Will Obama Do a Wag the Dog WMD?

This question hit me last night during Leno’s Monologue. With ObamaCare sinking faster than Whale Shit in the Mariannas Trench will BO do a Wag The Dog WMD. That is will he set off a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION to divert our attention? We know he’s done it before, but the bigger mess needs a BIGGER DISCTRACTION. It’s just a question that nagged me all night! Inquiring minds want to know. (The old banner for the National Inquirer)

19 Comments

  1. ” … will he set off a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION to divert our attention? ”

    No. He’s probably on the edge of impeachability for cause at this point, though a conviction, given the Demofascists in the Senate, is a virtual impossibility.

    But an outraged house could decide to take it up. If the freedom of country meant more to them than their stipends.

  2. DNW
    Wednesday, 23 October 2013 at 09:49

    ” … will he set off a WEAPON OF MASS DISTRACTION to divert our attention? ”

    No. He’s probably on the edge of impeachability for cause at this point, though a conviction, given the Demofascists in the Senate, is a virtual impossibility.

    I don’t think we’re dealing with a rational person right now. What will he do about Saudi Diplomat rejection?

  3. “I don’t think we’re dealing with a rational person right now. What will he do about Saudi Diplomat rejection?”

    Plan A: Kowtow lower than he did the last time he groveled before them.

    Plan B: Send Moochele over to the Saudis wearing a harem costume and carrying a plate of veggies and Barry’s favorite dip.

    Plan C: Don harem pants, a sparkly vest, and curled toe slippers himself, climb to the top of Capitol building dome, and start shouting “Allahu Akbar, I hereby grant Nidal Malik Hasan a full and unconditional pardon”

  4. This question hit me last night during Leno’s Monologue. With ObamaCare sinking faster than Whale Shit in the Mariannas Trench will BO do a Wag The Dog WMD.

    Have you considered professional help for your problem?

    If Obama wanted to win an election with a war, he’d simply choose an unsavoury target and fake up evidence that the target had such weapons – he wouldn’t actually set one off. the American people have demonstrated that they’re stupid enough to get behind a war based on lies and deceit from a warmongering President.

    Indeed, some sterling examples exist right here posting on this blog.

  5. he’d simply choose an unsavoury target and fake up evidence that the target had such weapons

    I see. The Clintons and Valerie Plame were working exceedingly diligently to get a Republican elected President. Now I understand your logic.

    Or did you tell another of your self-serving, America-hating, freedom-hating lies again?

  6. Or did you tell another of your self-serving, America-hating, freedom-hating lies again?

    “We also found mobile WMD labs that could create WMDs while driving down the highway.”, – John Hitchcock, 13 September 2011 at 18:51

    Who’s the liar again?

  7. The thing is, he doesn’t have to do anything: he can’t be reelected, and he can’t be vote out, and he’d never be impeached and removed by the Senate. He could do absolutely nothing, which would be avast improvement over what he does and is now.

  8. That’s why you’ll never hear me complaining about the President going on vacation; the best thing we could possibly have is for him to go on vacation for the next 3½ years straight.

  9. Once again, as has already been shown

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/12/GR2006041200165.html

    —-
    From ‘Biological Laboratories’ to Harmless Trailers

    Two Iraqi trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops became a center-piece of U.S. claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But shortly after the fall of Baghdad, an internal report showed the trailers had nothing to do with banned weapons.
    —-

    Everyone knows this. Curveball admitted he lied. the Pentagon says “nope – hydrogen generators.” The Iraqi Survey group says “nope – hydrogen generators.”

    And yet John Hitchcock continues to lie about the subject.

  10. From what I’ve read mobile WMD labs, if they did exist, were not much around by 2003-4. That doesn’t mean they never existed it just means there is not really any definitive proof. But Wikileaks did put this out:

    WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

    By Noah Shachtman
    10.23.10
    9:25 AM

    By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

    An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

    We, and the world knows, Hussein had and used WMD’s on civilian Kurds. I’m not sure we know what happened to any that were left and if we do I guess the gov’mnt ain’t sayin’.

    But as far as I can see most sources say : mobile weapons labs=no. Not enough proof.

  11. Mr. Hitchcock, you gotta stop allowing the Dumbass to scream “Look, squirrel” in every thread. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with mobile WMD labs! This is about “will Obama pull a wag the dog”. That’s all. Please try and focus, Dumbass. I realize to you everyone with an opposing opinion, who makes an error or who is misinformed in any way becomes a “Goddam liar”. But that’s part of your psychosis and we’ve come to understand that just as we’ve come to understand you must obsess about us endlessly because you try and quote us as often as you can. It’s creepy but we get it. Poke, poke.

  12. If Obama wanted to win an election with a war, he’d simply choose an unsavoury target and fake up evidence that the target had such weapons – he wouldn’t actually set one off. the American people have demonstrated that they’re stupid enough to get behind a war based on lies and deceit from a warmongering President.

    Again, the hooey that Bush “lied” about WMD. If he lied, then so did all of these folks. But even that aside, why would GW Bush and co. — if they knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq — then not follow up by planting the evidence so as to justify their invasion? Not doing this makes absolutely no sense … if you believe Bush lied.

    Since evidence of a massive WMD program was not uncovered, and Bush’s presidency suffered largely as a result, it stands to reason that the former president did not lie, but was merely mistaken. As were those before him.

  13. But even that aside, why would GW Bush and co. — if they knowingly lied about WMD in Iraq — then not follow up by planting the evidence so as to justify their invasion?

    You are an idiot.

    As has been pointed out before, Hube, this is an impossible scenario – explain exactly how Bush would arrange such evidence that would not (i) immediately be obvious as a plant and (ii) not have the whistle blown on him by outraged service members. A previous Republican President couldn’t even arrange a simple burglery without someone blowing the whistle – but you are postulating that Bush had the capability to order scientists and technicians at Lawrence Livermore to ginny up a nuke that would like exactly like the result of an Iraqi program, the CIA to transport it and plant it in the middle of an Army occupied area, – and no-one to comment on this activity?

    And then you are using the absence of evidence of this absurd fantasy as positive evidence against a logical alternative?

    You are a wingnut and an idiot – but I repeat myself.

  14. You are a wingnut and an idiot – but I repeat myself.

    Except, of course, you ignored

    1) How Bush “lied” if all those others noted somehow did not, and
    2) Why would Bush lie knowing WMD did not exist so as to derail his presidency?

    I’d call you a moonbat and an idiot, but that is already beyond well established, natch.

  15. I shall simply refer our Krazy Kiwi Kommenter — somehow, those initials seem appropriate — to my review of Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House, by Valerie Plame Wilson, the exposed CIA operations officer. It seems that Mrs Wilson, who had every reason in the world to dislike President Bush and his Administration, and someone who worked on the actual intelligence concerning Iraqi weapons programs, was as surprised as anyone when chemical weapons were not used against US troops during the 203 invasion; the CIA was convinced that such existed. The review is thoroughly footnoted, from the hard-cover edition, so our Wewwington Wibwawian can pull his copy off the shelves to check if he wishes. There is a possibility that, if his copy is a paperback, the page numbers might be slightly off.

  16. I refer shithead (hey, turnabout is fair play) to the speech of Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, at the UN Security Council, New-York, February 14, 2003

    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/French_address_on_Iraq_at_the_UN_Security_Council

    —-
    In their previous reports to the Security Council on January 27, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC and the director-general of the IAEA had identified in detail areas in which progress was expected. Significant gains have been made on several of these points:

    - In the chemical and biological areas, the Iraqis have provided the inspectors with new documentation. They have also announced the establishment of commissions of inquiry led by former officials of weapons programs, in accordance with Mr. Blix’s requests;
    - In the ballistic domain, the information provided by Iraq has also enabled the inspectors to make progress. We know exactly the real capabilities of the Al-Samoud missile. The unauthorized programs must now be dismantled, in accordance with Mr. Blix’s conclusions;
    - In the nuclear domain, useful information was given to the IAEA on important points discussed by Mr. ElBaradei on January 27: the acquisition of magnets that could be used for enriching uranium and the list of contacts between Iraq and the country likely to have provided it with uranium.
    —–

    To claim that everybody else believed Iraq had chemical weapons when the French stood up before the UN and said “hey, Iraq seems to be cooperating and we shouldn’t use force while they’re doing so” shows all the dishonesty wingnuts are famous for.

Comments are closed.