Many say Bush 43 lied about WMDs in Iraq. Is it possible that Saddam Hussein thought he did have them? But was scammed with the WMD equivalents of oregano and baking soda? Maybe fearful aides never told him and he kept bluffing out of fear of Iran?
First of all, quite clearly Iraq had WMD in the past and used them both against Iran and against Iraqis.After the first Gulf War, the peace agreement was for Saddam to rid Iraq of WMD. The US created an organization to oversee the destruction of Iraq’s WMD. During the first several years, great progress was made, however, every declaration of what WMD Iraq has was proven false. Around 1995 progress ceased because according to Iraqi declarations it had WMD that Iraq had not turned over for destruction.Based on what we know now, Iraqi WMD had been eliminated by 1995, however, Saddam believed that Iraq would be vulnerable to invasion by Iran if Iran knew Iraq had no WMD. Saddam played a dangerous game of claiming he had no WMD while behaving like he still had it. In 1998 the situation became serious enough that the UN weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq and a series of airstrikes were carried out at suspected WMD sites. Inspectors went back in, found the same stonewalling from Iraq they experienced before and then Saddam ordered all inspectors out of Iraq. Another series of airstrikes were carried out after which Saddam refused to allow weapons inspectors back in Iraq.The situation stalemated at that point until Bush was elected in 2000. Iraq was near the top of the list of “unfinished business” from the Clinton Administration. After 9/11 the toleration for Iraqi intransigence was gone. Bush gave Iraq as stern warning that he needed to cooperate with Weapons Inspectors. Saddam relented, but, the long history of Saddam’s deceptions to the UN and to his own top personnel convinced the Bush Administration Saddam was just lying again and the US and Britain invaded.There is only one person who is responsible for the deceptions that led to the Iraq war - Saddam Hussein.
Is it possible that there was incest in the Bush family?
I don't know if you actually wanted an honest answer to that question, but you're going to get one. In fact, there might be more truth to your question than you know. "Blue-Blooded" families like the British Royal Family and the Rothschilds have historically resorted to inbreeding in order to maintain their bloodline. Here are some quick excerpts I came across: "Bill Clinton's family goes back to William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, making him related to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. His kinship to Ford makes him 'near kin' to Richard Nixon and George Bush. Small world, isn't it?" "According to some, Bill Clinton is a descendant of the Rothschild family." Burke's publishing director, Harold Brooks-Baker says Bush's royal connections are startling. "[Bush] is closely related to every European Monarch both on and off the throne," says Brooks-Baker. Some of the governor's royal kin include Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen Mother, Duchess Sarah "Fergy" Ferguson and even the late Princess Diana. His most prominent ancestor may be England's King Charles II, who shared the governor's vision of a strong military. Going back nearly 1000 years, Brooks-Baker points out both the Bush and Pierce families [Barbara Bush's maiden name is Pierce] were high society. "Not one member of his family was working class, middle class, or even middle, middle class," he notes. Well, there you have it.
Is it possible to get my roses to come back?
If this was a grafted rose and the rose died back to the ground over winter or the graft failed, you could be seeing growth from the root stock, generally a much hardier, vigorous but otherwise not garden worthy rose. "Grafted roses, commonly referred to as budded plants, are plants where the desired rose is grafted or budded onto a rootstock of a different type. The point where the desired variety and the rootstock meet is called the bud union. Own-root roses may be recommended for those in very cold climates. This is because an own-root rose that dies back to the ground during the winter can grow back the next year from the roots. If a grafted rose dies back to the ground, what will come up next Spring is the rootstock variety, usually an undesireable variety of rose." When a rose "goes wild" that is dies back below the graft, the wild growth looks every bit like a rose....thorns and all, but usually blooms with small white flowers. If you live in zones 5 and north you need to remember to plant a grafted rose with the graft 4 inches below the ground level.
Did Bush/Cheney make the rise of Trump possible?
The Obama/Bush/Clinton administration which was essentially the same president with 3 different faces and variations on the rhetoric made Trump very appealing too a lot of people who are tired of the corruption. Tired of politicians lying and making promises they have no intention of keeping. Tired of business as usual. It’s nothing new. Perot if he hadn’t turned into a fruitcake would have waltzed into the oval office. Obama campaigned on the very same ideals in his first campaign promising hope and change but delivered 8 more years of the Bush/Clinton White house.
Is it possible that the "burning bush" mentioned in the Bible was actually marijuana?
It was some kind of narcotic, its the only way anyone is ever going to have visions of God.
Is it possible that Osama Bin Laden was made-up by George W. Bush?
Bin Laden definitely existed, he was even in the news in the beginning of Bush41's term. (Being portrayed as a liberator against the Soviets, ironically.) There's a lot of documentation, eye-witnesses, plus the fact that he has a massive family in Saudi Arabia who have pictures of him and can verify his identity. So, no, Bush43 did not invent Bin Laden. I also offer a hearty "no" to the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy. Let's even put aside, for a moment, the obvious point that pulling off a job like this would take a large number of co-conspirators to pull off, and that not one has been exposed, leaked, or come forward is insanely improbable. If G.W. Bush was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks to make himself look good, let's eliminate that as a possibility right here: Bush didn't look very heroic when he was given the news of the attacks. He sat on a stool and didn't react. He just sat there. If it was scripted, he'd have stood up, quipped a news-reel sound-bite, then calmly excused himself from the classroom he was in, saying he had to take care of the nation, and then made a dignified exit.Bush and company masterminded the Iraqi invasion. How well did that work out? Bush was a big in the ideas department, but he never knew the end game. That's why "Mission Accomplished" was such a terrible gaffe. The war in Iraq was nowhere near over. The whole Iraq plan was one bungle after another. (If the military forces not so skilled, the war could have turned out a lot worse.) Can anyone out there possibly even begin to think that this team could pull off the 9/11 attacks and keep it a secret? I've seen the conspiracy videos and sites, and they're embarrassingly easy to debunk. In one, for example, they say a missile hit the Pentagon, not a plane. Well, when you then ask them what happened to the entire plane-load of people who otherwise vanished - including ones on phones doing a moment-by-moment account?
Will Donald Trump be as bad as George W. Bush? Is it possible he and his cabinet will further deteriorate and destabilize the Middle East, or do something bad that ruins the world?
This might be controversial, and I may just be trying to reassure myself, but I think in the long term this could end up working out okay.One of the biggest roadblocks to liberal success under the Obama administration has been the GOP’s iron grip on the House and on state legislatures. Their 2010 wave election was perfectly timed with the district reapportionment that took place after the 2010 census, and they used their control of state houses to devastating effect, as we’ve seen in the heavily gerrymandered House districts across the country. The GOP has shown us that the greatest prize in American politics may not be the presidency (which is up for grabs every four years), but rather control of state houses during a census year (which is only on the table once a decade). And they continue to trounce Democrats in this category: Today, 25 state legislatures are completely controlled by the GOP, compared to only 6 that are fully controlled by the Democrats.Source: WikipediaYou’ll notice that there are numerous states (e.g. the Clinton states of New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, Washington, and Minnesota) where Democrats are performing significantly below their potential.Typically, you see significant backlash against a president during the midterm election of their first term. Even if popular sentiment nationwide follows that usual trend (and I’m guessing that it will), we will not see it reflected in Congressional races: the GOP majority in the House remains bulletproof, and the 2018 Senate election map is about as inhospitable for Democrats as any that I can recall. Neither chamber will flip in 2018, even if nationwide public opinion is demanding a change.This should lead to a rather explosive 2020 election, especially if Trump is the unmitigated disaster that many expect him to be, and Congressional Republicans are unable to wrest control of the policy agenda from his administration. If the Democrats nominate the right candidate, 2020 could become our own wave election. If we’re lucky, that election could give us more statehouses than we’ve had in a generation, just in time for the next census and district apportionment.Of course, there’s still the question of how Trump would take his loss. We’ve never had a sitting president refuse to step down, but Trump has raised the possibly of election rigging before. Anything is possible.
Is it possible to prevent bush fires? Would it be cheaper than the cost of putting them out and the losses?
Possible, yes. Cost-effective? No. 99% of bushes will never catch fire, and most of those that do, are easily put out, or burn out themselves. Fireproofing, for lack of a better word, millions of bushes to prevent a few dozen house fires is hardly worth it