IAP Political Forum

US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that he had warned world leaders they must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons "if you're interested in avoiding World War III."
"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said at a White House press conference after Russia cautioned against military action against Tehran's supect atomic program.

"So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon," said Bush.

LINK (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071017154505.rci3xjja&show_article=1)

With all due respect, Mr. President, we've heard this before and your powers to fortell the future are no "beuano".

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
- President Bush (Monday, October 7, 2002 in Cininnati, OH) in reference to Iraq's WMD programs

Carriers in the Persian Gulf, bases in Iraq, political sabre ratteling...

If WW III starts, it's cause we didn't stop President Bush from starting it*.








*Overly dramatic, I know... but you get my point.

Dude, lay off the smoke, it will rot your brain.

you honestly believe that Bush is more of a threat the Amrinagotanfedupname in Iran?

He's the one throwing around the WW III speech. If anyone is being overly dramatic it's him.

My only point is that I hope people look at the compelling evidence AGAINST invading Iran. Not only is there ANY proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but an invasion would most certaintly be the WORST way to promote democracy.

You seem to believe that the purpose of an action against Iran would be to promote democracy there, and that US or other action proposed would take the form of an invasion.

I see little evidence of either.

Democrats want people to believe that Iran which sits on unlimited power supplies need nuclear power for peaceful reasons...   ::)

When Iran gets and uses a nuke they will rush to blame Bush for it, but until then they rather just sit and let it happen.

BTW..

You say "Flat out lie..." what is the lie here?

Are you syaing that becaue Saddam did not have the wepons the world thought he had means Iran does not also?  Is that why the president of FRANCE is fighting to stop Iran?

Ohh, ok so there is no LIE by Bush, and your title is the actual LIE?

Yeah, cause you've never said anything hyperbolic before ::) .

And how many times have you called me a partisan hack.....love how the hypocrisy flows out.....

Like you havn't never called someone what you really are..... ::)

you honestly believe that Bush is more of a threat the Amrinagotanfedupname in Iran?

bush has shown that he is much more dangerous. he started two wars in base of lies and economic interests. thats a fact. like it or not

bush has shown that he is much more dangerous. he started two wars in base of lies and economic interests. thats a fact. like it or not

We dropped a lot of bombs before dropping the big bomb, the war was pretty much over before we dropped the first atomic bomb. Do you think that another country should alleviate the U.S. of its weapons?

There is plenty of eivdence that he lied and that his administration lied for him.

There was no threat of a nuclear bomb from Iraq.

There was no threat of "fleets of aerial drones spraying chemical death on US cities".

Iraq's WMDs were not a dire threat to the National Security of the USA.

As late as July of 2001, the official Bush stance on Iraq was that Iraq was contained, Iraq was unable to project military power and its WMD programs, while still coveted by Saddam, had not amounted to anything and that any stockpiles he had, would be chemical artillery shells of expired chemical weapons.

Since this has turned out to be clearly true, and as has been said over and over, no new data was discovered in the months leading up to the war, the truth is:

The Bush administration cherry picked minority report data, presented it as vetted and factual and sold it to the American public not as minority theory, but fact.

In short, the lied like Al Gore lied in Inconvenient Truth or Michael Moore in Farenheit.

There was no threat from Saddam's defunct WMD programs or expired chemical shells.

The rocket tubes were no suitable for uranium enrichment.

The fleets of aerial drones and payloads of chemical death did not exist.

When Fox announced WMDs were found, but it turned out to be poorly tested water samples, they were lying.


1 war nad there is NO evidence he lied and was not honestly misinformed like the greatest majority of people at the time.

Afgahnistan bright it on itself.

Actually Japan refused to surrender. It would have cost literally millions more lives to capture the Japaness mainland.

Of course he doesnt...but the democratic party wants you to be afraid of a fellow American more so than a terrorist.....