bush is therefore guilty of the infamous international crime of aggressive war.

You're starting to sound more sober now - good.
You are correct, Bush is a war criminal in the eyes of most of the world
but not in America because we no longer have a free press.
We see the news the White House wants us to see.
 

That seems clear, right?  Well, maybe not.  

ha ha
Did you get confused again?
I agreed with you - he is a war criminal.
 

Bartcop thinks that members of Congress who voted for this crime have a defense.  

I think the Democrats made a mistake when they trusted America's Monkey president.
 

They cannot be faulted for being accessories to aggressive war because they allegedly received 
a briefing before voting during which some CIA official "guaranteed" them that Saddam had special
unmanned drones that could be launched from ships 13 miles off the coast.

Dude, I gotta ask:
Did one of your friends say you'd look good with a Size 11 boot in your ass?

Outside of Lieberman, no Democrat voted for an aggressive war - they were playing defense.
    We both know that, but you made shit up because "defensive vote" won't fit your accusation.
They "allegedly" were briefed?   Are you calling the senators liars or me?
If you have to, fault the Dems for being stupid enough to fall for it, but don't call them 
    "aggresive killers" because they're scared kitten-weenies, begging for mercy from the mean bullies.
 

And if that defense is good for Congress, why can't Bush use it too?  
Sure, he and Blair were looking for pretexts for war in January, but that was just because they knew the
Security Council was unconvinced that the unmanned drones were enough of a threat to justify war.  
Like the Congress, however, Bush and Blair were just fooled by the "guarantee" briefing.  

To them, the invasion was the only possible, last ditch gamble left to defend the US and Britian from the robot planes
-- a defensive war against an imminent threat.  No crime at all.  If they told lies it was only for the purpose of getting
consensus from the fools who persisted in betting against the robot planes.  That's the defense.

Personally, I think it's transparent balony -- for Bush and for Congress.

Neal in Batavia 
 

The dope you have must be spectacular.

If you were less high, you might remember that the Democrats have no control over the CIA.
The president does that, remember?  
And what party is President Murder Monkey in?

That's right, he's a nasty-ass Republican and they control the CIA.
Christ, even when we have a Dem president, I think the BFEE controls the CIA.

But one thing you accidentally stumbled into was correct, and you read it here years ago.
If they get caught red-handed setting up 9-11 with Osama, if it turns out that they were all over that, 
they'd say, "China was moving to trade WMDs for energy and a nuke war was inevitable
but we couldn't sell the truth to the public so we 'pulled an FDR' and let the enemy hit us 
to get involved before it was too late.  We did what we had to do to save the country."

You bet that'll be their defense, because elected Republicans and the talk radio Nazis and the TV 
networks and the cable whores and FOX News and the NY Whore Times and the WaHoPo 
would all agree, "mistakes were made - because they loved America too much."

It's the O.J. defense, and you got that one right because you read  bartcop.com

So, Neal in Batavia (Isn't that where they had the massacre on Dynasty?)          Moldavia
You ambush didn't work.
Try to ambush somebody with the facts - it works better that way ...builds credibility.

And you might dial back the "my way or the highway" crap like you can't be wrong.

Like me, you're just a dude with an opinion... 
 

...'cept you have a Size 11 boot in your butt.
 

 back to  bartcop.com