I think it was H.L. Mencken who said you can't go wrong by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. It shows in the quality of political leaders.

That and a lot of stupidity. See for example November 2004.

They can't handle the truth so they have to believe in order not to get so sick to thyeir stomache at the vulgarity that has brought over 2,600 SOldiers to their end. and over 50,000 dead Iraqis. They do not have the Insteinal fortitude that it takes to admit that the Administration lied their ass off to get into an Illegal war of aggression. They cqan not stand the truth for if they could they would wail and gnash their teeth much like Jim Jones followers in Jonestown. This is the truth.

Larry

Well they did have at least 500 WMD's...so what's the problem.

Well they did have at least 500 WMD's...so what's the problem.

Posted by Derfla5 at 2006-08-06 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WHy do You spread lies Lokisfur. Those were degraded Munitions that Yes Once were WMD in the Mid 1980's but they weren't WMD at the time of their finding. Do try again Lokisfur please educate Yourself next time.

Larry

This Is All Because Of That Looser In Sanitorium !!!

It Was Destroyed And Degraded, None Produced After 1991 And The Case Is Closed !!!

Bush, Cheney, Rice,and Rumsfeld all said there was no WMD The Intel Was Wrong, Period !!!

So The Russian Spetznatz Taking Them To Syria Is Bullshit !!!

-Sarge

"Well they did have at least 500 WMD's"

What does that even mean? "WMD's"? "500"? "Did"?

What were the "WMD's" and where'd you get the number and when "did" they have them?

Well they did have at least 500 WMD's...so what's the problem.

Posted by Derfla5 at 2006-08-06 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me guess......you're going to give us a link the Rush LimpBlobs site that says they had WMD's?? ....or perhaps a NewsMax link??

Must be nice to live in a fairy-tale land where all is whatever you want it to be.
Come back to reality Derfy.

Well they did have at least 500 WMD's.

Yes. On paper, given to them by the US during the Iraq-Iran war.

Oohrah-
From the article you just read:

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.

Many Americans don't want to believe we started a war for no reason other than to line the pockets of a few.

And about two thirds of all Americans buy into the fairy tale known as the bible. What's the difference? We believe what we want to believe, and truth be damned.

Moder8

Yes I think that the extent to which religion permeates this country reflects on the poor quality of critical thinking skills of the American public. It reflects on the poor quality of political leaders. The crimes they get away with are monstrous. Yet these same faithful are conditioned to put faith in the current system of government.

Poll: Half of U.S. Believes Iraq Had WMDs




And so did the Dems and the rest of the world intel community prior to Iraq.

And they have been found and summarily dismissed by those on the left, including the MSM. The hate for Bush that is really rage at losing causes some strange behavior. Most likely will cause the left to suffer more losses as well.

Niceville-
Um..by my watch it's now, not then. What time have you got?

Niceville, nobody with a critical actually believes Iraq possessed WMDs which presented any type of threat to the outside world. What they had degraded weapons from the early eighties that were unusable. Only the most zealous partisan would continue to claim that these constituted WMDs. (I am not even certain why I am bothering to respond to your absurd post.)

And they have been found...

Really. What has been found (please provide detail and a link, unless it kills you)

"And they have been found and summarily dismissed by those on the left"

Where are they and more importantly, why has the Bush administration chosen to ignore them?

Tell us, tell us.

Boyd, of course he should be able to provide some rightwing link. Heck, you could find links proving Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster exist.

"Niceville, nobody with a critical actually believes Iraq possessed WMDs "






Apparently you have lost your MIND somewhere.

So half of my country is malleable and lacks critical thinking skills or the ability to research things for themselves.

Sure, why shouldn't we trust the gubbment to tell us the truth? I mean, Clinton was such an honest man, and so is W...

Unreal.

Hopefully the next animals that take over when we're gone will be smarter.

"Niceville, nobody with a critical actually believes Iraq possessed WMDs "

Keep in mind that Niceville is the self-healed,former paraplegic. Truly a wonderful source of information.

I don't even think they handle physical disabilities at Exodus International.

"So half of my country is malleable and lacks critical thinking skills or the ability to research things for themselves"

There just has to be a way to cash in on this. When surrounded by suckers, sell them something.

And that changes what Void? Your pants since you peed in them?

Well, and I feel a bit embarassed to even point it out, but this conversation is about now, and not then. (How many ways can I say this?)

But perhaps this will break through your death-grip on intentional stupidity: Why has Bush not announced that we have found the weapons we invaded Iraq to get?

Alex-
You were right. I'm sorry for being an idiot about it. Niceville doesn't count.

People are cashing in on it already, Dontgetit. Take religion...please. Or astrology, Madame Cleo, Scientology, yada yada yada.

Boyd-You lost me,.

Granted, I have a migraine today and thinking is a tall order.

Or the Republican party.

Many Americans don't want to believe we started a war for no reason other than to line the pockets of a few.

Posted by byrdman at 2006-08-06 06:43 PM |


Not to mention getting your ass back and forth to work, your kids back and forth to school, keeping the lights on in your home and your microwave churnning out your favorite almost ready to eat meat, along with keeping your home warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

Dirtman- So when my microwave doesn't work it's the fault of the "evil-doers" in iraq?

"Not to mention getting your ass back and forth to work, your kids back and forth to school, keeping the lights on in your home and your microwave churnning out your favorite almost ready to eat meat, along with keeping your home warm in the winter and cool in the summer."

Yeah, hard to have any thoughts during that type of schedule. The truth past everyone buy when they were defrosting meat in the microwave.

Good one. These people do make me laugh.

Not if your micro wavecame to you through the teleport. I don't know where you libs buy your shit but all my stuff comes to me by way of the wheel. Last I checked it takes oil to keep it rolling.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

""...it doesn't surprise me when presidents reconstruct reality to make their policies defensible." This president may even have convinced himself it's true, she said. "

The "boob in the plastic bubble" has been so insulated from anything that even approaches reality his entire life that delusion and denial have become a way of life.

This notion that Iraq had stockpiles of non-degraded, functional WMD and was an immediate, credible threat, a "clear and present danger", is the only legal leg BushCo have left to stand on.

Therefore, of course they have worked devilishly hard to confuse an already massively distracted public into believing their deliberate lies about the threat that Saddam posed.

Of course they think that they can stand truth on its head fer the umpteenth time and get away with it.

They don't need facts
They don't need truth.

They have plausible deniability.
They have truthiness.

And while we're on the subject can Spud just say fer like the zillionth time...

Saddam NEVER HAD REAL WMD!!

Nuclear Weapons are WMD period.

Nerve gas and the like are notoriously unreliable on the battle field which is why over 95% of the money spent in the world on WMD goes into nuclear programs.

Follow the money trail.
That's where it leads.

The sheer fact that the evil minds of BushCo have been able to conflate nukes with gases and the like together into the same thing in most folks minds is maddening to Spud!!

If yer gonna call degraded munitions in orphan sites WMD you might as well call the Depleted Uranium munitions used by the American Military WMD.

Spud could make a very strong case fer making that stuff illegal, BTW.

It'll prolly happen in our lifetimes.

Sometimes articles are interesting fer wot they don't say as well as wot they do...

No mention in this article of Kamel Hussein and his admission to American and British Intelligence the fact that Saddam had secretly destroyed his stockpiles considering them, quite rightly, as more trouble than they were worth.

Now the missing WMD are supposed to have been moved to Syria or Iran setting up a pretext fer the next wars that Bush wants to happen.

And Nicey and other similarily deluded folk around here will prolly believe 'em.

Not Spud though.

Be Well.

Why are any of you bothering to argue with those of the 50% that post here? If they were able to look at things with any sort of objectivity, they wouldn't have fallen for such lines to begin with.

Poll: Half of U.S. Believes Iraq Had WMDs

Not bad considering that well over 2/3rds of the residents of this country are dumb as a sack of hammers....

"Anything else I can clear up for you?"

Yeah, you buy shit? Why and what do you do with it?

Ah, so he admits it's all about oil.

I like an honest inhuman creep. Well, compared to the dishonest ones that claim the war is about "freedom" or "democracy"

How bout quit bitching and start leading there Dontgetit. Don't use any petroleum products then you might possibly lend some credibility to your stupid shit.

Not if your micro wavecame to you through the teleport. I don't know where you libs buy your shit but all my stuff comes to me by way of the wheel. Last I checked it takes oil to keep it rolling.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Well, that's some crazy-fringe-leftist-hate Bush-conspiracy-nut-case talk there. About oil! In the ME! What a lunatic.

"How bout quit bitching and start leading there Dontgetit. Don't use any petroleum products then you might possibly lend some credibility to your stupid shit."

That didn't even make sense. Try it once more. Why do you buy shit and what do you do with this shit after you buy it? You lead first.

Not bad considering that well over 2/3rds of the residents of this country are dumb as a sack of hammers....

Reminds me of the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail."

"Not to mention getting your ass back and forth to work, your kids back and forth to school, keeping the lights on in your home and your microwave churnning..."

Sed Doitmon.

Spud imagines the Dirty One mixed up his butter churn and his microwave there.

Spud does that all the time.

Coupla quick questions oh, DirtySanchez...

Does yer post suggest that America should not be content with buying oil from that region but that American Servicemen must occupy it as well?

To wot end?

Cheaper prices?

Hows THAT going by the way?

Be Well.

"That didn't even make sense."

Dirtbrain has never posted anything that has...

Sure it's ALSO about Oil. I never said it wasn't. You want oil just as much as the next guy. Admit it, you're just as big a hypocrite as the next guy you're just ignorant to that fact.


You self righteous traitors are hypocrites of the highest order. You deny your country NUkes, refineries, the ability to drill etc. etc. etc. all the while expecting the highest lifestyle in the world.

"Sure it's ALSO about Oil. I never said it wasn't. You want oil just as much as the next guy. Admit it, you're just as big a hypocrite as the next guy you're just ignorant to that fact."


Please allow "Dirtman" to educate you now. LOL

He knows what you are thinking, and wants your shit, literally.

Traitors? Why are dumbass Republicans so quick to accuse people they disagree with of being traitors?

"Traitors? Why are dumbass Republicans so quick to accuse people they disagree with of being traitors?"

It is the angry child routine. Notice that no one even pays attention anymore.

Sure it's ALSO about Oil. I never said it wasn't.

Well, what was the main reason, again? Also, you just clearly stated that it was "about oil", while nearly everyone in the Republican choir has viewed that most obvious conclusion as a sign of 'terist lovin' treyterism', so don't be too shocked at the response on this blog.

You deny your country NUkes, refineries, the ability to drill etc. etc. etc. all the while expecting the highest lifestyle in the world.

Who expects that. I'm not in any big compitition to prove how great America is.

Let's face it this administration is a Black Gold Administration. All Oil Cronies including Condi Rice and Yes Colin Powell(Carlyle group southeast asian rep if Memory serves me correctly) This whole Iraq war is nothing more than an imperalistic Oil grab NOTHING More nothing less. Dat be the truth of the matter.

Larry

Rawkin' Ray sed...

"Reminds me of the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.""

Spud likee.

Spud finds resonance there.

Spud has been sayin' fer a while now that BushCo had an All Stick/ No Carrot diplomatic style.

No jaw-jaw.
All war-war.

Military force should always be a last resort not the first resort.

BushCo don't seem to get this.

"Why are dumbass Republicans so quick to accuse people they disagree with of being traitors?"

Spud imagines it's to put people on the defensive and keep them from pointing out who the real traitors are.

Be Well.

Um..by my watch it's now, not then. What time have you got?

Posted by Boyd at 2006-08-06 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


wow...like far out man....where you like around in the late 60's man......this is like some heavy shit..man........J.K.

and spud...I didnt catch your answer on the hillary vs rummy thread...admit it....you would do her wouldnt you?


as far as this issue is concerned......what are we supposed to think of the comments from kerry and others who talked about wmd ion sadaams hands.....BJ clinton's last state of the union mentioned this threat.......there WERE FIVE HUNDRED things found in Iraq and the left dismisses them as out of date......okay, that figures, but arent all of you saying he didnt have them and then telliing us that well he did but they werent worth a shit........

and of course this so convienently dismisses the thousands upon thousands of people who were killed and tortured by this monster....... how quickly the left forgets this.....of course when chavez and castro are two of your heroes, well then I guess it all makes sense......

BLT That didn't even make one lick of sense LMAO That is Hilarious dude. In keeping of Your 60's rant It's like Gnarly dude You know totally trippy man.

Larry

That is the most disingenuous response you could have writter BL2. Firstly, nobody on the Left pretends that Saddam was anything other than a ruthless dictator. Secondly, GWBs main justification for the invasion of Iraq which he trumpeted to the world was that Saddam possessed usable WMDs which posed an imminent threat to the world. That was a lie. Thirdly, I have not read any posts by left wing bloggers on any recent threads defending either Castro or Chavez. That is just a lie which Right Wingers make up to smear those who disagree with them. That, or Republicans are just stupid and really believe the BS they spew.

.there WERE FIVE HUNDRED things found in Iraq and the left

and the right and the president and the UN and Fox News and just about everyone else in the world except Sean Hannity adn Rick Santorum

dismisses them as out of date.....

MODER8 said, "Secondly, GWBs main justification for the invasion of Iraq which he trumpeted to the world was that Saddam possessed usable WMDs which posed an imminent threat to the world."

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

That is another made up propoganda point. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.

Squeelig, why do you refer us to your BS rightwing links? Unless you are stupid, you know GWB lied and exaggerated about all the justifications leading up to the invasion of Iraq. More importantly, all America now knows it. Which is why even the Republican National Party is telling its candidates to distance themselves from GWB. Revise history as you might try, the inconvenient truth for the Right Wing is that they had their chance and made a complete met of it, greatly weakening the US in the process. (And yet it is the Right Wingers who accuse others of being "traitors").

the problem with you democrats and terriost are still running against bush from 2000, he has cleaned your clock 3 times , and i suspect he will again.

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

That is another made up propoganda point. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.

Posted by Squeelig at 2006-08-06 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


Mushroom clouds weapons availability within 45 Minutes things like that oh but You will dismiss those like always.

Larry

Squeelig-

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

OK.

Rumsfeld: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Would you like the video?

Here's another analysis of those famous 16 words democraps constantly say "prove" he was lying about Iraq and uranium.

www.factcheck.org

You idiots need to start thinking for yourselves and stop regurgitating talking points for the DNC.

Posted by Squeelig at 2006-08-06 08:31 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


The CIA told Him that the information was bogus before the cincinati event. Please do try yet again.

Larry

I especially like the intellectually dishonest arguments the demoncraps constantly throw out about Bush gaving "lied" about WMD's.

Well here is a fact for you Sqeelig. When the UN inspectors were in Iraq before the invasion and couldn't find any WMD, Bush kept insisting they were there. He had the gall to insist it was imminent Saddam would use them, but he couldn't tell the inspectors where to look. I knew right then and there he was lying.

"You idiots need to start thinking for yourselves and stop regurgitating talking points for the DNC."

Where can these talking points be found?

Squeelig-
Why did the intell. community strongly recommend that Bush not use the Africa yellow-cake bit for months before they used it anyway?

Squeelig is either a fool or a liar. He is too smart to actually believe the crap he posts. As Larry and Ray (and million others) point out, GWB knew or should have known that his rationale for war was garbage. RightWing sheep like Squeelig will deny the truth to the end. From that perspective, there is little point discussing political topics with him.

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

What kind of nonsese is that? That was the basis for a pre-emptive attack.

"If any of you retards would like to do a little independent thinking from source data, see the following "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq"


Which part of the full report are you referring to? Your link was rather vague.

PINGDUMB, I looked at your collection of quotes and guess what?

I see lots of talk about Saddam, being a threat but no talk of "imminent threat."

"Threat" does not by definition mean "imminent threat."

Squeelig-
Why did the WH retract the "sixteen words" and have Tenet claim it was all his fault days after Wilson's piece in the paper?

Would you like a quote from the WH liason?

What was the name of the poster that was here until the election was over, who always said "democraps"??

I can't remember his handle but Squeelig reminds me of a slightly calmer version of that poster.

"Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world."

Oh you have to be kidding me. Psst, it was the basis by which he claimed that we needed to go to war with Iraq.

"Mushroom clouds over New York" and that whole thing.

Squeelig-
Do you actually read the thread you're typing on?

Squeelig-

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

OK.

Rumsfeld: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Would you like the video?

Posted by Boyd at 2006-08-06 08:33 PM

DONTGETIT, I am sorry if you "don't get it" but for you and the rest of your clan, I suggest a full read of the entire report.

"DONTGETIT, I am sorry if you "don't get it" but for you and the rest of your clan, I suggest a full read of the entire report."

You are the one using it as a source. Now, to which page are you referring? Be specific and try to refrain from childish comments. Do the best that you are able.

Squeelig-

Would you like a thesaurus, or would a definition of "immediate" do?

the dems and terriost have the same talking points always trying the harm the usa. the dems are still trying to defeat bush from 2000 didnt happen in 2000, 2004 aint gonna happen now.

"the dems and terriost have the same talking points always trying the harm the usa. the dems are still trying to defeat bush from 2000 didnt happen in 2000, 2004 aint gonna happen now."


This is a Child Left Behind Alert. Man your stations.

Here's one:

"Absolutely."
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

and another:

"This is about imminent threat."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

one more for good effect:

"Well, of course he is."
White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

I know you think you can weasel out with semantics. But you're only putting yourself more in the hole.

If they weren't an "immediate" threat, then why did we go to war? If they were a far off threat, shouldn't we have tried different measures first? Shouldn't war be the last resort?

I can't remember his handle but Squeelig reminds me of a slightly calmer version of that poster.

Posted by Lisa at 2006-08-06 08:40 PM | Reply


BashThis

I am not a "terriost", Wadfowd!

:)

defending either Castro or Chavez. That is just a lie which Right Wingers make up to smear those who disagree with them. That, or Republicans are just stupid and really believe the BS they spew.

Posted by moder8 at 2006-08-06 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


moder8 check out almost any thread by danni or jeffindenmark...at least I think by jeff....and there are others......
]
when castro came to america the two times, was it...he was surrounded by libs...and they have gone there many times......pay close attention to most threads about oil and you will see several comments about how great he is........

Anti War = Anti Christian Lisa ??

Larry

Oh and Damn You Lisa You got My mind aworking. That hurts.

Larry

"when castro came to america the two times, was it...he was surrounded by libs"

Who were they?

No Larry...that's not it.

oh please larry....whats with the mushroom cloud comment.....you must be too young to remember the little girl smelling the flowers in the LBJ ad and then we see a mushroom cloud......there was absolutely no need to be scared that goldwater would drop the bomb, but this ad from the then end-all big three news outlets was a major reason for his loss to LBJ..........

just as all this is.......hype from the left....otherwise why do you think they keep bringing it up?

and of course they were old, but I listened to several experts say that they could have still been used, just maybe not with the same effect.......and have you all forgotten about the tapes captured where sadaam's people were telling him that they were ready to bring back the program........

"If they weren't an "immediate" threat, then why did we go to war? If they were a far off threat, shouldn't we have tried different measures first? Shouldn't war be the last resort?"

Hypothetical question in response - Tell me, if we the intelligence services of Russia, Germany, Israel, England, France and the US all thought that Iran would definitely either use nuclear weapons or pass them to terrorists for use against Israel and perhaps the US, would these same coutries be justified in removing the Iranian regime and destroying their nuclear program even though, by definition, "imminence" could only arise, necessarily, after they had a bomb which might be two years off?

"oh please larry....whats with the mushroom cloud comment.....you must be too young to remember the little girl smelling the flowers in the LBJ ad"

I believe that we are discussing the present, not what happened decades ago.

"and of course they were old, but I listened to several experts"

AM radio experts, no doubt.

BLT I LOVE the smell of desperation at night. Please do I need to bring up the Mushroom clouds that Condi Rice Dick CHeney Dubya brought up before the Iraq War started. Please don't go there or else I will go there.

Larry

"Hypothetical question in response "

And now a "what-if" since the original question was too difficult.

Lisa Shut Up?? No I am NOT Telling You to Shut Up it was a handle here.

Larry

Oh and its funny All 3 Condi Rice Colin Powell and DIck Cheney declared Saddam Hussein posed NO Threat before it became Politicaly advantagous to state otherwise.

Larry

you terroist democrats wouldnt believe but the germans never attacked prior to ww11 we lost 10.000 troops at normandy, you dems are going to get us attacked again.

"you terroist democrats "

Honey, use a dictionary. It is hard to insult others while proving that you are an illiterate ass.

Try the dogpatch version.

Half of the country still believes that Iraq has/had WMDs.

This from a country that makes multi-millionaires out of jocks and promotes Mariah Carey and Britney as "artists."

You can't just assume people have intelligence in this country...or any other.

Hypothetical question in response - Tell me, if we the intelligence services of Russia, Germany, Israel, England, France and the US all thought that Iran would definitely either use nuclear weapons or pass them to terrorists for use against Israel and perhaps the US, would these same coutries be justified in removing the Iranian regime and destroying their nuclear program even though, by definition, "imminence" could only arise, necessarily, after they had a bomb which might be two years off?

Are you saying we should invade any country that might be a threat down the road? Why don't we just take over the whole world? That would be afest of all.

Believe it or not, the world does not belong to the US.

And back to the subject of pre-war intellengence, there were as many voices discounting the WMDs as there were promoting them. Bush picked the sources he wanted to believe and trashed the rest.

Reading the desperately whining posts by Right Wingers on this subject reminds me of just how much trouble they are in this coming November.

Safest not afest

you terroist democrats wouldnt believe but the germans never attacked prior to ww11 we lost 10.000 troops at normandy, you dems are going to get us attacked again.

Posted by radford58 at 2006-08-06 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

That is a Bald faced Lie Nazi Germanty was attacking Our shipping vessels PRE Pearl Harbor Please educate Yourself because You are sorely lacking.

Larry

Squeelig-
Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

Did I miss your post where you said you were wrong, or did you just move diretly to your fallback position after being proved so thoroughly mistaken over quite recent history that it even embarasses me to bring it up?

PINGDUMB, Dan Bartlett's response in its entirety in their entirety was:

"Well, of course he is. He has made it very clear his hatred for the United States of America. He's made it very clear through the past years and since he's been in power his desire to dominate the region. And as he acquires these weapons, particularly if he were to get a nuclear weapon, it would change the game in the entire world if Saddam Hussein, based on his past, based on his history of aggression, to acquire the type of weapons and then potentially to marry up with terrorists so he wouldn't have the finger prints, is a scenario that we can't afford to take."

Obviously, that web site you provided is very adept at advancing liberal propoganda by cutting and pasting out of context.

That is why I provided that report in full for your benefit. No excerpts taken out of context.

"PINGDUMB, Dan Bartlett's response in its entirety in their entirety was:"

Yet, no source?

Squeelig-
Care to tackle the rest? Maybe you can parse the meanings of "immediate" and "imminent" for us.

you terroist democrats wouldnt believe but the germans never attacked prior to ww11 we lost 10.000 troops at normandy, you dems are going to get us attacked again.

How stupid! Where are their armies? Where is their air force? Where is their navy? Where are their WMD? Where are their delivery systems? Bush lied about Iraq and you want to believe him again when he raises the spector of Iran? The country is a member of the Non-nuclear Proliferation Treaty. They've submitted to inspections under treaty rules and have been found to be in compliance. Gads, get a brain Radford.

First, my name is Pingdum. Are you so inept at debate that you must stoop to personal attacks?

Anyway, the whole quote doesn't help you. In fact, it makes his case weaker.

BOYD, As for Rummy's statement, "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

I want you to take off your dunce hat for a second and pay attention.

Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

I am sorry if this sounds illogical to you orm if you just DONTGETIT. You didn't do well on the reasoning portion of the SAT's did you?

Squeelig, do you dance like that to convince yourself, because you're not swaying anyone else.

"Where are their armies? Where is their air force"

Where are their Panzer divisions? Their wartime factories? Their Kamikaze squadrons?

"Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

I have never seen someone try so hard and fail so miserably. I can only hope that she convinces herself.

From the report cited by Squeelig:

As invasion plans were readied and finalized, the Administration had succeeded in
painting a stark and sobering picture of an imminent threat to American security based on
fragmentary intelligence and overheated rhetoric. The Vice President had told a
nationwide television audience that Iraq not only had a nuclear weapons development
program but had "in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The President spoke of a
"mushroom cloud" and "massive and sudden horror," while top officials continued to link
Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorism in vivid terms that went well beyond what the Intelligence
Community assessed. As Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz stated on January 23, 2003:
"Iraq's weapons of mass terror and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime
are linked are not two separate themes -not two separate threats. They are part of
the same threat."
It is no wonder that by the time the bombing campaign of "shock and awe" had
begun, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11
terrorist attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. By selectivelyreleasing and mischaracterizing
intelligence infomation that supported an Iraq -al-Qaeda collaborationwhile continuing
to keep information classified and out of the public realm that did not, the Administration
distorted intelligence to persuade Americans into believing the actions of al-Qaeda and
Iraq were indistinguishable, "part of the same threat," as Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz
asserted.
Not until September 2003, a half-year after the start of the Iraq War, did the
President state in clear, unequivocal terms the Intelligence Community position that was
no evidence supporting such a link between Iraq and the murderous acts of al-Qaeda on
September 11th.

"Anyway, the whole quote doesn't help you. In fact, it makes his case weaker."

Actually PINGDUMB, it doesn't. It is a qualification to the "Of course" and that qualification undercuts your argument that it was a simple, crisp, clear, direct and defined response that was not part of a greater reponse that explained the "Of course."

Read it again and explain how, "In fact, it makes his case weaker."

Now you know why I refer to you as PINGDUMB.

Squeelig-
Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

Thank you. I really just wanted to see you do that.

Secretary Powell, again in his February 5,2003, address to the U.N. Security
Council, said:
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000battlefield
rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to
cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly
5 times the size of Manhattan

must go so I am sure that the left will think I gave up but thats okay just wrong.

someone came after me and said that I should not remember the past.and yet when it suits them they will always bring up some line from some dead guy to prove thier point.

but the main thing is this.who said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it?

nd there are thousands of people, many who are right here, who sound as much like chamberlain as chamberlain did.and lets look at what happened because of the likes of him after 1938.

there are thousands of souls screaming out at you to not repeat what happened to them,..it seems as if we on the right are the only ones who are listening.

"You still JUSTDONTGETIT do you?"

I understand perfectly that what you provided proves that he claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat.

The rest was your usual whining.

"must go so I am sure that the left will think I gave up but thats okay just wrong."

No, just that some livestock needed your "attention."

"Actually PINGDUMB, it doesn't. It is a qualification to the "Of course" and that qualification undercuts your argument that it was a simple, crisp, clear, direct and defined response that was not part of a greater reponse that explained the "Of course.""

LOL, this is too funny.

Squeelikeapig, yer either the second worst astro-turfer Spud has ever encountered afore or you are really truly, deeply, desperately, hopelessly full on delusional.

"It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent.""

Oh RCADE Why do we not have a "pathetic" flag at times like these?

Spud always wondered wot you found when you finished scraping through the bottom of the barrel.

Arguments like that one, apparently.

Spud luffs the smell of righty-tighty desperation inna morning.

Smells like Victory!

Be Well.

"who said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it?"

You mean like Vietnam?

BLT-
but the main thing is this.who said that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it?

Santayana. But shouldn't we at least get the present stuck in our little reality hats first?

Tao-
We're not talking about 2003. The discussion in about why half of the populace believes that the weapons we "defended" ourselves against were actually found in Iraq.

Dig?

YAV said, "Secretary Powell, again in his February 5,2003, address to the U.N. Security
Council, said:
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and
500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000battlefield
rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to
cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly
5 times the size of Manhattan"

What's your point? If you are saying that the administration made this up, then please provide evidence. The fact that the intelligence community got it wrong and the administration relied on those assessments, is not evidence that anyone was lying.

What you all have failed to show is that the administration "lied." You have faied to provide any evidence that the administration relied on justifications it deliberately knew were false.

Simply pointing out that intelligence analysts got it wrong is insufficient in proving that Bush lied. The report, in conclusion, also states that there was no pressure applied by the administration to achieve any particular outcome in the intelligence determinations.

And if Roberts and company would actually carry through with the second half of the investigation (ie, the Administration's USE or ABUSE of the intel they were provided, then we might have more to go on, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon)

Actually TAO, we're talking about whethermthe administration "lied" when it assessed a WMD threat on the part of Iraq prior to our invading.

I'm still waiting for evidence that the administration deliberately relied on assessments that it knew were false and that those same assessments were the justifications for invading Iraq.

Squeelig, your point was about who said immediate or imminent, or conveyed that sense, not whether it was factual or not.

ARE SADDAM HUSSEIN'S WMDS NOW IN HEZBOLLAH'S HANDS?" asked the FOX NEWS headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes.

Uh-oh, another imminent threat from the WMD that never existed. You boys never quit, do ya?

If you are saying that the administration made this up, then please provide evidence... What you all have failed to show is that the administration "lied." You have faied to provide any evidence that the administration relied on justifications it deliberately knew were false.

I wonder if Derf/loki took on another name.

It just sickens me to hear the desperation in those who continue to Support this Administration. It must really make You ill when You have to think about the fact that We were Lied into an Illegal Invasion of Iraq. It must really bug the shit out of You guys. Come to the Light Wake up people. Face the facts or live in denial it's up to You.

Larry

The report, in conclusion, also states that there was no pressure applied by the administration to achieve any particular outcome in the intelligence determinations.

The report also specifically states that they did not look into that avenue, and were indeed precluded from doing so as their charge. There is a second step to this investigation that has yet to be conducted thanks to Roberts and the R's in power.

But on to the topic at hand: You have yet to retract the statement that was demonstrably ill advised (to say the least), and have avoided the general topic at all cost: Were "WMD" threatening to the US or the region found in Iraq?

I'm still waiting for evidence that the administration deliberately relied on assessments that it knew were false and that those same assessments were the justifications for invading Iraq.

Me too. Why don't you give Roberts a call and ask him why the stalling?

DETHSPUD found my explaination that "It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent" insifficient.

Perhaps you can set up a logical argument proving why saying that if one nation poses the greatest immediacy of threat among a subset of nations, that that necessarily means that this same nation must be an "imminent threat."

Another low scorer on the SAT and obviously someone who was precluded from taking the LSAT.

Boyd read over that and another one just like it. Not really any point in arguing now I guess minds are made up, no one trusts anyones elses sources, whats the use anymore.

you goofball they kicked the inspector out 1 year ago

"Me too. Why don't you give Roberts a call and ask him why the stalling?"

Very good. So, per you, we have now established that "Roberts" can provide the evidence but that as of present, there has been stalling and so no such evidence is available.

I'm glad we cleared that up.

DETHSPUD found my explaination that "It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent" insifficient.,

I found your parsing insipid, and even insulting. But mostly I was embarrassed for you.

Perhaps you can set up a logical argument proving why saying that if one nation poses the greatest immediacy of threat among a subset of nations, that that necessarily means that this same nation must be an "imminent threat."

Another low scorer on the SAT and obviously someone who was precluded from taking the LSAT.


Posted by Squeelig at 2006-08-06 09:44 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


You must have scored Low on Your SAT or LSAT cause Imminent and Immediate are the same thing. Please do try again. If something is an Imminent threat it is an IMMEDIATE Threat.

Larry

Blogger Drain Bamage.

you goofball they kicked the inspector out 1 year ago

Posted by radford58 at 2006-08-06 09:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

WHy do You keep Lying The Inspectors were removed 48 Hours before we invaded as Per Dubya's request. Please do try again.

Larry

Very good. So, per you, we have now established that "Roberts" can provide the evidence but that as of present, there has been stalling and so no such evidence is available.

You don't even know to what I refer. You don't know who Roberts is, even. Give it a Google search, and pay more attention. And get off the SAT crap; it makes you appear even more like the petulant child.

Later all.

Don't blame you Boyd.

Good night!!

What you all have failed to show is that the administration "lied." You have faied to provide any evidence that the administration relied on justifications it deliberately knew were false.

We don't need to prove they did it, their actions prove this.

Plame remind you of anything, guess not, but clearly this action taken proves they knew but push ahead anyway.

What is humorous is your support saying plame was wrong about the outing then it even proves more they knew no WMD but continue to move with this as fact anyway.

That is called lying.

Pat Roberts the disgraced Senator from My home state Kansas.

Larry

Sqeelig, Derf5, Lokifur, different odd names, same person.

"You don't even know to what I refer. You don't know who Roberts is, even. Give it a Google search, and pay more attention."

That's funny. Considering I know much more about this subject than you do.

Why don't you take the training wheels off your head exercise some independent thinking.

"DETHSPUD found my explaination that "It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent" insifficient

Actually Spud found it freakin' hilarious.

It was yer spelling wot Spud found insufficient.

"Perhaps you can set up a logical argument proving why saying that if one nation poses the greatest immediacy of threat among a subset of nations, that that necessarily means that this same nation must be an "imminent threat.""

Cos imminent means immediate.

Well that was easy...got a li'l time left. let's see... time fer one more?...

"I'm still waiting for evidence that the administration deliberately relied on assessments that it knew were false and that those same assessments were the justifications for invading Iraq."

Read Richard Clarkes book.

They deliberately disregarded any information that failed to support their theories and accentuated the information that did to the point of using discredited information.

The lied and they lied and they lied and they lied agin.

They're still lying now.

Now the shoe goes on the other foot.

Prove that BushCo have ever told the complete unvarnsihed truth ever in the history of the admin.

They've lied way more often than they've told the truth.

That much is obvious to any mentally challenged toddler who's even been paying partial attention.

Squeelig are you an astro-turfer?

Is someone paying you to be here?

C'mon fess up!

Be Well.

LARRYMOHN said, "Pat Roberts the disgraced Senator from My home state Kansas."

Larry, BOYD must think you're real smart for knowing that. He apparently thinks no one knows who Roberts is.

Squee-
Why hasn't Roberts allowed the next portion of the investigation, despite numerous promises to complete it?

Nope, Boyd just thought you didn't know.

Everyone else already did.

So, what do you think about this?

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

That is another made up propoganda point. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.

Still holding on to it?

You can defer answering my question in lieu of answering Boyds re: Roberts.

(reprieve!)

YAV, Go back and read the thread. I wasn't the one who initially asserted the "imminent threat" point.

Therefore, I did not have the burden.

Try to stay focused here OK?

Over half of Americans believe this bull... not hard to believe. A recent poll showed Americans felt Ronald Reagan was our best President since WWII.

Ignorance is bliss. Eh?

Yes, Squee, I have even less respect for you now. You seem to come out swinging when I signed off. Well, I'm here, and I'm still waiting for another truly Clintonesqe parsing such as this:

Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

I'm asking YOU. The quote was YOURS.

Posted by Squeelig at 2006-08-06 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Half the population has an IQ of less than 100.

Although sad, it's not really a surprise that half the population would be so easily swayed by this current incompetent Bush Administration.

MODER8 said, "Secondly, GWBs main justification for the invasion of Iraq which he trumpeted to the world was that Saddam possessed usable WMDs which posed an imminent threat to the world."

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

That is another made up propoganda point. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.

Posted by Squeelig at 2006-08-06 08:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Larry

YAV, Go back and read the thread. I wasn't the one who initially asserted the "imminent threat" point.

Therefore, I did not have the burden.

Meaning I can't support this so I won't.

Why are you guys wasting your breath arguing with an arrogant fool like Squeelig. No matter how clear the situation, and no matter how obvious the common sense, he will never concede an inch. People like him take pride in never acknowledging an opponents accuracy. He would rather continue arguing, insulting and acting like a bully rather than admit what the rest of America obviously already knows.

Please provide evidence that Bush or anyone in his administration ever said that Saddam through his WMD's posed an "imminent threat" to the world.

You are such a worm, Squee. You wewre faced then with a multitude of statements from many "in his administration", and you come up with this crap:

BOYD, As for Rummy's statement, "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

I want you to take off your dunce hat for a second and pay attention.

Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

I am sorry if this sounds illogical to you orm if you just DONTGETIT. You didn't do well on the reasoning portion of the SAT's did you?

I knew the WMD's were lies because the Neocons had planned to invade Iraq (as written in their own document - PNAC) as far back as 1996. If there was one shred of truth to the WMD's or any of them to be found (other than left over weapons from the Iraq/Iran war) WE WOULD HAVE ALL SEEN THE EVIDENCE BY NOW.

The real scary part is that 1/2 of the U.S. is so easily duped by the dope in the Oval Office.

I can't quite belive I came back to this thread.

Good night all, for reals yo! :)

Larry, Crassus - it would be completely enjoyable if not for the number that believe as he.

Boyd's question has much greater significance and repercussion.

Good night Boyd!

Yav I know it's a thorough disgrace. Makes Me so man.

Larry

Oops Mad NOT Man

Larry

:)

Saying that no terrorist state in the world poses a more immediate threat does not in and of itself mean that Iraq was an "imminent" threat.

It means that when you rank all the terror states by order of "immediacy of threat," Iraq is at the top EVEN THOUGH that threat does not rise to the level of "imminent."

And with respect to the above, I am still waiting for a logical proof that establishes that what I said must not be the case.

Again, saying that one nation of a subset of terror states poses the greatest immediacy of threat does not in and of itself mean that that same nation poses an imminent threat.

Are you really that logically challenged?

YAV, I'm afreaid I can't help you if you have problems reading. Go back up the thread and read again.

Re Ipsa Loquitur.

CALIFCHRIS said, "The real scary part is that 1/2 of the U.S. is so easily duped by the dope in the Oval Office."

Actually, what is amazing is how effective an organized campaign of propoganda and misinformation, supported by a vast army of useful idiots, has been successful in duping 1/2 of the country into believing the DNC talking points.

I'm afraid I have to go too now.

Res Ipsa Loquitur, indeed.

I'm afreaid (sic) you will never get it.

Your admission isn't required.

Squeelikapig sed...

"I'm afraid I have to go too now."

Spud sez Don't Be Afraid
...Just Go, ...Astroturfer!!

Don't let the door hit ya
where intelligent design split ya.

Spud agrees with the assessment by Ray...

"Sqeelig, Derf5, Lokifur, different odd names, same person."

Agreed.

Spud bets dollars to donuts that he aint legit.

Spud plays a hunch.

Be Well.

And they have been found...

Really. What has been found (please provide detail and a link, unless it kills you)

Posted by Boyd at 2006-08-06 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Boyd, you should have said "until it kills you".

Breaking news, circa 2000: Half of US is stupid and misinformed.

This just in: WMDs in trunk of Gnutzey's BMW, next to the wheelchair.

Was this finding broken out by Northern states VS Southern States?

well, anyone who thinks that saddam hussein simply dismantled his entire weapons program is a fool. people know every last detail about bush, but virtually nothing about saddam, then they make ridiculous statements like "saddam had no weapons".

the man was a master of deception... if there's one thing he was good at, it was hiding things. those weapons could be anywhere under that iraqi desert. we found entire airplane hangers in underground bunkers... a few barrels of a biological or chemical agent (which is all that would be needed to kill thousands) wouldn't be hard to hide. 10 years from now they could be excavating for a mcdonald's in baghdad, and stumble upon something.

people will scrutinize every little thing that an american president says, but they trust the word of a third-world dictator without question. it's disgraceful.

besides, bush never said anything that wasn't already being reported by countless intelligence agencies around the world, including the UN, france, germany, etc, etc... to NOT act in the face of that kind of information would have been irresponsible and dangerous.

i say learn as much about saddam as you know about bush before forming an opinion. i think people are afraid they might actually start to hate saddam more than they hate bush... god forbid!

When Dubya went ahead with "Shock and Awe" somebody forgot to get destroy the conventional arms depots or to secure them from being emptied by coalition adversaries.

What dumb planning! It's criminal negligence! UCMJ-punishable level negligence on somebody's part. In the old days of the British Navy someone would have been court-martialed.

"""Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

President Bill Clinton, Wednesday, December 16, 1998""

Which they did thereby making invasion totally unnecessary. I still want to know why Dubya didn't read his father's autobiography. Perhaps he will have time on his vacation. Unless, he is afraid to read now what he should have known then.

Half of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 and there was never any evidence to support that.

Do you think GWB was re-elected because people understand what is going on?

"Which they did thereby making invasion totally unnecessary"

really? ok. if only it were that simple. clinton's "strikes" on saddam were a joke... i can just imagine the punch-lines floating around his palaces.

speaking of which, he built 48 of them during the 90's... and you can bet he wasn't spending all that extra cash on marble floors and gold-plated toilets.

"Half of Americans believed Saddam was involved in 9/11"

they do? i don't. and neither does bush... i challenge you to find one quote from him to that effect.

what he said was that we need to learn the lessons of 9/11... which is we can't let growing threats fester, as we did with al-qaeda. can you imagine if we had gone into afghanistan prior to 9/11 in an effort to take down the taliban and cripple al-qaeda, based on the intelligence we had about them?

bin laden was a growing threat, and clinton had several opportunity to get him (thereby possibly preventing 9/1), but he didn't want to ruffle any feathers. and any way you look at it, saddam was a growing threat... should we have waited until he flew planes into our buildings as well? he was already firing missles at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over his country... maybe we should've waited til he hit one.

saddam was a growing threat... should we have waited until he flew planes into our buildings as well? he was already firing missles at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones over his country... maybe we should've waited til he hit one.


Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 11:25 AM | Reply


He was declared NO Threat before it became Politicaly advantagous to state otherwise. Oh and Saddam Hussein had every right to fire upon Our Airplanes in His airspace because the NO Fly zones were Blatantly Illegal and NOT UN Sanctioned.

Larry

declared by who? besides, al-qaeda was not considered a threat either... it's easy to call things "scare tactics" until something happens... they people would say, why didn't we do something about saddam when we had the chance (and in the face of mountains of evidence against him).

clinton's failed invasion of kosovo was not UN sanctioned either... but he's given a free pass on that. and i think you need to do some research on the no-fly zones, which were, in fact, supported by the UN, and patrolled by the us, britain and france.

clinton's failed invasion of kosovo was not UN sanctioned either... but he's given a free pass on that. and i think you need to do some research on the no-fly zones, which were, in fact, supported by the UN, and patrolled by the us, britain and france.


Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 11:51 AM | Reply


Kosovo was NATO Please educate Yourself and it wasn't a failed Mission and No the NO Fly ZOnes were NOT UN Sanctioned please educate Yourself before You diss Yourself Thank You. Do try yet again for You know not what You speak about.

Larry

How does Bush know Saddam had WMD's?
He has the receipt.

Larry,

You are so wrong. Read 688.

"2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected."

Saddam was using helicopter gunships to kill people, hence the no-fly so.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong. Explain why enforcing 688 is illegal.

no wonder you're so mis-informed... keep reading those spin websites, they're fun, aren't they.

and give saddam my regards on your next conjugal visit.

"2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected."

Saddam was using helicopter gunships to kill people, hence the no-fly so.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong. Explain why enforcing 688 is illegal.

Posted by zulu at 2006-08-07 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:


No Fly ZOnes were4 not UN Sanctioned Please educate Yourself Zulu for You know3 not what You speak about. I dare You I double Dare You to find the No Fly Zones Sanctioned anywhere in any UN Resolution. You can't because it does not exsist. Please do try yet again Zulu.

Larry

no wonder you're so mis-informed... keep reading those spin websites, they're fun, aren't they.

and give saddam my regards on your next conjugal visit.


Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 12:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e


aint spin hunny it's the truth something You seem to can't handle ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Larry

"No Fly ZOnes were4 not UN Sanctioned"

So the purpose of 688 was what? Why was is passed if it was not intended to be enforced? 688 is the U.N. sanctioning of the no fly zones. So simple. Why don't you get it?

Zulu UN Resolution 688 did NOT sanction the NO Fly zones. Please do try again You know not what You speak of.

Larry

------------------------------
------------------------------
--------------------

RESOLUTION 688 (1991)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2982nd meeting on 5 April 1991
The Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,

Recalling of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter of the United Nations,

Gravely concerned by the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, which led to a massive flow of refugees towards and across international frontiers and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region,

Deeply disturbed by the magnitude of the human suffering involved, Taking note of the letters sent by the representatives of Turkey and France to the United Nations dated 2 April 1991 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22435 and S/22442),

Taking note also of the letters sent by the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations dated 3 and 4 April 1991, respectively (S/22436 and S/22447),

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,

Bearing in mind the Secretary-General's report of 20 March 1991 (S/22366),

1. Condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq, including most recently in Kurdish populated areas, the consequences of which threaten international peace and security in the region;

2. Demands that Iraq, as a contribution to remove the threat to international peace and security in the region, immediately end this repression and express the hope in the same context that an open dialogue will take place to ensure that the human and political rights of all Iraqi citizens are respected;

3. Insists that Iraq allow immediate access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in all parts of Iraq and to make available all necessary facilities for their operations;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his humanitarian efforts in Iraq and to report forthwith, if appropriate on the basis of a further mission to the region, on the plight of the Iraqi civilian population, and in particular the Kurdish population, suffering from the repression in all its forms inflicted by the Iraqi authorities;

5. Requests further the Secretary-General to use all the resources at his disposal, including those of the relevant United Nations agencies, to address urgently the critical needs of the refugees and displaced Iraqi population;

6. Appeals to all Member States and to all humanitarian organizations to contribute to these humanitarian relief efforts;

7. Demands that Iraq cooperate with the Secretary-General to these ends;

8. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

.
SHOW ME SHOW ME SHOW ME where does it sanction the No Fly Zones?? WHERE

Larry

Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Iraq and of all States in the area,


You can't have Political Independence if You Sanction No Fly ZOnes. Can't do it. Face it Zulu You know not what You are talking about. This is obvious to me.

Larry

Larry,

You are proof that a mule can be led to water but can't be forced to drink.

Why 688 was passed if it was never intended to be enforced?

A simple question. Why won't you answer the question?

i don't know why people give the UN such credibility anyway... they're more corrupt than the catholic church (if that's possible), and about as effective as a refrigrator in antarctica.

the problem with the UN is they're all talk and no action... they issue resolution after resolution, but never enforce any of them. saddam got used to that (after violating 18 of them).. he grew more and more defiant and bold, as a result of the UN's (and the world's) inaction. he thought he could just continue getting away with murder (literally), as he had been doing for decades. he figured his buddies (france, germany, etc) would protect him against any real action, as it turns out they tried to do.

It was intended to be enforced But it did not sanction the No Fly ZOnes. do You not get thyis Zulu??

Larry

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Funny You gripe about the UN but that is Precisely what Dubya is doing today going to the UN bwhahahqahahahahahaha You gvuys are a trip.

Larry

well you need to do something more than just words... saddam wiped his ass with UN resolutions.

Larry, you may want to disregard the informaion from the organizations
that you have quoted and read the actual UN security Council resolutions
regarding demarcation zones (no-fly zones) in Iraq.

of course he is... we went to the UN prior to taking down saddam, as well... for 20 years the international community tried getting saddam to behave himself.... that's not exactly "rushing to war". there comes a time when you gotta say enough is enough.

oh, he's not going to read the actual documents... he's only going to listen to what other people tell him about the documents... that's much easier.

EXEAGLE Do try again The No Fly ZOnes were not UN Sanctioned Please educate Yourself before You come back Thanks.

Larry

yeah, exeagle... do not try again, or larry will have the mukhabaret slice your tongue out in the public square.

Prove Me wrong where are the no fly zones Sanctioned?? It should be very easy to demonstrate if they were there. Please prove me wrong.


Larry

ok, for argument's sake, let's assume they were not un-sanctioned... does that mean anything that is sanctioned by the UN is illegal? better look at clinton's record before answering that.

ok, for argument's sake, let's assume they were not un-sanctioned... does that mean anything that is sanctioned by the UN is illegal? better look at clinton's record before answering that.


Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yes they were Illegal because first off Gulf War 1 was a UN Declared War. 2nd of all Saddam's Contract was with the UN and NOT with the United States. Third of all Iraq had Sovereignty over the country so it was Illegal to have invaded His AirSpace.

Larry

the oil-for-food program was sanctioned by the UN... and we all know what a brilliant success that was.

Larry, you could volunteer to be a lawyer for Saddam's legal defense team. Don't let your passion for defending terrorists go to waste.

the oil-for-food program was sanctioned by the UN... and we all know what a brilliant success that was.

Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 01:10 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You mean the UN Oil for Food Program that has Several US Oil COmpanies Complicit in You mean the very SAME Oil for Food program that the US underminded themselves Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm You mean THAT one??

Larry

Larry, you could volunteer to be a lawyer for Saddam's legal defense team. Don't let your passion for defending terrorists go to waste.

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2006-08-07 01:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sorry if the TRUTH Hurts. TRUTH Never askes who it supports.

Larry

Oil for Food was a program submitted to the UN Security Council by the USA. Had the USA had objections to a program they created... they have permanent veto power.

Furthermore, Oil for Food was monitored by the US Navy (except for one single time in all those years). And Bush's cronys made over half of all the illegal profits from the program, like George Dubai's friends at BayOil.

Larry, pack your Koran and go sign up. Don't let all those virgins get away.

no, i mean the oil-for-food program that ended when one of histories most brutal tyrants was toppled from power.

It's sure tiresome reading the same discredited crap over and over again from the Right. Can you guys come up with something that might be plausible?

Thanks in advance.

the only one who lied about wmd's was saddam himself... and it's sad that people are all too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

"It's sure tiresome reading the same discredited crap over and over again from the Right. Can you guys come up with something that might be plausible?"

Funny, I feel the same way about the "Bush lied" claims.

Unfortunately for you, we're constrained by the facts. To be fair, I do understand how you have a problem with the "plausibility" of facts. After all, you and your leftist friends subscribe to the idea that the Israelis are waging a genocidal war and facts really have no role to play in advancing that position either.

look, i'm no fan of bush, believe me... i didn't even vote for him in 2000. and i'm no republican, by any stretch of the term. i guess that's why i'm able to not let partisanship cloud by views... i just give credit where credit is due.

honestly, i wish it wasn't bush who did it, but my support for the action to remove saddam has nothing to do with bush and everything to do with saddam. i'm not going to disagree with the action just because i don't like the guy who did it.

i believe the removal of saddam was in the works long before 9/11... like i said, it had been building up for years. clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change in iraq official US foreign policy. and, from what i understand, gore was a hawk, and actually urged clinton to do it... so there's no doubt that we would still be there today even if the 2000 election went the other way. and i would still support it.

the only reason clinton never took down saddam (or killed bin laden) was because he cared more about his public image than about doing the right thing. but the right thing to do isn't always the most popular... sometimes you gotta piss some people off to get things done.

as a matter of fact, the clinton admin (specifically madeline not-so-bright) actually helped the taliban take control of afghanistan in 1996. they were believed to be a "stabilizing force" in the region... not to mention clinton's appeasement approach to terrorism.

the only one who lied about wmd's was saddam himself... and it's sad that people are all too willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Give him the benefit of the doubt?

How long have we combed every inch of Iraq for WMD?

How long were the inspectors in country?

Who said we knew where it all was located, and then wouldn't tell the inspectors?

If you want to argue regime change, fine - but this WMD stuff and your misattributions are absurd. I don't care whether you're a fan of Bush or a Republican or a Democrat. Your characterizations are completely inaccurate.

Spud sees our resident astroturfer is... "Back again."

"I see that we still have no evidence of lying about WMD's"

You were shown a shitload of evidence yesterday.

Wot do ya got Alzhenheimers?

If yer class assignment is to try to convince folk hereabouts that GWB is not a blivet (aka ten pounds of shit in a five pound sack) then yer in fer a ruff ride.

Wot they did was not only lie but they systematically used a large number of people and media outlets to deliberately disseminate those lies on teevee and in print in order to manufacture enuff fear and anger to enable them garner the "political capital" neccessary to prosecute this immoral, unneccessary, and corporately driven invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq.

You try to make it look like Bush was the victim of bad intelligence and Spud s'poses that, in a sense, yer right.

He was a victim of his own bad intelligence, his incurious nature, his immature soul.

But the info he was getting on Saddam from both the intelligence communities as well as the military communities was not bad info.

He gleaned, he cherry picked.

BushCo didn't make policy based on facts.

BushCo made facts based on policy.

And still you come to blog-world and try yer turd polishing act.

Shine away Squealikeapig.

It's still shit.

Be Well.

"""And so did the Dems and the rest of the world intel community prior to Iraq.""""


right-wing xtian apologetic bullshit: the world was against boy dunder and his crusaders before the illegal war, all of the evidence indicated nothing was left.

with the reports from the u.n., from blix, bush should have aborted the illegal invasion which was planned BEFORE 911.

have you read blix's book? if ever there was a case for war, that's it.

we're still finding things in iraq... if all we were doing was looking for stuff, we might find it quicker, but in case you haven't noticed, that's not all we're doing there. it could be years before somethign surfaces.. like i said, if there's one thing saddam was good at it was deception. (and murder, of course).

besides, they might not even still be in iraq... have you ever seen the satellite photos of truck convoys crossing the border into syria just prior to the war? you can bet they weren't carrying ice cream. saddam had plenty of time to prepare for our arrival... and plenty of friends to help him do it.

and, yes, unaccounted for... this is a man that (not unlike hitler, who saddam names as one of his idols) documented the name, age, address, etc, of every man, woman and child he murdered... hundreds of thousands of them. but somehow he couldn't produce one piece of paper confirming the dismantling of an entire weapons program (which the whole world knew he had). we're just supposed to take his word for it, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary?

i have yet to see one shred of hard evidence that bush said anything that was known to be untrue at the time... only conspiracy theories.

granted, he's said a lot of things he shouldn't have said... he should've known better than to say stuff like "stockpiles" and "we know where they are", given saddam's history of deception.

speaking of which... it's interesting how people are so quick to call bush a liar, but they give saddam a free pass. talk about polishing a turd.

"speaking of which... it's interesting how people are so quick to call bush a liar, but they give saddam a free pass. talk about polishing a turd."

Yes, that is interesting isn't it. Bush speaks and the assumption is that it is a lie even when the evidence dictates otherwise.

Saddam speaks and the assumption, again, is that Bush is lying. And Saddam? Irrelevent.

It's fun to watch intellectually dishonest bootstrapping in which the left engages. They point out that we didn't find any WMD's so that must necessarily mean that all assessments by our intelligence community were lies and that those lies must have been prepared at the behest of George Bush.

Is that turd smoke I smell? Yeah, that's what you get when you polish real fast and furious like.

PS: Eye have yet to see one shred of hard evidence that bush said anything that was known to be true at any time ...only bushit talking points regurgitated by brain dead sheeple.

Be Well.

I like your far left wing propoganda websites. With names like www.bushwatch.com
www.thinkprogress.org
www.impeachbush.tv they must be objectively reliable right?

I imagine that if I provided you with evidence in the form of links to FOX News stories, you would accept them as true right?

DETHSPUD ought to keep polishing. Not enough smoke yet.

"speaking of which... it's interesting how people are so quick to call bush a liar, but they give saddam a free pass"

Exactly who is giving Saddam a free pass around here?

Nobody! that's who.

Another righty tighty trying to pull off another straw man victory.

Boy... talk about being intellectually dishonest."

Spud knows both George and Saddam are full of shit.

You morons seem to be suggesting it's another either/or thing.

Either Bush is lying or Saddam is.

BUSHIT! That's a false construct.

They're both lying sacks of shit responsible fer rape, torture and murder on a mass scale.

Thanx fer askin'.

Be Well.

"First of all, real WMD is nukes."

why don't we test out those "non-wmd's" on your house and see how useless they really are?

"Evidence? Ummm How about the Fact that No WMD have been found in Iraq other than 500 largely degraded non WMD leftover from the Iran Iraq war."

absence of proof is not proof of absence... like i said, we're still discovering things in iraq.

"We know KNOW fer certain that Saddam Hussein secretly destroyed over 95% of his remaining stockpiles of useless nonWMD."

if it was a secret, how do we know it for certain? oh yeah, saddam gave us his word... and the word of a third-world dictator is good enough for some people.

and if anyone is a follower of hitler, it was saddam himself. but don't take my word for it, take his... in his writings, he names hitler and stalin as his idols, and modeled his regime after the nazi party. this is the man you're defending?

"First of all, real WMD is nukes."

Yeah and real spuds grow in the ground and must be polished real good to get the dirt off.

So nerve gas, chemical and biological weapons are not real WMD's? Phew, I guess all the people who have died from Saddams chemical weapon attacks are not "real dead" either.

Keep polishing Mr. Potato Head. Try taking the snap on training wheels off your turd colored head first.

Iraq had WMD, game, set, match! Sad but Drudge attracts all the fruitcakes in the world, same folks who believed in Iraqi WMD when President Clinton claimed they had them. President bush could go on television and explain what was found, and what happened to those weapon shipped out of country, but Democrats don't care about truth, they care only about power. Poor Bush he is still trying to work with the UN so it does no good trying the confront the Russians, French, and Chinese, three of the five members of the Secuity Council. All three involved in developing Iraq's nuclear program and all three involved in moving these WMD out of Iraq.

"We know KNOW fer certain that Saddam Hussein secretly destroyed over 95% of his remaining stockpiles of useless nonWMD."

Of course it was in secret. Saddam would never develop and maintain WMD programs and weapons in secret. He would only destroy them in secret.

Makes sense to me.

DETHSPUD, kindly peoduce evidence of this "secret destruction."

Yeah, that's what I thought. Keep polishing.

SPUD polishing very hard and fast. SPUD's arms are tired. SPUD needs to stop breathing his turd smoke.

pick up a book, any book, about saddam hussein, then tell me that man did not have weapons. hans blix himself makes the case as well as anyone could.

and, you're right... clinton talked about saddam's weapons, his danger, his atrocities, his defiance of the world community many times... and all the dems shook their heads in agreement.

i don't care how terrible bush is... i, for one, am glad that saddam is out of power and iraq is on the road (rocky as it may be) towards democracy. but not because of the iraqi people... no one gives a shit about the iraqi people, not the pro-war or anti-war crowd, no matter how humanitarian they each pretend to be. after all, where was the outrage when saddam was systematically murdering people (as many as 3000 a week) during his reign? i'm glad because it's a step towards changing the conditions in the region so that extremism can no longer flourish.

"The Annenberg Public Policy Center is a left leaning group."

Prove It !!!

-Sarge

SqueegieKid sed...

"DETHSPUD ought to keep polishing. Not enough smoke yet"

Ha! Deth is no turd polisher Spud.

Spud is truth polisher.

Yer the apologist fer evil here.

Yer the one trying convince folk that BushCo are good.

Extremist fascist fucks from the neo-con-artist branch of the republican party have dragged the country so far to the extreme right they can barely see left from where they're standing.

Yet you talk about the "extreme" left.

Yer funny... just not the good kind.

Be Well.

PS: Not enuff smoke?! LMSAO!!

You don't know Spud very well do ya?

* dandelion break *

All you got, BTW, IS smoke and mirrors.

Spud sez it aint enuff no more.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information Sarge. Anyone can add to it that wants to.

Hmmm I Wonder Why You Posted This?

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written
for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

Give It A Break

-Sarge

Quoting Wikipedia?

You're one of the smart turd polishers huh?

oh, that's precious... "ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile "

judges? so, they think he did, but they don't know.

besides, if it was "undeclared" to begin with, why would he declare it's destruction?

"That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:"

Thank you turd polisher. Why would the CIA Chief take responsibility if he informed Bush of the truth and Bush went ahead anyway?

Please explain how this relates to Bush lying?

Polish polish polish. Practice makes perfect.

"That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:"

Thank you turd polisher. Why would the CIA Chief take responsibility if he informed Bush of the truth and Bush went ahead anyway?

Please explain how this relates to Bush lying?

Polish polish polish. Practice makes perfect.

Toilet humor is quite a fitting theme for political/world events discussion. The world's just a big giant turd right now, and people are the nuts.

dethspud... name-calling may get you somewhere (actually, everywhere) in left wing la-la land. but not here. stick to the facts, please.

Sorry Sarge, but the leftocrats here won't accept Fox news either.

Before we invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam was hoarding WMDs, which he mysteriously did not use against our troops sent there to topple him (think about that) I would like to know one thing. If you asked any of the righties who still pathetically cling to the idea that it was a valid excuse then how long would have been considered a reasonable amount of time to find then??
a. 1 year
b. 2 years
c. 3 years
d. As long as someone says we shouldn't have invaded
e. Forever
f. Until Armageddon

"All you got, BTW, IS smoke and mirrors."

Spud still polishing hard. Look at what SPUD found behind dog in yard. SPUD uses reliable unbiased turds. SPUD really good truth polisher.

www.bushwatch.com
www.thinkprogress.org
www.impeachbush.tv

SPUD still polishing hard and fast. Stay tuned for more polishing smoke.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

LIVE OR DIE said, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information Sarge. Anyone can add to it that wants to."

You ruined the surprise. He would have never figured it out. Between SARGE quoting Wikipedia and SPUD quoting various left wing rags, the turd smoke would soon have overcome them.

SARGE smart. SARGE polishes SPUD's backside. Makes SPUD feel all tingly. SARGE and SPUD make beautiful polish smoke together.

Excerpt from Sarge's last post....

"says Iraq did not have the weapons our intelligence believed were there"

So our intelligence did say Iraq had WMDs?

Squeelig,

I'm pretty much through with you, because it is obvious since you can not prove Fact Check is left leaning, what is the use in debating you on proven facts.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld all stated the Intel was wrong and there was no WMD in Iraq.

So it is already a Proven Fact , other than you "Dead Enders", To Quote The SECDEF

No WMD Produced After 1991 The UN and The CIA Have Closed The Book.

END OF Story

Latter Days Dead Enders....

-Sarge

well, clinton believed he did... along with many other democrats all through the 90's... and countless intelligence agencies around the world. i guess they were all lying, then.

Sarge said....

"Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld all stated the Intel was wrong and there was no WMD in Iraq."

If the intelligence community got it wrong, that's not Bush's fault. Unless you want to make the claim the entire intelligence community has stock in Haliburton.

so, you belive the UN and the CIA when they say there were no WMD's, but you don't believe them when they reported that there were... talk about cherry-picking.

If the intelligence community got it wrong, that's not Bush's fault. Unless you want to make the claim the entire intelligence community has stock in Haliburton.

Only the intelligence community run out of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.

The NIE from what we can tell had plenty of caveats from the old unreliable intelligence sources. Of course those weren't heard for some reason.

well, clinton believed he did... along with many other democrats all through the 90's... and countless intelligence agencies around the world. i guess they were all lying, then.

Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 05:49 PM | Reply

That Is Why You Have

"I-N-S-P-E-C-T-I-O-N-S"

To "Confirm" Or "Deny" The Existences Of WMD


Bush did Not Let Blix Complete

The "I-N-S-P-E-C-T-I-O-N-S"

So When The CIA Iraq Survey Group Completed Their

"I-N-S-P-E-C-T-I-O-N-S"

No WMD !!!

-Sarge

dethspud, that's not fact... it's he-said-she-said babble, and conspiracy theories, at best.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

oh gimme a break... the "I-N-S-P-E-C-T-I-O-N-S" were a joke!!!! giving saddam 2-week's notice before arriving at a location, only searching buildings that saddam allowed them to search, and finding the place freshly swept clean... like i said, read hans blix's book. saddam was moving stuff out the back door while they were walking in the front door. and saddam knew that if they ever got too close to finding somehting, he could just kick them out (or pay them off) and they would go willingly, as they did the first time. inspections, my ass

dethspud, that's not fact... it's he-said-she-said babble, and conspiracy theories, at best.

Funny how that works:

The discovery of a number of (how old are they?) 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized (oh! The Santorum ones!). This was a relatively new bunker(How new was it?), and therefore the rockets must have been moved there (must? You aren't assuming are you?) in the past few years(How many is a few?), at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions (please, I need to understand this a bit more, when they shouldn't have had them? Sometime after 1991?) . . . . They could also be (they certainly COULD be, or not...) the tip of a submerged iceberg (oohhh wow! Like HUGE, but you can only see 10% of it! quite an image. That's gotta scare sheeple!). The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for (ending a sentence with a preposition? Shame on you - oh, and so is going for a conclusion on your own assumtions)

good, i'm glad they had an agenda... it's better than doing nothing (or worse, appeasement). like i said, the situation with saddam was getting worse, not better... the sanctions were making him a very rich man (at the expense of the iraqi people). and you can bet he wasn't spending all of that money on palaces.

we saw the situation with al-qaeda get worse and worse and did nothing about it... until it came flying into our buildings. i, for one, am glad we did not make the same mistake with saddam.

it's better than doing nothing (or worse, appeasement).

Yep, only two options, no more. Only problem is those are the ones no one was doing.

D"oh. Straw, straw, house of straw.

I think after 3+ years we know for a fact that Saddam did not have WMD's..the original premise used for our involvement.

Now, let's get the heck out of Iraq. Our presence is only endangering our troops. The Sunni's and Shiite have been itching for a civil war that's now started. Not our fight anymore.

Now, let's get the heck out of Iraq. Our presence is only endangering our troops. The Sunni's and Shiite have been itching for a civil war that's now started. Not our fight anymore.


Posted by AllAmerican at 2006-08-07 06:16 PM | Reply


This begs this question. You know that the Sunnis and the Shiites have wanted a Civil War for quite some time now. The Majority in Iraq are in fact Shiites as I recall. This begs the question if they had all of these weapons and they are able to take on the Best equipt Military in the world why couldn't they take on Saddam Hussein?? Obviously they had Guns and AMmo during the reign of Saddam Hussein did they not?? So this begs the question why couldn't they overthrow Saddam Hussein IF they really and truly wanted "Freedom"?? Seems to me that that throws Dubya's claim that we are bringing democracy to Iraq on it's very head. Cause they have the ability to take on Our troops they would have had the ability to overthrow Saddam Hussein any ole time that they wanted. They just chose NOT to do so.

Larry

oh gimme a break... the "I-N-S-P-E-C-T-I-O-N-S" were a joke!!!! giving saddam 2-week's notice before arriving at a location, only searching buildings that saddam allowed them to search, and finding the place freshly swept clean... like i said, read hans blix's book. saddam was moving stuff out the back door while they were walking in the front door. and saddam knew that if they ever got too close to finding somehting, he could just kick them out (or pay them off) and they would go willingly, as they did the first time. inspections, my ass

Posted by mjp140 at 2006-08-07 06:06 PM | Reply

Mr MJ,

Your Ass Is Wrong !!!

The Inspections Were No Notice And The CIA Gave The Inspectors The Location, So Where You Got This 2 Week Notice Is Pure Bullshit.

Bottom Line No WMD Period So Cut The Crap With The Debate.

No WMD Understand, You Speak The English N0 W-M-D !!

Where There WMD, Answer N-O

I Read Blix's Book And He Clearly States In Conclusion "No WMD Produced After 1991 And No WMD Stock Piles"

Later Days, Keep Looking Let Me Know When You Find Them.

-Sarge

There is a group of those true believers, ones that will never let go. They live in the secure knowledge that they are right, and given just a little more time, they will find those WMD they were promised. They are led by those that chant and write about A campaign of distortion (that) aims to discredit the liberation.

To them it's orchestrated. A vast "left wing" conspiracy. The MSM is complicit, well except for Fox News, how odd. Perhaps that is why Cheney requires all sets to be tuned to them ONLY and turned on in every room of any hotel he stays.

The only orchestrated response is the one that is coordinated from the WH. The systematic removal of anyone that differs, the agressive moves to critics, the selective "declassification" of cherry picked intel, the refusal to release NIE information that discredits their claims.

Then we have the true believers that not even the WH will touch. The ones that trumpet "WMD found in IRAQ!" while the world looks on in self conscience pity for them, on a good day - and true disgust on a bad day, when more die for a needless war.

There is a group of those true believers, ones that will never let go

Squeelig, you one of 'em?

Confirmation received, again and again.

to continue playing, insert token. . .

Game Over.

Play again?

And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time.

What do you call someone that when offered contrary information, never allows that person to the meetings again?

What do you call someone that dismisses people that offer contrary opinion?

What do you call someone that fires all the Arabic speakers that warned what would happen in Iraq if the plans went forward?

What do you call someone that didn't know that Shia and Sunni were two opposing factions in Iraq, but dismissed them as both being "Muslim."

What value to you place on the information so gleamed through this filter?

Do you call that person self deceived, or a victim of his own self fulfilling prophecy?

Whatever you call him, his legacy remains.

{Now I'm done.}

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

Why Put Unconfirmed Bullshit In A State Of The Union Address ?

I'll Tell You Why, Because He Was Fucking Lying !!!

Why Do You Post Fact Check When It Totally Proves You Wrong ?

The Head Of The CIA Removed Those 16 Words Before So Why Did Bush Put Them Back In, Because He Was Fucking Lying , Period So Pleas Post Fact Check Again, Please So I Can Show You More Proof He Lied.

-Sarge

From Your Post:

"We found the weapons"

Bush is quoted as saying "We found the weapons of mass destruction," but that's not all he said. The quote is from an interview with Polish television given May 29, 2003 weeks after the fall of Baghdad, as Bush was starting to face questions about why no Iraqi stores of such weapons had been found.

Reading all of what Bush said makes clear he was referring both to "weapons" and to "manufacturing facilities" and was still clinging to what intelligence officials had told him about Iraqi mobile laboratories that supposedly were used for manufacturing biological weapons.


Ok He Said "We Found WMD"

A Lie , "We" Didn't Find Shit !

What We Did Find Is Bush Lied !

Please Continue To Believe He Was Just Dumb And Got It All Wrong.

Why Did He Kick Blix Out ?

I'll Tell You Why Because He Knew The World Was About To Discover There Was No WMD, The Sole Reason PNAC Was Going To Use To Attack Iraq, That Is Why.

-Sarge

Sarge,

It's incredible the lengths these guys go to, even when you quote the sources they provide back to them, they are in denial.

Ain't no converting them. The only point in refuting it is so others won't fall for the same bullshit.

You do the best job of that.

From Your Post:

Mr. Kerr told Committee staff he believed the questioning was not unusual and said, "it is not at all unusual for analysts to feel they are being pushed by one group or another." Mr. Kerr and the team concluded that even if the repeated questioning was an attempt to pressure analysts, "there was never anybody who changed a judgment as a result of that." None of the team members would provide to the Committee the names of the individuals who had approached them.

"None of the team members would provide to the Committee the names of the individuals who had approached them."


Why No Names ? Because They Didn't Like What The Intel Was ?

Why Not Give The Names Of Those Who:

"it is not at all unusual for analysts to feel they are being pushed by one group or another."

Because Of The Lies, That Is Why.

-Sarge

Yav,

I know it is insane and they know they are wrong, but they seem to find some sort of enjoyment out of Trying to making Straw into Gold.

-Sarge

It doesnt matter if he lied. Now we need to get the fuck out of there and let the throatcutters sort thier own problems out. I am sick of losing 1 or 2 guys a day for shit.Isolationism is our new course, and self defense from anyone who wants to do us harm.

It's incredible the lengths these guys go to, even when you quote the sources they provide back to them, they are in denial.

Ain't no converting them. The only point in refuting it is so others won't fall for the same bullshit.

You do the best job of that.

Posted by YAV at 2006-08-07 10:39 PM | Reply


They don't care. They can't stomache the facts nor the TRUTH so they have to hold onto anything and everything instead of being ADULTS and swallow the truth. It must suck to be them.

Larry

Sarge,

I hope they know they are wrong!

(always a pleasure seeing you on line, btw)

Larry,

It must suck to be them.

I'm pretty sure they're in denial about that, too. :)

Time for "The Daily Show"

Later, gents.

Controlledpairs,

I think you summed it up very well, these people hate each other and we are in the middle.

The only issue is Iran which will gain power in the region, something Bush 41 did not want to disturb.

The Kurds are stable, but they were stable prior to Operation Iraq Freedom.

"1 Step Forward 2 Steps Back"

-Sarge

There is a group of those true believers, ones that will never let go (Create false position)

Squeelig, you one of 'em? (Assign False Position to your political opponents)

Confirmation received, again and again. (Assail them for holding said position)

Yes, Yav, confirmation indeed received.

SARGE said, "Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British."

After that but before the invasion, he then said it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD's. Hmmm. The CIA Chief himself, who was appointed by Clinton, says its a "slam dunk." I wonder wehat that means. Sounds like inconclusive bullshit to me.

"Why Put Unconfirmed Bullshit In A State Of The Union Address? Why Do You Post Fact Check When It Totally Proves You Wrong?

From FactCheck.Org:

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But what he said that Iraq sought uranium is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him.

SARTGE, keep polishing. You missed a spot.

Amazing. No one accuses George Tenent of Lying. Why exactly is that?

So the president of the United States is expected to rely on the CIA for assessments concerning threats posed by other countries.

The Chief of the CIA tells Bush it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD's.

Bush relies on the assessment that Saddam has WMD's from the CIA and invades Iraq.

Who is the liar again?

Oh yeah, I remember now, the republican. Tenent was appointed Chief of the CIA by Clinton.

Automatic free pass. The president should have known not to rely on the CIA. I mean, why would they know anything?

The president instead should have taken the word of Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons program who instead said, "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

Now that is a man who should have been trusted. After all, he was the director of an illegal WMD program for a brutal, rogue dictatorship.

Must go now. The turd smoke is too thick.

"too thick"



pussy

DATA, you accidentally signed your real name below your comment.

Either that or you were proudly pointing out that you, on the other hand, can take the thick ones - no problem.

Which was it?

The Chief of the CIA tells Bush it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD's.

I think he said that selling the war was a "slam dunk".

The president instead should have taken the word of Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons program who instead said, "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

They used his other statements in their sales pitch, just not that last bit.

Sorry for the runaway italics. Here's how it should read:

The Chief of the CIA tells Bush it's a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD's.

I think he said that selling the war was a "slam dunk".

The president instead should have taken the word of Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons program who instead said, "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

They used his other statements in their sales pitch, just not that last bit.

Must go now. The turd smoke is too thick.
Yes Drop A Bullshit Turd And Run !!!

What Totally Wipes You Out Is The Fat The CIA Chief Pulled The Niger Intel From The Speech Prior:

In response, CIA Director George Tenet writes a letter to Graham declassifying a statement in the NIE that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. Graham demands that Tenet declassify more of the dissenting opinions in the report, but the White House orders Tenet not to. (The New Republic, 6/30/03)

President Bush gives a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center in which he outlines the threat of Iraq. Following advice from CIA Director George Tenet, a reference to Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Niger was removed from the speech.

That Cancels Your Entire Argument Out, Period.

He Lied To The American Public, Case Closed !!

-Sarge

In Preparation For Your Next Rationalization

"Read It And Weep":

"President Bush gives a speech at the Cincinnati Museum Center in which he outlines the threat of Iraq. Following advice from CIA Director George Tenet, a reference to Saddam Hussein seeking uranium in Niger was removed from the speech."

There is Nothing, I Repeat Nothing That Can Justify Putting Unconfirmed Intel In A State Of The Union Address When It Was Pulled From A Lesser Speech Prior, That Is Unless You Are A Liar.

Later

-Sarge

I think the dead babies in the streets of Halabja were a "slam dunk" that Saddam has WMDs.

They were also a "slam dunk" that he had the stupidity to use them.

Reason enough.

Get over it.

Mao-
That was in 1988. As I recall, we seemed to "get over it" pretty much immediately.

Yes.

And we signed that treaty in 1988, as well---the one that proclaimed that, heretofore, all geo-strategic policy decisions made in that year were hereby locked into a state of stasis.

And that any and all future geo-strategic decisions would hereby be measured against the geo-strategic reality that existed in 1988.

I love it you people suddenly discover the concept of universal, objective morality.

I love it you people suddenly discover the concept of universal, objective morality.

Wait, who did?

Have you glanced at the current "geo-strategic" reality lately? It's looking pretty bleak. Pretty fucked up, actually. As if our geo-strategery were being conducted by morons.

Have you glanced at the current "geo-strategic" reality lately?

Yep.

And it seems to be manifesting itself in places that are on my TeeVee screen---far, far away, Forrest.

Certain "geo-political" entities in Europe excepted.

And those seem to be guided be appeasing, leftist cowards like...

Ya know, Boyd---

The smartest men I know are horsemen and cattlemen.

The ones who can make animals do what they need to do by understanding a particular response system---and using it to their advantage.

"Allah Akhbar" or "Fight or Flight"---it don't really matter.

Think about it, Enlightened One.

Too bad we don't have a horseman or a cattleman in the WH.

Too bad we don't have a horseman or a cattleman in the WH.

How 'bout a Cowboy?

Cowboy?

Kinda funny name when you really think about it.

I played 'Cowboys and Indians' a couple of times when I was a youngster.

I always hated when group politics dictated that I had to be an 'indian'.

Indians were the perceived bad-guys at the time. Kids usually don't like being the bad guy.

How 'bout a Cowboy?

Well, Bush never played, but he was a cheerleader somewhere.

Too bad we don't have a horseman or a cattleman in the WH.

How 'bout a Cowboy?


Posted by JeffJ at 2006-08-08 01:36 AM | Reply


You mean a Faux "Cowboy" don't You.
Larry

Indians were the perceived bad-guys at the time

The gut-eaters were a pretty repulsive incarnation of humanity, truth be known.

But we feel sorry for them as we drive to our left wing fundraisers on highways built over their old stompin' grounds.

Anyone ever seen a picture of Bush on a horse? I haven't, and it's kinda odd given that he's "from Texas", lives on a "ranch", etc. You'd think they'd be pictures of Bush on a horse all over the place.

But I've never seen ONE.

Think about it.

The gut-eaters were a pretty repulsive incarnation of humanity, truth be known.

And they were all the same, as anyone with a college education knows. Bloodthirsty heathens, the lot of them.

Ever seen a picture of GW riding a horse, Mao?

I don't think he "lives" on a ranch.

He lives in the White House.

And sitting on a horse isn't a prerequisite to being a "rancher".

Lots of guys further east ranch successfully without ever forking a horse.

We ride horses because we deal with hundreds of square miles rather than hundreds of acres.

But then again, I've never actually heard Bush refer to himself as a "cowboy".

Think about it.

But I have far more respect for a guy who sweats his ass off in McLellan County heat chainsawing mesquite trees than I do for some blue state faggot who "mountain bikes" or windsurfs in a pair of tights.

That's just me, though.

Hey, you brought it up. He doesn't have cattle at his "ranch", never seen him on horse (rumor is he's afraid of them), and it's looking like he's presided over one of the worst strategic military blunders in American history.

They don't know what they're doing Mao.

But judging by your comments, perhaps their is something to this: The ones who can make animals do what they need to do by understanding a particular response system---and using it to their advantage....

Trouble is, it's all domestic cattle.

That's just me, though.

And it works on you. I suppose it's a man-crush thing.

Later, Mao.

And it works on you. I suppose it's a man-crush thing.

Translation: A 'Brokeback moment'.

He doesn't have cattle at his "ranch"

I don't think he's a rancher.

never seen him on horse

Never seen you on a horse.

So?

it's looking like he's presided over one of the worst strategic military blunders in American history.

I've seen horsehit, though.

Trouble is, it's all domestic cattle.

No sir, it's Arab Cattle.

Bos jihadicus

They're slightly more stupid and dense than their American counterparts---the ones who insulate and delude themselves by thinking their contemporaries are all falling for some grand conspiracy.

That if only the rest of the herd were as Enlightened and "smart" as they----everything would be better.

That takes a special level of arrogance and utter leftist stupidity, Boyd.

Have you glanced at the current "geo-strategic" reality lately?

Yes I have.

And I have to admit...

I more afraid of people who "think" as you do than I am of suicidal jihadists.

And that's the honest to God truth.

One of those "pitfalls of democracy" things, I guess.

God Bless America.

But I have far more respect for a guy who sweats his ass off in McLellan County heat chainsawing mesquite trees than I do for some blue state faggot who "mountain bikes" or windsurfs in a pair of tights.

That's just me, though.

Posted by Pinche_Mao at 2006-08-08 01:56 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

At Least Kerry KNOWS how to ride a bicycle without falling off at every turn.

Larry

Later, Boyd.

Later, fellas.


I can't dream about 'forking' a horse 'cuz I never did that. I can however dream about forking a filet mignon - I done that.

Mao,

What are you doing up at this time of night?

Is it your turn to deal with the little waste-producer when he wakes up 3 times throughout the night?

G'Nite all.

i think its kewl how everybody argues over the evidence...one group says "this is enough evidence." and the other gorup says "this is not enough evidence."

...at least the evidence exist.

LARRYMOHR

Isn't it a shame that in 1991, at the end of the Gulf War, with a 260,000 strong international force massed at the border and U.N. Resolution 688 giving Hussein 15 days to disclose the locations of his weapons of mass destruction OR ELSE, that Bush 1, instead of going in, urged the Shiite's to rebel.

They did. Then Bush 1 ordered our troops to stand down and NOT to protect any of the Shiite's (who did rebel and were caught) from being executed by Republican Guards - in front of U.S. military video cameras - while our guys stood helplessly by.

No wonder they didn't greet us with flowers and chocolate this time.