Hey Washington; I'm still waiting for that $1/gallon gasoline

You could move to Venezuela, gasoline is 6 cents a gallon there now. No wonder why the Global Elite want Chavez out of power.

have fun waiting.....never gonna happen

Hey Washington wrote:

Hey Washington: I'm still waiting for the $1/gallon gasoline we were supposed to get from 'liberating' Iraq.

Geez, what IF Gore had been given the job he won?

God Bless the SCOTUS.

Dude,

All you have to do is spend $2,750 at Kroger and they will set you up with some $1/gallon gas. (4 fill-ups max)

Hey Washington; I'm really, REALLY stupid.

It never was about gas. We never heard that from officialdom. Nor, as it turns out, was it about any of the myriad of reasons we were given for the war -- Iraq's culpability for 911 (false), WMDs (false), humanitarian reasons (please), and so on.

To really know what is was about, we would need to ask those who conceived and implemented the war -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith.

What else do these gentlemen have in common (besides bringing us the Iraq war)? Each has been either investigated or indicted for handing over US secret information to a foreign nation.

Please tell us what person promised this. A source would be good.

No, silly, it was all about Iraq's massive WMD collection. Too bad Saddam was literally a wizard and was able to hide all traces of those supposed WMDs.

The WMD parrot line from the left will go down as one of the dumbest idoicies of all time.

Everyone, including Saddam's own generals, believed that he still had stashes of WMD in 2003. Here is interesting video of Sen. Al Gore reaming and berating George HW Bush for turning a blind eye to Saddam's terrorist connections & WMD programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

I'm surprise the left is still spewing this nonsense in the face of well-documented facts.

Towhee,

Some people just refuse to learn to read and accept facts.

We call these people democrats.

towhee wrote:

The WMD parrot line from the left will go down as one of the dumbest idoicies of all time.

Everyone, including Saddam's own generals, believed that he still had stashes of WMD in 2003.

"Everyone" most certainly did not believe Saddam had stashes of WMD. There were plenty (including former arms inspectors and Iraqi defectors) who said he had nothing.

The problem is, their statements were ignored or covered up, while the false intelligence was blown out of proportion.

Whether it was done on purpose or out of sheer dumbassery, I have no idea.

At least Rummy knew where they were..."They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

link please wrote:

Please tell us what person promised this. A source would be good.

Life, liberty, and $1 gas.

Its in the declaration of independence. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Hugh Poles Moaker wrote:

Towhee,

Some people just refuse to learn to read and accept facts.

We call these people democrats.

haha touche!

Warnings from a resident. wrote:

link please wrote:

Please tell us what person promised this. A source would be good.

Life, liberty, and $1 gas.

Its in the declaration of independence. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Actually I think Obama said it. Anyone making over 250k was going to pay 10 dollars per gallon so the rest of us poor slobs could pay $1. It's part of that whole redistribution of wealth thingy.

Cloos Bizzle wrote:

"Everyone" most certainly did not believe Saddam had stashes of WMD. There were plenty (including former arms inspectors and Iraqi defectors) who said he had nothing.

The problem is, their statements were ignored or covered up, while the false intelligence was blown out of proportion.

Whether it was done on purpose or out of sheer dumbassery, I have no idea.

At least Rummy knew where they were..."They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Well, apparently there was a huge breakdown in intel communications because someone forgot to tell Sen. John Kerry, who a couple years later became Democrats preferred choice to lead the free world:

"I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." -- John Kerry, "Face The Nation", 9/15/02

Who cares what John Kerry said? It makes no difference.

There was plenty of evidence for NO WMD, but that evidence was ignored. There was also some evidence for WMD, which was hyped up beyond belief.

Intelligence has been too politicized. A decision was made, and evidence found to support that decision. Everything else was abandoned.

towhee wrote:

The WMD parrot line from the left will go down as one of the dumbest idoicies of all time.

I've heard worse. But I tend to agree that during the 02-03 timeframe, the vast majority (~80% by most of the polls I remember) strongly supported the invasion of Iraq. Would this support have been so high if taxes had been raised to pay for the huge spike in spending required to invade a country? We'll never know. But most people and politicians were in favor of invasion, and it's not like those who weren't were protesting in the streets. Most just bitched about it on the internet. Nowadays when war's not so popular *nobody* thought invasion was a good idea in the first place.

Kind of reminds of disco. Disco was HUGE in the 70's. Very popular and disco acts made a lot of money. I know a lot of people who lived through the 70's and NONE of them admit ever having liked disco. Strange how NOBODY ever liked it, yet it was quite popular and profitable for a number of years.

The real UncleB wrote:

it about any of the myriad of reasons we were given

Wrong use of myriad. What you meant to say was ...it about any of the myriad reasons we were given...

Sort of like innumerable.

...it about any of the innumerable reasons we were given.

Yep, it's amazing how many people out there live their lives through "revisionist" history. You can use it in so many ways too, always ensuring you are the popular side of the argument, even if the popular side is the complete opposite of what it once was.

link please wrote:

Please tell us what person promised this. A source would be good.

Laurence Lindsey, President Bush’s senior economic advisor at the time — argued in 2002 that the Iraq war would increase oil supplies and lower prices. From the Washington Times, 9/19/02:

As for the impact of a war with Iraq, “It depends how the war goes.” But he quickly adds that that “Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits that would come from a successful prosecution of the war.”

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Of course this is from the same people that claimed the war would pay for itself, as in Paul Wolfowitz:

"There's a lot of money to pay for this. It doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money. We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

* Congressional Testimony, March 27, 2003