No you haven't answered my question. An answer to my question would start with an "Bush said there were no WMDs in Iraq because..." The post you linked me too just sais there were some WMDs found in Iraq while Bush sais there weren't any found. I'm still waiting for a direct answer to my question. For some reason you keep avoiding to answer it directly. Why did bush say there weren't any WMD's found in Iraq?
Try looking for something that would fit into the phrase by going to the post GTech keeps linking to. Try looking in the thread GTech keeps linking to. Do you have a learning disability at all?
let's assume I do, so why don't you please do it for me? Or, even better, why don't you give me your own argument about it?
Let's make this simple & non confusing for you: Re-read that & make sense of it, Tip: it's slighly more harder to work out than the first objective set by Gtech :-/
let's just cut the crap and stick to the subject shall we? yes, do that for me please or better yet, give me your own answer to my question
I couldn't agree more but it will spoil the the thread for you. Right on to the main point: You had one main question that you wanted GTech to answer, this question GTech had already answered or explained to everyone, he even linked you too the post numerous times. I will just copy & paste the answer from GTech's post that everyone else can already see that relates to & answer's your question. The question you wanted answered was: So basically the quantity of WMD or exact WMD the administration were looking for were not found, so Bush said that. However that doesn't mean there were none, just as GTech explains some were found. Are you satisfied now?
Repeated calls for "your" question to be answered, now in a specific format, is simply childish. The issue has been addressed. You're simply using the strategy of repeating the call for something to avoid refuting the evidence. It's the only thing you have to cling to. If you can't refute the evidence, just silently move on. I'm not going to berate you because you cannot explain away the wmd found. It's not like you are the first who cannot explain away the wmd found. It's a common problem others before you have faced when facts meet "feelings."
Actually Bush said they thought the Iraqis had WMDs but it turned out they didn't but they had the capacity to build them. Saying "they didn't had WMDs" means they had no WMDs at all not that they had some WMDs or that they had WMDs but not in the quantity the US first thought the Iraqis had.
How do you explain away the sarin and mustard that you noted you would use, if a terrorist? You're taking what he says too literally. He's speaking in a broader sense. It is comforting to know though, that you admire Bush and believe everything he says. When it comes to wmd, often times those that hate Bush the most suddenly believe everything he has to say. Ever noticed that?
So basically you want to say all the news stories are false & no WMD was found at all even though evidence suggests otherwise? You could have said that right from the start, instead of beating around the bush & playing stupid couldn't you?
The issue hasn't been addressed, that's the problem. My question is why did Bush say there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ and your answer is that some WMDs were found. I don't see how that could ever be the answer to my simple question. I believe the answer to it is this: "because there weren't any" But, again, if SOME WMDs were found in Iraq then why did Bush say there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ? Your repeted avoidance to give a clear answer and claiming that that post is the answer to my question makes me think that you actually can't answer it.
If I said I would use those weapons if I were a terrorist it doesn't mean I believe they were found in Iraq. Would you mind explaining what exactly he meant if you say he was speaking in a broader sense?
I've done that, on page two. I've given a direct link twice and Toopac even took the text, requoted it, bold and underlined appropriately. At this point, I'm left with three options to consider: 1) You are deliberately being obtuse and choosing to ignore what I've previously addressed. 2) You simply don't have the mentality to comprehend the comments I've previously (and Toopac as well) addressed. 3) You do not have the ability to explain away the sarin and mustard gas wmd that has been found in Iraq and to save face, the only option left is to repeat the same question over and over again? Which option works best for you? /waits for another repeat
Bush told the world he was looking for WMD correct? Now let's say Bush reported back to the world & said "The WMD we were looking for in Iraq have been found" (keeping in mine the WMD that has been found) would you accept his answer & say Bush was right? or ?? You have to see the difference between what was found & what Bush was looking for. And just because what he was looking for was not found doesn't mean nothing was found.