Fox: WikiLeaks Proves Bush Administration Was Right About Iraq WMD's

LOL.

you can make mustard gas in your bathroom if you're not careful, a WMD it is not

LOL

Those weren't the same munitions that Colin Powell referred to in the 2003 UN speech though. And if he was referring to the ones in past tense, he especially couldn't have justified an invasion based on Saddam allegedly aquiring yellow cake (forged evidence anyways) from Niger for WMD that hadn't been built yet.

Obviously the pretext for invasion was a lie, the point of all this is to prove that Wikileaks is mostly full of shit, like most people assumed from the beginning

you didnt go back and forth on wikileaks?
you didnt cite them one week, and dismiss them the next?

I never posted anything from Wikileaks here at Current until the cables were released two months ago.

Of course, just like any source they are going to have some real stories plus other stories that are skewed and probably not 100% accurate, but it was the media attention that gave Wikileaks away as a purposeful disinformation outlet. Disinformation meaning a certain amount of fact mixed with lies and propaganda.

Colin Powell was set up like a bitchhhhhhhhhhhh

The mental gymnastic skills you posses are amazing. if I tried tying myself into that many knots I would break my back out of shame for truth and decency.

ok i see we found a rational that allows you to comfortably mantain your standard theories.when wikileaks offers evidence that supports your position, it is proof you are right.and when wikileaks counters your position, that is the part that isnt valid.very convinient.

im not really in the mood to go through you posts to show you the instances in wich you used wikileaks information to support your agenda, but we both know full well ya did.either by citing secondary facts from them that you could link to your theories of geopolitical malities, or by using thier material as proof of a zionist conspiracy.

either way, both uses of wikileaks are citations on your part.deriving "factual" evidence based on what wikileaks offered.

That's fine, you can go an pull up all my old quotes if you want, but I can go and pull up posts where you said the war was bullshit.

Now you are saying on this post that Saddam did in fact have WMD, and you seem to suggest that there may actually have been some kind of rationale for the war, just not for the reasons that Bush originally posed.

So which is it freecrack?

Justified war or bullshit war?

Ok i see we found a rational that allows you to comfortably mantain your standard theories. Very convinient.

If you're Julian Assange and making deals with the mainstream media to peddle propaganda such as Osama Bin Laden still being alive and Iraq having WMD, when it was clear that he did not, at least not the ones that Bush said he did, and then the mainstream media uses your bogus intelligence to lie to the American people, that's a conspiracy.

I suppose the problem that you have is whether it is a Zionist media conspriacy or not. I recon it is, but I'm an anti-semite as you say freecrack, so of course my postition is that it is a Zionist media conspiracy. I suppose however, that we can save that debate for another time eh?

the iraq war is bullshit.i came to that suspiscion in 2003, and further realized it as each day passed more and more.i have never ever offered validation for us to send our kids to kill iraqis.my position has always been to avoid war when ever possible, and iraq was more than possible to ignore.my current position is that we would have been better off leaving saddam in power as he posed zero threat to us, and those he did pose a threat to (iraqi civilians) let him be, so our actions are just dismissively arrogant in regard to thier will and soveriegn rights.

at no point ever will you find any posting from me validating our wars.not one.

no.im saying saddam did have wmd's, but not at the time we decided to use that as a rational for war.the only rational for war with iraq i in the mind of bush (cheney as bush hasnt a brain really).i have only suspicions as to why bush instigated this war, but no idea in actuality why.wmd's was a front, as they were discovered by us a decade earlier than when we invaded.

the whole zionst media bit i cant respond to as it only exists as conspiracy theory, wich i will not validate in acknowledging one way or the other.what is assanges heart felt motives? it could be anything, and nothing exists to point towards any agenda other than anti-war.his material hasnt been dismissed or dissproved.

i dont call you an antisemite btw.you rely on antisemitic materials, and antisemitic narratives in what you do, but this doesnt make you an antisemite.if i believed the materials that you believed, or anyone for that matter, holding a position that views jews as a malevolent group is the only reasonable conclusion one could make.you may be an antisemite, espousing the stuff you do as a means to attack jews, or you could not be an antisemite and just defending yourself from a percieved threat.you could also have comprehension, or deductive reasoning skill malfunctions that would result in the same out come of hate speech proliferation.not cuz you are coming from an evil place, but lack the ability to recognize the full scope of your endevours.

i call your offerings antisemitic, not you.that is crystalmans bag, not mine.you still do the tap dance to distance yourself from personal animous towards jews, and use monikers to get the position across.a reasonable evaluation of your efforts would conclude you are an antisemite, but that is subjective.i havent a basis to state you are an antisemite.unlike those who are content to use what ever they like to satisfy a persoanl end, like say making everything secretly zionist, i rely on evidence over theoreticals when stating facts.

fuck that.fox has been bashing the entirety of islam (now openly) to divert attention from themselves in relation to saturdays shooting.a small spin using wikileaks to try to exhonerate a man no one is willing to, is nothing compared to stating "islam is in a war against the west".

some dumb bitch on oriely fucking straight out said that last night.no contextualization.they are trying to out "threat" the left, by openly demonizing billions of innocent people.they really need to not only be removed from the word "news", but off of basic cable all together with that kind of bullshit.

ya wanna pay for the racist channel on your cable box, so be it.just like hbo and so on.but to tolerate demonization of an entire faith on basic cable is just wrong for us as a society.

Well it was getting buried (got all the way down to like #37) but somehow made it back to the home page.

Fox News had nothing to do with the Tucson shooting, to assert that they did is ignorant at the least.

directly no one had anything to do with the tuscon shooting othet than laughner himself.just the same as when a mafia contract killer assissinates some one, it has nothing to do with anyone else either, as it was that person who pulled the trigger.the will to kill resides in the heart of the killer, and no one else can be held directly responsible for anyone elses actions.

with that being said, cultural climate does have a concurrent role.lateral it may be, but it is invloved on some level none the less.the notion of "second amendment solutions" is one that has a solid home on fox, and thier fellow idealogues.to what ever level any of us think shooting another person is a reasonable act, has a direct line to the right, and thier mouth piece fox.

not to go all micheal moore on ya, cuz i hate that fucker, but canada has all the same guns and basicaly are the same as us in every concievable way.the thing is though, is despite canada having its share of crazy fuckers, and freedom for them to aquire guns, the cultural temperment is one that unilateraly looks down on what we refer to as "second amendment solutions".while they still have thier fair share of homocidal freaks who do kill, i dont think it is a great leap to say that when a psycho is contemplating what to do next to feed thier emotional sick needs, that collective view carries some wieght.

fox has no direct link, but is part of the system that creates the notion of validation in the mind of the sick in relation to shooting others.they are not alone, but they are the most vocal and active.

Fox has no more a responsibility than say Keith Olbermann...I am not sure what cultural temperment has to do with the Tucson shooting, as Laughner was a raving lunatic and one could point to ANY thing that could have set him off. His biggest influence was apparently Zeitgeist and he had nothing to do whatsoever with Conservative/Right-Wing talk shows.

I agree that there is a cultural temperment in Canada that is vastly different than that in the United States. Perhaps that is what needs to change, a Cultural Temperment. Though I am not sure how lobbing bombs at one person, or one side of the war when there are as many bomb throwers on the "left" side as there is on the "right." To assert that there isn't, is disingenuous at best.

fox most certainly has more to do with this than olberman and so on.i watch both (not trying to trump you, just explaining) as propaganda.i will admit my leaning is left, so i have to work harder to identify msnbc's manipulation than fox's, but it isnt about that.of course both are spouting over the top rhetoric, but it is the narrative of that rhetoric that im talking about.

for an example, olbermans bashing comes in the form of judgement."worsts persons" and such.fox does the same in a more juvinille fashion with "pin heads and patriots" type stuff, but the left doesnt offer active solutions to the mass's that are outside of legal recourse.both bash the other side, but only one advocates insurection.

yes laughner is a raving loon.but that just means his process is fucked up.it is still availed of a value system and a code of conduct.not a value system and code of conduct we recognize as acceptable, but it still exists none the less.in his value system he held life not precious enough to be beyond his judgement, and in code of conduct shooting people is acceptable.if this deminished mind had never been introduced to political discourse, no less political discourse based in negativity what happened would not have happened.he surely would have caused harm to some one at some point.had no one ever presented to him the idea of assassination of a political leader it is highly doubtfull he would have done what he had.it isnt like this was a terribly creative thing he did.it is sirhan sirahn,jack ruby,hinkley and so on.his mind wasnt so far off that it was void of reality, of he would have been caught at home making shit bombs or some such none sense.he was still existing in the realm of the real and physical, so much so that when his dad asked him what he was up to he fled, showing he knew what he was doing was wrong.so of our society who advocated for this wrong behavior?granted he probably never watched fox.but he was politicaly engaged, and msnbc reports on fox.it isnt as if "second amendment solutions" are concept only those who watch fox have heard.while msnbc may distribute it, in a negative light, it is the fox side that manufactures the concept initialy.