Need help with WMD argument against a freeper

[Doorknob]

"Liberals: How could Bush carry out 9/11 but not plant WMD's in Iraq?"

This guy is a grade-a asshole and I'd like to give a good answer!

[jumpoffdaplanet]

1. bush didn't have to carry anything out

all he needed to do was sit back on his fat ass, not lifting a finger to stop it.

Being that lazy, he isn't going to get busy planting anything.

[Warpy]

20. No kidding, 9/11 was WAY beyond the capabilities of this bunch

The anthrax mailings were more their speed: obvious targets, obvious strain that was easily traced back to a high level CIA lab, weaponized stuff that couldn't have been handled outside that lab without significant collateral damage to anyone in the immediate vicinity. Now THAT was an inside job!

Bushco got plenty of warnings about 9/11, some of them specific enough to tell them that hijacked aircraft were part of it. They sat back and did nothing save keep their boy Asscroft off commercial flights. They'd already canceled the investigation into the Cole bombing and ordered the FBI to back off investigating Saudis in the US while they downplayed the terror threat and dreamed of oil and glory in Iraq. Either this is the most blinkered, pig-ignorant incompetent bunch on the face of the planet, or they saw it coming and intended to use it. In either case, this bunch really should go.

Ask that Freeper to explain Stupid's performance at the Booker school on the morning of 9/11 after he'd been told the second plane had hit and the country was under attack. Then sit back and watch him splutter.

[niyad]

2. maybe because iraq is under 24/7 surveillance and it MIGHT have been

noticed?

[Doorknob]

5. Thanks everybody. We've....

already went round and round about 9/11 (I personally think the government is behind the whole thing. See Operation Northwoods for my reasoning) but I'm a bit stumped with this one.

[redphish]

12. Wow, I'd never heard of Operation Northwoods before...

so I googled it, pretty scary shit.

[murielm99]

3. I don't know, but

when you get an answer, I have one, too:

I know a couple of freeper types who say that the Clinton economy was good because of the policies Reagan put in place. LOL. I ask them why they are so obsessed with someone who has not been president for six years. But I would like a quick comeback for the Reagan lie.

[Rose Siding]

4. Ask "What makes you think he didn't try?"

[Doorknob]

6. That's a good one! n/t

[bullimiami]

14. and there is some evidence (albeit dubious) that says he did try.

[neuvocat]

7. The two are not related.

Bush went to war over a phony excuse. Saddam had nothing to do with 911.

Always start off with the premise of a question like that. If it turns out questionable, ask him or her (or they) how they could come up with such a stupid question in the first place.

And then tell them they were the ones who suggested that Bush blew up the WTC if you want to stick it to them.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Well, it sounds like a loaded question

The first thing I would do is attack his logical fallacy. The question is laoded; it assumes that all liberals (whatever a liberal is) believe that Bush is behind the September 11 attacks.

I don't think Bush carried out 9/11. I think Osama bin Laden did.

Next point?

[Zynx]

9. Exactly. Most liberals don't believe Bush is behind 9/11.

[Doorknob]

10. Well, I respect my fellow liberals opinions but...

I feel like I've seen enough to know he has. Nothing against anyone else though.

[bullimiami]

13. do they? i believe it. i think bush is in it up to his grizzled hair.

i dont know exactly how or how much but he is lying and he is dirty with it.

[Zynx]

21. Do you represent a majority of liberals?

[bullimiami]

23. i sure dont know. i do know that most people I know question

the story as presented.

[bullimiami]

11. its not that easy to plant weapons because

there will be forensic tests done on anything found and it is very difficult to get all of the compounds exactly like they would have to be to be deemed authentic.

anyhow.

bush assumed, against all contrary evidence, that saddam had to be lying...had to have some wmd stashed, because thats what bush and co would have done. probably just about everyone figured if you looked around iraq enough you could find something.
damn if saddam didnt do the unexpected and tell the truth and had no wmd. who is the total murderous lying bastard now? bush.

[Catrina]

15. Ask him why Bush refused to allow an investigation into 9/11?

Then ask him when the 9/11 families forced him to stop blocking an investigation into the biggest crime ever committed against the US on its own soil, why did he refuse to testify under oath?

Why did he insist on having Cheney present when he spoke (secretly) with the 9/11 Commission?

Then ask him if he believes the following statement:

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of!!

So, why was Bush afraid of an investigation? Why was the POTUS not demanding an investigation into what happened on 9/11?

Re planting WMDs. Tell him to wait a while, we may get the answer to that question ~

Also, since Bush's father and Reagan sold Saddam most of what he had, they had the receipts and assumed that there had to be something left over after the inspections. But it turns out that Scott Ritter and Kofi Annan were right and Bush was wrong.

If you really want to blow his mind, tell him that Clinton completely disarmed Saddam of all the Reagan/Bush weapons he had! Ask him when he's going to give credit to Clinton for that and also for stopping several terror attacks which would have killed thousands of Americans had he done what Bush did re 9/11, ignored all warnings! Then tell him to go do some homework ~

Clinton:

Stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

Stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

http://www.mikehersh.com/Clinton_vs_Terror_Republicans_vs_Clinton.shtml

He also caught all the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing, brought them to justice and learned valuable information from them about other planned attacks.

Although the 1993 bombing took place 38 days after he took office, and the terrorists entered the country with no problem (even though wanted) under Bush Sr. and Reagan, Clinton never blamed Bush Sr. or Reagan for the attack.

Then ask him 'Where is Osama? And who has been held accountable for 9/11?

There were more terror attacks on US interests around the world under Reagan than under Clinton, and since Bush said he was the 'terror' president, terror attacks have increased around the world.

All this info is available, some in the Congressional Record (showing Clinton's pre-occupation with the threat of terror and how the Republicans blocked many of his efforts to fight it. And on the State Dept. site, re global terror.

[Doorknob]

16. GREAT answer! Gonna go use it. :)

[Catrina]

22. I edited my post to add additional info just to make his head spin!

And it's very possible, although I probably wouldn't get into it with him, that Valerie Plame and her operation may have twarted an attempt to plant WMD in Iraq. Which may be the real reason why she was outed. It's a theory, but since there's no proof of that yet, it's best not to get into an argument over it, imo.

Also, the Pentagon Spy case may reveal what this administration was up to re WMDs especially considering Ledeen's role and the Iran/Contra arms dealer who was mentioned in some of the papers re the Niger Forgeries case. But I doubt his head could take any more info. Freepers have a difficult time absorbing information and processing it. It's probably kinder to wait til we know more. :-)

[BlueStateBlue]

17. I remember reading a theory regarding the outing of Valerie Plame having

to do with the thwarting of WMD planting.

[BlackHeart]

18. Are you arguing that...

Bush MIHOP? If you just stay with LIHOP you would be on firmer ground.

[sam sarrha]

19. why do you want to play with that trash? and dont eat their Cookies

[Crazy Guggenheim]

24. Don't answer him. Spend your time campaigning for a Democratic

candidate. Don't argue with them anymore.

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[LoZoccolo]

25. There are plenty of opportunities for 2006!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2536170&mesg_id=2536170

[Nye Bevan]

26. That's one problem with believing the silly 9/11 conspiracy theories

You need to believe that chimpy has screwed up everything that he has ever tried, except for this one huge complicated scheme, which he somehow pulled off brilliantly.

[bullimiami]

27. mathguy, what has he screwed up?

they have gotten everything they really wanted.
reward the rich and powerful, punish everyone else, rape the treasury and resources, consolidate power, get a foothold in the middle east.

Read PNAC. They got it all.

One fuck up though is they probably wont be able to hold onto iraq or power, they may have very well overreached.

are you under the assumption that the lipservice they give to anything is reality? its just the texas 2 step.

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. I suspect Valerie and Siebel know something on the topic. n/t

[laugle]

29. I heard Rumsfeld say that he was in the Pentagon when the plane hit,

He said "the whole building shook!"

Now if the neo-cons planned 911, would they have left Rumsfeld in the Pentagon?

Can you answer that question? Besides it's obvious these idiots are totally incompetent!!

And don't say they wanted to get rid of Rumsfeld! LOL, it doesn't wash....

It anything it is better to go with the LIHOP theory........personally I think they were just too focused on Saddam......

I wouldn't waste much time on theories as one day the truth will come out!