Bushco finally gets real- NO WMDs

[ljb]

Well the President has finally faced the facts and admitted Iraq had no wmds or no plans to restart their wmd programs. Too bad he did not listen to the many folks that suggested we let the weapons inspectors do their job. Too bad they relied on the words of Chalibi and others of his ilk. Now over 1300 dead Americans and billions of dollars later we hear the president admit the truth.
VP Cheney who was one of the most adamant supporters of the wmd theory has yet to admit his overzealous behaviour was unwarranted.
Should we be concerned that this guy is now stumping the country with plans to privatize SS?
What's that old cliche? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[Buddha]

I think all along, most americans didn't buy into the WMD deal. Myself, and I know others that I know, realized from the start that GW was finishing business that his daddy didnt get to finish.

[Secretariat]

I think all along, most americans didn't buy into the WMD deal. Myself, and I know others that I know, realized from the start that GW was finishing business that his daddy didnt get to finish.

Woulda been nice if he had shared that with America and the Coalition of the Willing countries.

[Lefty]

Once again you forget that just about every member of the Dem party blvd the WMD's existed and they did for he used them. They're somewhere.
How many dead terrorists do we have? How many in custody? How many have been freed?

[formula_2002]

Once again you forget that just about every member of the Dem party blvd the WMD's existed and they did for he used them. They're somewhere.
How many dead terrorists do we have? How many in custody? How many have been freed?

That would indicate to me that Stupidity and Greed are not party specific!!

[betovernetcapper]

Too bad he did not listen to the many folks that suggested we let the weapons inspectors do their job.

If Iraq had allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job there would have been no reason to visit.

[boxcar]

betovernetcapper wrote:

Too bad he did not listen to the many folks that suggested we let the weapons inspectors do their job.

[b]If Iraq had allowed the weapons inspectors to do their job there would have been no reason to visit.

Oh, yeah..."Too bad", indeed. What a shame. What a pity. What a waste. :rolleyes:


Yes, sir, we should have allowed the "inspectors" do their job, so that Saddam could continue to play the inspectors like a fiddle by duping them, by playing his shell game with them, and by not allowing them free, private access to their Iraqi scientists, etc., etc. The inevitable result would be that the United Numbskulls would have most gladly, and joyously and with all eagerness have given Saddam a "clean bill of health" so that that International Fount of Compassion and Goodwill to All Men on Earth could continue scamming and starving the poor, common Iraqi people with their corrupt Oil-For-Food Program. Now that the Gateway to Riches has been closed to the UN, this Den of Thieves is a wee bit upset with the U.S. because we cut off their supply of bundle after bundle of ready cash.

Too bad. What a shame.

Boxcar

[Tom]

It was Sadaam who would not let the inspectors do their jobs. IF he did not have WMD why did he act like he did?
Befroe Bush was elected and right up until we invaded, the world, dems included, believed he had them and was a threat. I read a lot of crap aobut Bush having bad intelligence, but no one talks about the fact that there was no valid intelligence that said he had disposed of them.
The bottom line is this: Bush gave SH a chance to save himself and his country and and he did not take it. Before that, he could have allowed open, unfettered inspections to prove himself clean and he did not. He could have offered valid evidence that the had destroyed the WMD, and he did not.
As of today, the ONLY true statement anyone on this board can make is that there been no WMD found in Iraq.
They may still be hiddend, or they may well be in Iran or Syria. The conclusion that they never existed flies in the face of common sense.
I only hoope that they are not one day disccoverd here in Baltimore, of NYC, or LA, or.........

[46zilzal]

I
They may still be hidden, or they may well be in Iran or Syria.

Saw them on those satellite images from Titan, or was it on Pluto??

[sq764]

I think all along, most americans didn't buy into the WMD deal. Myself, and I know others that I know, realized from the start that GW was finishing business that his daddy didnt get to finish.

Wonder why John Kerry didn't :-)

[Tom]

Saw them on those satellite images from Titan, or was it on Pluto??

Glad you are so sure. Curious why you didn't address the otehr points I made.
What irrefutable evidence did YOU see that proved the entire world community was wrong about WMD being destroyed? We have PROOF he had them once, yet not one of you libs has evered shown evidence that they were destroyed. I am waiting. Doc.

[46zilzal]

Wanted a war a long time back...JUST NEEDED AN EXCUSE AND THE TURNIP

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.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

[Secretariat]

Saw them on those satellite images from Titan, or was it on Pluto??

maybe Uranus

[Secretariat]

Glad you are so sure. Curious why you didn't address the otehr points I made.
What irrefutable evidence did YOU see that proved the entire world community was wrong about WMD being destroyed? We have PROOF he had them once, yet not one of you libs has evered shown evidence that they were destroyed. I am waiting. Doc.

C'mon Tom..even Bush's partisan assigned inspectors have said they're not there, and now Bush himself concedes it. Give up on this folly.

[Lefty]

So what they not there, now! Everyone blvd they were and to blve in such a thing and not act would be folly. Had Bush not acterd and Saddam was able to hit us, then you libs would be crying the loudest.
Despite the absence of wmd's people have been freed and there is going to be an election. Why do you not see that as a good thing?

[46zilzal]

Had Bush not acterd and Saddam was able to hit us

With what??? He could barely get one of those fireworks (SKUDS) off the ground, let alone it hitting ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE "side of the barn.!"

He would have had to throw anything a LONG way..maybe the kitchen sink?

[Lefty]

You never know what he might develop. Maybe he sneaks people in with biological weapons, maybe he develops a nuke. Maybe he hits Israel with a skud and biological weapons. But you don't ignore your intelligence. If it proves to be wrong then so be it; but you err on the side of safety.
And i'm glad Saddam's gone, aren't you?

[46zilzal]

but you err on the side of safety.
And i'm glad Saddam's gone, aren't you?

I'd take him back for all the WASTED money and the over 1350 DEAD folks..

This guy is a KNOWN megalomanic....Invaded TWICE and NOT ONCE did he use these MYSTERY weaspons???

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

C'mon Tom..even Bush's partisan assigned inspectors have said they're not there, and now Bush himself concedes it. Give up on this folly.

So..."not there" = they're not somewhere else? Syria? Iran? Stockpiled underwraps out of sight of satellites?

Amazing how Liberals love believing known liars, i.e. Saddam Hussein. All of a sudden this slimeball found virtue somewhere and started telling the truth about his weapons?

It is truly written of the naive and gullible:

Prov 1:22
22 "How long, O naive ones, will you love simplicity?
NASB

Boxcar

[sq764]

Wanted a war a long time back...JUST NEEDED AN EXCUSE AND THE TURNIP

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.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick


Mr Bush, I just wanted to admit that during my regime, errr, tenure in the White House, I admit being a massive pussy when it came to American attacks.. The most I ever could muster up were 2 cruise missiles into Afghanistan. Then I pulled our troops faster than the French would. I apologize, I was hunting some fatass tail at the time and I was a bit distracted.

Signed,
William Clinton

[sq764]

I'd take him back for all the WASTED money and the over 1350 DEAD folks..

This guy is a KNOWN megalomanic....Invaded TWICE and NOT ONCE did he use these MYSTERY weaspons???
So you are cool with the weapons passed to Syria? Are you just that dense that you are comfortable with devastating weaponry in the hands of maniacs? You just don't get it do you.

[kingfin66]

What's this with the WMD's passed to Syria? Somebody else mentioned that they were passed to Iran. Is there anything factual to support this, or this just conjecture?

[Equineer]

What's this with the WMD's passed to Syria? Somebody else mentioned that they were passed to Iran. Is there anything factual to support this, or this just conjecture?The Confidence Game Victims' syndrome has always helped con artists avoid prosecution... after being conned and bilked, many victims refuse to concede that they were ever chumps.

President Johnson's national television address on August 4, 1964, induced Congress and virtually all Americans to enthusiastically support the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which launched the Vietnam war. Today, there are still a few chumps who refuse to believe they were deceived by Johnson despite overwhelming proof to the contrary, including declassified telephone tapes in which Johnson openly discussed (and even joked about) the fabrications and deceptions that were used to build a public case for that war.

Today's WMD controversy is similar. There are a few chumps who will never accept mounting evidence that Iraq dismantled its WMD programs and arsenals during the 1990s in order to purposely forestall a military invasion that would interrupt the enormous oil-for-aid program which enabled Saddam and his Baathist cronies to steal $-Billions from America and other nations.

[ljb]

Gentlemen,
The point here is: This administration put us in a dire situation in Iraq under false pretenses. There are some on this board that still refuse to admit this. I don't know if it is pride or some other emotion but they just will not admit they have been duped. This in itself is a sad condition. I would suggest we all put extra effort into refusing to allow the administration to lead us down any other paths of destruction. Get involved, write or call your congressmen/senators. Tell them to be wary of anything this administration says/offers. They have conned us once and there is no evidence they won't try it again.

[hcap]

http://www.juancole.com/

Barbara Walters: "This was our main reason for going in. So now when we read, 'Okay, the search is over,' what do you feel?

President Bush: "Well, like you, I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction. Or like many, many here in the United States, many around the world, the United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction, and so therefore, one, we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering. Saddam was dangerous. And . . . the world was safer without him in power."

Walters: But was it worth it if there were no weapons of mass destruction? Now that we know that that was wrong? Was it worth it?"

Bush: "Oh, absolutely."


Bush's response contains three elements.

1) The US was not alone in being wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. All the other nations did, too.

2) Saddam was dangerous.

3) Absolutely.

When is someone going to call him on this inanity? The Belgians didn't have intelligence assets inside Iraq that could have given them an independent view of the question. Whatever the world believed, it mostly believed because the United States disseminated the information.

Moreover, it is not true that there were no dissenters. The State Department's own Intelligence and Research Division dissented. French military intelligence dissented. What Bush is saying is either untrue or meaningless.

As I have pointed out before, Saddam without weapons of mass destruction could not have been "dangerous" to the United States. Just parroting "dangerous" doesn't create real danger. Danger has to come from an intent and ability to strike the US. Saddam had neither. He wasn't dangerous to the US. It is absurd that this poor, weak, ramshackle 3rd world state should have been seen as "dangerous" to a superpower. That is just propaganda.

Calling Saddam "dangerous" as an existential element without regard to the evidence falls under the propaganda techniques of name-calling and stirring irrational fear.

As for "Absolutely," it is a weasel word. It is not an argument. It is a species of hand waving. It is cheap.

Bush has figured out, apparently, that some in the American public respond, rather like the apes to which they deny they are related, to posture, grunting and body language rather than to reason and evidence. When I see him smirking and gesturing, I can't help thinking of the ape General Thade (Tim Roth) in Tim Burton's remake of the Planet of the Apes, which used scientific findings about primate behavior and hierarchy to inform the acting.

"Absolutely" used in this way is a vocalization that actually functions as an intimidating agonistic display meant to close off further dialogue by the silverback.






http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050114/nick.jpg


From the State of The Union speech to the invasion, less than 3 months were allowed for inspections to take place.

After the CIA told the inspectors WHERE the so called WMDs were to be found and NONE were, why didn't we wait as the rest of the world insisted? Evidence of WMDs would have given some credence for bushs' pre-emptive claims.

[Secretariat]

Good post Hcap. One additional point. Saddam posed no "imminent" threat to the US. Quote by George Tenet to Congress, and later Bush himself quoted as saying he never said the word "imminent".

Boxcar likes to suggest the weapons are now in Syria or somewhere else. Do we remember that tasteless joke of Bush's looking under the desk saying , nope no, WMD's mocking his major reason for going to war.

Boxcar, I don't know if there are WMD's in Syria and neither do you. You lile to deal in "maybes". You don't send our soldiers into harm's way on "maybes" and have thousands of innocent civilians being killed in the process. Doesn't exactly build good will abroad or at home. Take your head out of the bible once in awhile and think for yourself.

[PaceAdvantage]

Was Saddam dangerous to Israel?

If so, then he might as well have had weapons pointed at us from Cuba, because being dangerous to Israel and being dangerous to the US are one in the same, being that Israel is our greatest ally in the region.

[sq764]

Gentlemen,
The point here is: This administration put us in a dire situation in Iraq under false pretenses. There are some on this board that still refuse to admit this. I don't know if it is pride or some other emotion but they just will not admit they have been duped. This in itself is a sad condition. I would suggest we all put extra effort into refusing to allow the administration to lead us down any other paths of destruction. Get involved, write or call your congressmen/senators. Tell them to be wary of anything this administration says/offers. They have conned us once and there is no evidence they won't try it again.
LJB, didn't your Democrats in Congress dupe you? They did support going to war, correct?

[ljb]

As all patriotic Americans should support the President during times of danger. The Democrats did so, however the support was contingent upon exhausting all efforts to settle this dispute in a peaceful manner. Bushco failed to exhaust peaceful methods. IMHO they did not even consider such actions.

[sq764]

Um, what peaceful methods were left?? another 25 sanctions? They worked real well.. That is a very weak justification for their agreement.

[Lefty]

Failed to exhaust peaceful methods? Saddam violated 17 U.N. resolutions. How many should Bush have let him violate? Should've he waited for Saddam to attack us or Israel so you and your lib buddies holler for hisa head, citing he should have known? You guys really need to get real.

[Tom]

C'mon Tom..even Bush's partisan assigned inspectors have said they're not there, and now Bush himself concedes it. Give up on this folly.


You ignore that they could heve been removed.

[ljb]

Hard to believe a righty supporting the UN. Facts have shown us Saddam was not a threat to us or Israel. There are many in the world who would like us eliminated should we invade them all? You keep skipping over the fact that Bushco jumped into invading Iraq with little or no real evidence of threat and with no plan to win the peace.

[Tom]

"Today's WMD controversy is similar. There are a few chumps who will never accept mounting evidence that Iraq dismantled its WMD programs and arsenals during the 1990s in order to purposely forestall a military invasion that would interrupt the enormous oil-for-aid program which enabled Saddam and his Baathist cronies to steal $-Billions from America and other nations."

Hindsight becomes, you Vet, especially since you post from that region.
If they were dismantled, and in my post, I allowed for that possibility, then why did he continually refuse to allow the inspectors to verify this and avoid a war?
I stand by my statements - the WORLD belived he had them, he USED them in the past, the was NO evidence that he destroyed them, and so we went in. SH could have averted this whole war. He chose not to, End of story.
There is also a possibility he moved them to IRan or Syria. It would be folly not to investigate that.
And besides, if he did dimantle his arsenal, why haven't we found the remians, or other evidence yet?

[Tom]

Gentlemen,
The point here is: This administration put us in a dire situation in Iraq under false pretenses. There are some on this board that still refuse to admit this. I don't know if it is pride or some other emotion but they just will not admit they have been duped. This in itself is a sad condition. I would suggest we all put extra effort into refusing to allow the administration to lead us down any other paths of destruction. Get involved, write or call your congressmen/senators. Tell them to be wary of anything this administration says/offers. They have conned us once and there is no evidence they won't try it again.


Your cards and letters will be opened and handled by a republican house and senate. It was the will of the people. You cant' get over that, can you? :D

[Tom]

Hard to believe a righty supporting the UN. Facts have shown us Saddam was not a threat to us or Israel. There are many in the world who would like us eliminated should we invade them all? You keep skipping over the fact that Bushco jumped into invading Iraq with little or no real evidence of threat and with no plan to win the peace.


No plan? I remind you that there are elections coming up in a few days, that a constituion is being written, fall elections for the next generation of goverment are on tap, and the Iraqi people are behind our effforts.
I'd say we had a plan.
BTW.....we have more of an exit strategy for Iraq than we had for WWII at the beginning.

[Tom]

Was Saddam dangerous to Israel?

If so, then he might as well have had weapons pointed at us from Cuba, because being dangerous to Israel and being dangerous to the US are one in the same, being that Israel is our greatest ally in the region.

He was already financing palestinean homacide bombers. And firing on US Air Force planes. That in itself justifies the war.

[Tom]

Sec posted:
"Take your head out of the bible once in awhile and think for yourself."

You got big stones to say that, you who post so many links or quotes without so much of a single orignal thought on the subject. Funny guy.

And you will notice we are not sending troops to Syria or Iran to look for WMD. We only did the in Iraq where the evidence and popular believe was overwhelming that they were there.

[fmazur]

This thread has been quite amusing, especially those posts by the libs. The bottom line in the whole thing. George Bush is and will be for four more years the President. So, libs, live with it. At least you (libs) have moved on from Ohio.

WMD's or no WMD's. Who cares? The way I and most Americans look at it is Sadam and his sons, unlike Osama, will NEVER carry out an attack against the United States. This, if for no other reason is sufficient cause to take him out. Just think if we would have had a Bush around in 1939, then maybe no WW2. The best defence is always a good offense.

I believe in the good book quote:

Do un to others as you would have them do un to you.

BUT DO IT FIRST.

[46zilzal]

Sec posted:
"And you will notice we are not sending troops to Syria or Iran to look for WMD.
Wihtout a SHREAD OF EVIDENCE, we might as well try New South Wales, Lapland, Bogata, and the Faulkland Islands while we are at it!!

[Tom]

What does that have to do with my quoted remark?
Did you become a doctor to have easy access to LSD?

[46zilzal]

http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1044&srch=

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Boxcar likes to suggest the weapons are now in Syria or somewhere else

Why not? You think this is so far fectched? You're the simple-minded one who basically says: Duh..gee, folks, uh...weapons aint' dere means dat nice dictator over dere never had dose weapons dere in da first place...uh, ya know whadi mean?

Saddam Hussein, to your mind is the honest one, and everyone else is out to lunch. You ignored this objection of mine altogether: When, where and how did this mass murdering, malevolent dictator and well known liar suddenly find all this virtue to be truthful about his weapons? This is precisely what you must believe in order to rail against not only the intelligence agencies of the US, but the intelligence agencies of many major countries, and what the commie-lovin' UN itself believed for the last 17 broken resolutions! Why would the UN have passed all those resolutions if they didn't believe he had such weapons!? To your way of thinking the whole world got duped, got taken in -- and is and has been dead wrong on this issue -- but Saddam now is suddenly the Middle East's version of "Honest Abe"!?

Boxcar, I don't know if there are WMD's in Syria and neither do you. You lile to deal in "maybes".

And you like to deal in fantasies by taking Saddam's word over everyone else's!

You don't send our soldiers into harm's way on "maybes" and have thousands of innocent civilians being killed in the process. Doesn't exactly build good will abroad or at home

Saddam had more than ample warning from us and the last UN resolution, which essentially said that he would suffer strong consequences if he didn't cooperate with the UN inspectors. And he wasn't! He was playing them like a fiddle. Just like he did all those previous years, and numerous resolutions

Take your head out of the bible once in awhile and think for yourself

What's the matter, Sec? The Word of God a little too sharp for you? Did that proverb about the naive cut you to quick? Did it cut into a nerve? The Word has a way of doing that, you know:

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.
NASB

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814437/

[46zilzal]

Isn't that UN-patriotic?

Let's ask Teddy, a good republican president I admire:

Theodore Roosevelt also provided a wise and useful rebuke to it.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," Roosevelt insisted. "Patriotism means to stand by the country…. It is unpatriotic not to oppose [the President] to the exact extent that … he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

[sq764]

When has Bush failed to stand by this country?

[bettheoverlay]

For sending young people into a conflict that was not in our national interest.

For squandering a couple hundred billion dollars of our tax money on said conflict.

For misleading the American people on the reasons for invasion, declaring that Iraq was an imminent threat with firm evidence of WMDS, when he knew there was no such firm evidence. (Yea, I know the whole world assumed...)

But the American people gave him a free pass, mostly because they are more concerned about gays marrying. If they think its worth it that their children are dying for Iraqis, so be it. Maybe some of the posters should form some sort of volunteer brigade and go over to our great triumph, stand on a street corner, spot a suicide bomber, and let some reservists come home.

[Secretariat]

Was Saddam dangerous to Israel?

If so, then he might as well have had weapons pointed at us from Cuba, because being dangerous to Israel and being dangerous to the US are one in the same, being that Israel is our greatest ally in the region.

If Saddam was dangerous to Israel, wouldn't Hamas had been as dangerous in Syria, and yet no attack in Syria. If because of an imminent threat to Israel, the State or Defense Department never asserted they were invading Iraq due to Israel.

The truth is Saddam was dangerous to Israel as N. Korea was dangerous to S. Korea, another great ally.



These arguments realte to none fo the reasons Bush declared he was invading IRaq. Go back to his State of the Union addresses where it is all about Weapons of Madd Destruction. It's not about what you want to hear, but about what Bush said (Re-read those State of the Union addresses) and what was found. Nada.

And by the way I do beleive Saddam was dangerous to Israel. all one has to do is look at the first Gulf War. But he was a paper tiger, and Bush's own inspectors and now Bush himself has verified that for us.

[Secretariat]

Sec posted:
And you will notice we are not sending troops to Syria or Iran to look for WMD. We only did the in Iraq where the evidence and popular believe was overwhelming that they were there.

Not so sure about Iran Tom.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050116/ts_nm/iran_usa_newyorker_dc

[betovernetcapper]

um...er...we already have a volunteer brigade, it's called the army.

[Secretariat]

Bush has not asserted that weapons are now in Syria. Did you get that from Rush, or is that what you hope so you don't have egg on your face?

See Box you don't go to wars on maybes. You go based on response to an actual attack, or on imminent threat. It's what Presidents have done until Bozo. We argued this whole pre-emption nonsense over and over here, and frankly, it has bit Bush in the butt. Hans Blix turned out to be pretty well accurate, and it bothers the heck out of you neo-cons. Who said we were trusting Saddam? He had been watched more closely than any tyrant over the last decade. He is a despicable human being no doubt about it. The question is was he an imminet threat to the US. Bush has confirmed for us he was not.

As to the Bible being cutting. Geez, never thought of it like that. Box, you may not beleive it but I go to church regularly, and beleive in God, and have never meant anyone as obsessed as you are in using the bible to justify everything you desire. I guess my view of God, Jesus and the bible are a little...er....lot different than you..and I thank God for giving me that wisdom.

[sq764]

For sending young people into a conflict that was not in our national interest.

For squandering a couple hundred billion dollars of our tax money on said conflict.

For misleading the American people on the reasons for invasion, declaring that Iraq was an imminent threat with firm evidence of WMDS, when he knew there was no such firm evidence. (Yea, I know the whole world assumed...)

But the American people gave him a free pass, mostly because they are more concerned about gays marrying. If they think its worth it that their children are dying for Iraqis, so be it. Maybe some of the posters should form some sort of volunteer brigade and go over to our great triumph, stand on a street corner, spot a suicide bomber, and let some reservists come home.


You still haven't shown the point where he didn't stand by this country.. You are stating bad decisions he has made in your opinion.. That is not 'not standing by your country'..

Now if you want an example it would be like Clinton basically doing nothing when American bases were attacked overseas, as well as our Navy ship being attacked.. Now THAT is not standing by your country..

(And yes Sec, another Clinton reference.. Sorry there are just so many to choose from)

[sq764]

Sec, you are right, the question is to what an imminent threat is..

Why don't you ask John Kerry what an imminent threat is, since he did state that Sadam was THE most imminent threat to the United States.. Why would he say that?

[Tom]

"But the American people gave him a free pass, mostly because they are more concerned about gays marrying. If they think its worth it that their children are dying for Iraqis, so be it. Maybe some of the posters should form some sort of volunteer brigade and go over to our great triumph, stand on a street corner, spot a suicide bomber, and let some reservists come home."

Uh, that's what we have now. A volunteer army.
And your are wrong about gay marriages being the reason. The people feel more secure with Bush tahn with the dems at the helm. Simple.

[JustRalph]

Tell these people that Saddam didn't have weapons.............

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

http://www.kdp.pp.se/3.jpg

[46zilzal]

It's what we have now. A volunteer army.
Appeal for draft board volunteers revives memories of Vietnam era

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday November 5, 2003
The Guardian

The Pentagon has begun recruiting for local draft boards, dredging up painful memories of Vietnam era conscription at a time of deepening misgiving about America's occupation of Iraq.

In a notice posted on the defence department's Defend America website, Americans over the age of 18 and with no criminal record are invited to "serve your community and the nation" by volunteering for the boards, which decide which recruits should be sent to war.

Thirty years have passed since the draft boards last exerted their hold on America, deciding which soldiers would be sent to Vietnam. After Congress ended the draft in 1973, they have become largely dormant.

However, recruitment for the boards suggests that in some parts of the Pentagon all options are being explored in response to concerns that the US military has been stretched too thin in its occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although Pentagon officials denied any move to reinstitute the draft, the defence department website does not shirk at outlining the potential duties for a new crop of volunteers to the draft boards.

"If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 local and appeal boards throughout America would decide which young men who submit a claim receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on federal guidelines," it said.

Pentagon officials were adamant that there were no plans to bring back the draft.

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

Bush has not asserted that weapons are now in Syria. Did you get that from Rush, or is that what you hope so you don't have egg on your face?

If you ever get your head out of your nether regions (not very likely, though), you'll find that there has been plenty written in many different places about the very real possibility that the WMDs were moved prior to our invasion. This scenario, to my mind, seems far more likely than believing blindly, as you evidently do, that Saddam suddenly found true religion and became this Guileless, Paragon of Virtue given over wholly to the Truth. You truly live in the Land of Oz, sir!

See Box you don't go to wars on maybes. You go based on response to an actual attack, or on imminent threat.

In this day and age of warring unconventionally against an "invisible army", i.e. non-uniformed thugs and murderers, we don't have the luxury of waiting until we "know" a threat is imminent. By the time we know that, it will probably be too late! You're hopelessly stuck in the Past. Get up to speed already! Try thinking, for once in your life, ahead of the curve.

It's what Presidents have done until Bozo

See what I mean! It's what presidents "have done"! But, sir, past Presidents haven't been faced with the kinds of threats we're facing today. Today isn't yesterday! Yesterday is the Past in which those presidents lived!

Who said we were trusting Saddam? He had been watched more closely than any tyrant over the last decade. He is a despicable human being no doubt about it.

Your blind, unquestioning-type loyality to him tells me that you do trust him --you and other Libs like yourself. The possibility has never entered your mind that he either hid the weapons very well inside of Iraq, or more likely had them moved to another nearby country. No, no. Not at all. To your way of thinking, because we haven't found the WMDs, this places Saddam above and beyond all further suspicion. He's off the hook. He's as innocent as a newborn babe. He's as pure and white as the driven snow. All because we haven't found them...yet. And how do I know this? You haven't ever raised the first queston about the plausible possibility of him moving the weapons, and by your relentless, irrational, mindless attacks against Bush and his Admin. Bush is the Bad Guy, Saddam is Off the Proverbial Hook. Innocent Saddam would never, never, never lie about such things, would he!?

The question is was he an imminet threat to the US. Bush has confirmed for us he was not.

That's funny...I swore Bush said "gathering threat"

As to the Bible being cutting. Geez, never thought of it like that.

Ahh...first time you ever saw that passage in print, eh? Might try finding your bible (assuming you own one), then dusting it off very well, and reading it sometime. You might actually learn something. And I bet you didn't know either that The Word himself (as in Jesus Christ) came bearing the sword in order to divide:

Matt 10:34-36
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.
NASB

I'm sure that the above will be one of those "hard sayings", of which Jesus spoke, that will become another stumbling block for you. Such passages are designed for people like you.

Box, you may not beleive it but I go to church regularly, and beleive in God,

Ahh...you "believe in God"? You have a lot of company, including:

James 2:19
19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
NASB

and have never meant anyone as obsessed as you are in using the bible to justify everything you desire.

And you? You have never used the bible to justify any of your beliefs? Further, don't you know that the Word of God is as eternal as he is, and that either in principle or by explicit statement is the rule of life for all believers?

I guess my view of God, Jesus and the bible are a little...er....lot different than you..and I thank God for giving me that wisdom.

No, sir, you are sadly mistaken, by boasting of your wisdom. You are entirely self-deceived. This is not wisdom from God, but rather the wisdom of the world to which you subscribe:

1 Cor 3:18-21
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless."
NASB

But as for me, sir, I cannot boast of my wisdom; for as it is written:

1 Cor 1:26-29

26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God.
NASB

How, then, church-goer, can you boast of your wisdom?

Boxcar

[sq764]

Appeal for draft board volunteers revives memories of Vietnam era

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday November 5, 2003
The Guardian

The Pentagon has begun recruiting for local draft boards, dredging up painful memories of Vietnam era conscription at a time of deepening misgiving about America's occupation of Iraq.

In a notice posted on the defence department's Defend America website, Americans over the age of 18 and with no criminal record are invited to "serve your community and the nation" by volunteering for the boards, which decide which recruits should be sent to war.

Thirty years have passed since the draft boards last exerted their hold on America, deciding which soldiers would be sent to Vietnam. After Congress ended the draft in 1973, they have become largely dormant.

However, recruitment for the boards suggests that in some parts of the Pentagon all options are being explored in response to concerns that the US military has been stretched too thin in its occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Although Pentagon officials denied any move to reinstitute the draft, the defence department website does not shirk at outlining the potential duties for a new crop of volunteers to the draft boards.

"If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 local and appeal boards throughout America would decide which young men who submit a claim receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on federal guidelines," it said.

Pentagon officials were adamant that there were no plans to bring back the draft.
um, not sure if you know but it's 2005 now. A little outdated article..

[Tom]

That is called being prepared. You always have contingency palnsa on hand for any number of unforeseen emergencies.
suppose we were attacked by N Korea withi a nuclear missles and they simulataneously invaded S Korea.
You don't start planning what to do then.
We have plnas at work for what to do if our plant burns down, if there is a prolonged power outage, is the roads our trucks use through Canada are suddenly shut down, if our suppliers can no longer get raw materials to us.....it is standard operating procedure. I am certain there are plans on hand on an all out nuclear attack on China if it ever came to that. I dobut anyone is seriously planning the invasion, but if needed, it ready to roll out and implement right then and there.
And yeah, ya got anything newer to offer?

[46zilzal]

Favorite DubyaSpeak XXVI
If you had to choose, which of these Dubya originals would you say is your favorite?

Any time of the year it's a time of sorrow and sadness when we lose a loss of life.

I really appreciate the different backgrounds of the people who spoke. We had your entrepreneur, we had your academic, we had your corporate leader, we just had plain old citizens show up.

Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is 5.1 percent. That's good news for people who are trying to find jobs.

You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow.

[46zilzal]

Favorite DubyaSpeak XXIV

We phased out the death tax, so America's family farmers can stay in the family.
562 (25.9%)

It's only fair if other countries treat us the way they treat them.
578 (26.6%)

You see, the enemies want to create a sense of fear and intrepidation.
253 (11.6%)

You need to have you a governor in the great state of Mississippi who understands what it means to create an environment for job growth, who hurts when he hears people are working, and that man is Haley Barbour.
779 (35.9%)

Total: 2172 votes

[Secretariat]

Sec, you are right, the question is to what an imminent threat is..

Why don't you ask John Kerry what an imminent threat is, since he did state that Sadam was THE most imminent threat to the United States.. Why would he say that?

I'd like your link to that quote.

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

I'd like your link to that quote.

And I'd like the "link" to that warped mind of yours.

I'm still waiting, sir, for an explanation of how it is you can so easily distrust the Bush Admin., the U.N., and many major world powers' intelligence on Saddam's possession of WMD and, therefore, implicitly trust a malevolent, a Palestinian terrorist-sponsor, well known, documented liar, thief extraordinaire (who robbed from his people, through the UN-sponsored Oil For Food Program, of billions of dollars worth of food and medicine) and mass murderer (who has killed about 300,000 people0 by taking his word that he didn't have any such weapons. I would really like to understand this, as I'm sure others here would, also.

Boxcar

[Lefty]

lbj, what facts are those? And even if later facts show that Saddam no threat to us or Israel, the pres has to go with the prevailing intel and can't afford to wait. Clinton waited, did not get Osama when he had the chance, and 9-11 happened. saddam funded terrorists and allowed Zarcawi to operate in Iraq. Saddam clearly a threat, but not now, not now...

46zil, Nobody said it was unpatriotic to question the pres but the libs do it to the point of stupidity.

[ljb]

Folks,
We are returning to a debate we had a year ago. The facts are (from gwbush) Iraq has no wmd's and had no plans to reimpliment them. Now Saddam was not a threat to us or Israel based on that statement and the relative ease it was to gain a foothold in Iraq. The current occupation is of course another matter and it is evident was not planned for. You all remember Cheney and the gang implying we would be greeted with cheers and joy, once we took out Saddam.
So far everything the administration has told us about Iraq has been a lie. First it was wmds then it was Saddam is a threat then it was the election will bring democracy to the region. How many times are you fellows going to swallow this hogwash?
Sq,
Bush had Osama cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan and left to invade Iraq. Also who is this John Kerry guy you keep talking about?

[JustRalph]

I'd like your link to that quote.

There is tons of video of him saying just that on several Sunday morning shows

It was well played.

"We 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 (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

http://usaattacked.com/wmd.htm

[Tom]

"Bush had Osama cornered in the mountains of Afghanistan/Pakistan and left to invade Iraq. Also who is this John Kerry guy you keep talking about?"

Wrong again, oh warped one. Bush did not abandon the search for Bin Laden. He used the same startegy that allowed us to take Afghanistan reletively easily - use the people familiar with the terriitory. This time is back fired. Not Bush's fault. I remind you, my option - pattern nuke that area and kill everthing within the area would have worked. But you don't like that either.
Make up your mind, do you want OBL or not???
PS...this Kerry guy, he was nothing., Trsut me. He was nothing. :D

[Lefty]

Yes, lbj, you have returned to the same tired argument with the same selective memory you libs are famous for. Now that we're there, wouldn't you rather we win?

[boxcar]

I perceive that another Liberal Coward has bit the dust. Sec refuses to answer my question concerning the implicit trust all Libs have for Saddam Hussein when he stated that he didn’t have any WMD. So, let me pose the question one more time to any and all Liberals out there.

While it appears that at the moment there are no WMD in Iraq, does this mean that Saddam Hussein couldn’t have shipped those WMD to a neighboring rogue, terrorist-supporting country, such as Syria or Iran; and if this is a possibility, why do you Libs unquestionably distrust the intelligence of the Bush Administration, of many major countries and of the U.N. and, therefore, implicitly trust a malevolent dictator, who is a known liar, who has violated 17 U.N. resolutions, who has condoned, supported and encouraged Palestinian terrorism, who has murdered about 300,000 people, and who has stolen from the poor, common Iraqi people billions of dollars worth of food and medicine through the U.N.-sponsored Oil-For-Food Program?

This is the question. Very clear cut. Very easy to understand. In a nutshell, I simply want to know how such an evil person can warrant such implicit trust from you Libs. Eq, Hcap, Formula, LJB, 46er? Maybe one of you guys, or any other Lib out there, know of some hidden, secret, heretofore unrevealed virtue this dictator possessed? If so, I’d like to know about it.

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

but that is NO reason to invade a soverign country

[boxcar]

46er replies"

dont trust 'em.

How interesting. But how can this be? You don't trust Bush. You don't trust what the U.N. believed. You don't trust what many other major countries believed about WMD...and simultaneously you're saying that you also don't "trust 'em" -- meaning Saddam? So...you don't trust anyone, but Saddam escapes any and all condemnation about WMD, while you and your ilk heap all the condemnation and criticism on the U.S. generally -- on the Bush Admin., specifically? Your lack of condemnation for Saddam betrays your true feelings for him; just as loud as your venomous and irrational condemnation for the Bush Admin. truly reflects your feelings, also.

Furthermore, if you really "don't trust 'em", then why has it never occurred to you that Saddam might have shipped those WMD out to another terrorist-supporting country? It seems to me, sir, that despite your claim to contrary, your true loyality and sympathy are to and for this malevolent dictator. What else could possibly explain your lack of consideration about this plausible possibility and your lack of condemnation for this evil person? The only evil person in your eyes is Bush.

Boxcar

[sq764]

I'd like your link to that quote.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp

I really like this part:

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

And this one:

"When it meets tomorrow to receive the negotiators' report and to determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants."


"AS SERIOUSLY AS IT WARRANTS'.. what does that mean?


Oh, and this is an interesting comment:

"This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out."

[PaceAdvantage]

And by the way I do beleive Saddam was dangerous to Israel. all one has to do is look at the first Gulf War. But he was a paper tiger, and Bush's own inspectors and now Bush himself has verified that for us.

Nobody can ever be 100% sure that he was a paper tiger. He had all the signs of an unstable leader in a volatile part of the world that contained a vital ally to the United States.

You're looking for reasons, and I've given you a good one. Whether it's an official reason or not, it's still a valid reason.

[Equineer]

I perceive that another Liberal Coward has bit the dust. Sec refuses to answer my question concerning the implicit trust all Libs have for Saddam Hussein when he stated that he didn’t have any WMD. So, let me pose the question one more time to any and all Liberals out there.

While it appears that at the moment there are no WMD in Iraq, does this mean that Saddam Hussein couldn’t have shipped those WMD to a neighboring rogue, terrorist-supporting country, such as Syria or Iran; and if this is a possibility, why do you Libs unquestionably distrust the intelligence of the Bush Administration, of many major countries and of the U.N. and, therefore, implicitly trust a malevolent dictator, who is a known liar, who has violated 17 U.N. resolutions, who has condoned, supported and encouraged Palestinian terrorism, who has murdered about 300,000 people, and who has stolen from the poor, common Iraqi people billions of dollars worth of food and medicine through the U.N.-sponsored Oil-For-Food Program?

This is the question. Very clear cut. Very easy to understand. In a nutshell, I simply want to know how such an evil person can warrant such implicit trust from you Libs. Eq, Hcap, Formula, LJB, 46er? Maybe one of you guys, or any other Lib out there, know of some hidden, secret, heretofore unrevealed virtue this dictator possessed? If so, I’d like to know about it.

BoxcarPropagandized mistrust has always been a tool for evildoers.

In fact, most atrocities are committed under the banner of propagandized mistrust

Hitler didn't trust Jews, didn't trust Gypsies, didn't trust Slavs, and didn't trust the leaders of Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland.

Bin Laden implores Muslims to mistrust Americans.

You likewise preach a misguided sermon that ultimately undermines goodwill, liberty, civil rights, and protection under the rules of law.

Neither blind trust nor mistrust are reliable guideposts for mankind. However, as a rule of thumb, history would advise us to trust preachers and politicians least of all men.

The cross currents of politicized trust and mistrust are treacherous waters, as evidenced by the trust we were formerly urged to extend to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban when we backed their regimes in past wars.

[PaceAdvantage]

It's just like the good ol' days in this thread....circa pre-election 2004.

Suddenly, I feel so fatigued.....

[Equineer]

It's just like the good ol' days in this thread....circa pre-election 2004.

Suddenly, I feel so fatigued.....Fatigue?

Add meat and potatoes to your diet and you'll soon be feeling like a million dollars again.

Start today by treating yourself to the Rib Eye off the Equestris menu! :D

[ljb]

It's just like the good ol' days in this thread....circa pre-election 2004.

Suddenly, I feel so fatigued.....
Not quite like the good ol' days, this time Bush is saying NO WMDs, last time he was saying "mushroom shaped cloud" .

[sq764]

I'd like your link to that quote.
Ok, link provided.. Now back to the original question of why your boy Kerry would say such a thing..

[46zilzal]

reference to not trusting Hussein

[boxcar]

Equineer wrote:

Propagandized mistrust has always been a tool for evildoers.

(The rest of your flowery, moral equivalnecy nonsense cut for sake of bandwith.)

So, let's see, Eq, permit me to give you an equation that reflects your thinkinig: The "evildoers" = U.S. because Bush lied to Americans, making distrust of him justified ; therefore, Saddam Hussein = Truthful Good Guy and unjustified Victim of The U.S. and Coalition Forces. Is this the deal?

Boxcar

[boxcar]

46zilzal wrote:

reference to not trusting Hussein

Must have been a long night for you, eh? Can't even form a sentence?

If you're awake, I'd like for you to explain how you can say out of one side of your mouth that you "don't trust 'em" (meaning Saddam, I guess), while out of the other, you can state unequivocally and with all certainity that Bush lied about Saddam possessing any WMD, which implies that you believe Saddam -- the very guy you say you don't trust? How is it, sir, you can so easily believe someone you don't trust?

Would you mind explaining this to me?

[46zilzal]

Would you mind explaining this to me?

thanks

[boxcar]

46zilzal wrote:

thanks

You' re quite welcome, sir. But actually I need to thank you; for you have made my case.

You evidently perceive your predictament, don't you? You want to avoid at all costs aligning yourself with the likes of a Saddam Hussein, which accounts for your "don't trust 'em" statement. But once you do this with respect to Iraq's possession of WMD, you need to explain your deep personal, but blind and implicit trust of the very guy you say you don't trust. You're dealing with a rather sticky contradiction here, aren't you?

Thank you again, sir, for making the point that your distrust of Bush is 100% irrational.

Any other Liberal out there want to step up to the plate and take your swings?

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Thank you again, sir, for making the point that your distrust of Bush is 100% irrational.r
Love the way "No" becomes irrational trust

[Secretariat]

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp

I really like this part:

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

And this one:

"When it meets tomorrow to receive the negotiators' report and to determine its future course of action, it is vital that the Security Council treat this situation as seriously as it warrants."


"AS SERIOUSLY AS IT WARRANTS'.. what does that mean?


Oh, and this is an interesting comment:

"This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out."

Your reference and SQ's are from 1997 and 1998. How bout before the vote?

“Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.”

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right."

Again, his words "it is not imminent"

[sq764]

Where does this comment come from:

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

(I do admire how you asked for a reference, were given the reference, then divert when you were silenced... Consistency is your M.O.)

[boxcar]

46zilzal

Love the way "No" becomes irrational trust

No deep mystery here, 46er. You answered, "No" becasue you can't explain irrational actions or beliefs in a rational way that everyone would be able to understand. I simply asked you to explain how you can mistrust the Bush Admin. by stating unequivocally and emphatically that Bush lied to the country about Saddam possessing WMD, which simultaneously implies that you do believe (trust) Saddam's denial of any such possession, after you just got done saying you don't trust this evil dictator.

See the contradiction here? You explicitly stated that you "don't trust 'em", but your explicit mistrust of Bush amounts to an implicit trust of Saddam all at once and siumultanesouly. How is it possible to implicitly trust and explicitly not trust Hussein at the same time? This is what you need to explain.

I wish you the best on your Mission Impossible.

Boxcar

[Secretariat]

Where does this comment come from:

"He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction."

(I do admire how you asked for a reference, were given the reference, then divert when you were silenced... Consistency is your M.O.)

I appreciate an actual link from you SQ. Even if it was from 1998. My quotes were from the Senate floor in 2002 before the vote to give Bush the authorization to use force as a last resort.

So often I read here that 911 changed everything, and anything Bush said prior to that is out of bounds, but so many of you Repubs enjoy using pre-911 Dem quotes. I would expect no less.

As to your above quote I assume from 1998, I agree with it and see no inconsistency. Hussein should not be permitted to go unobserved. That's exactly the whole point. Hans Blix was conducting injspections when Bush became impatient. Hussein was not unobserved. Blix's observations turned out to be almost 100% accurate by Bush's own inspectors.

How often did Kerry say during the campaign, Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. He did not build a real international coalition including Muslim nations as his father had in the First Gulf War. He not only hid intelligence, he reported falsely on it despite knowing otherwise such as in the Niger claims. I understand why Powell wants out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Do you really have to go back to 1998 to find John Kerry calling for the forceful ouster of Saddam Hussein?

[JustRalph]

Do you really have to go back to 1998 to find John Kerry calling for the forceful ouster of Saddam Hussein?

You can find it in a CNN interview he did in October, 6 mths before the war. Sec is just tap dancing as usual.

[sq764]

I appreciate an actual link from you SQ. Even if it was from 1998. My quotes were from the Senate floor in 2002 before the vote to give Bush the authorization to use force as a last resort.

So often I read here that 911 changed everything, and anything Bush said prior to that is out of bounds, but so many of you Repubs enjoy using pre-911 Dem quotes. I would expect no less.

As to your above quote I assume from 1998, I agree with it and see no inconsistency. Hussein should not be permitted to go unobserved. That's exactly the whole point. Hans Blix was conducting injspections when Bush became impatient. Hussein was not unobserved. Blix's observations turned out to be almost 100% accurate by Bush's own inspectors.

How often did Kerry say during the campaign, Bush rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. He did not build a real international coalition including Muslim nations as his father had in the First Gulf War. He not only hid intelligence, he reported falsely on it despite knowing otherwise such as in the Niger claims. I understand why Powell wants out.


Sec, you know within a few months of us going to Iraq, Kerry continued to insist that Saddam must be dealt with, up to and including military force.. If you disagree with the decision to go, then at least admit that your Dem friends led you down a deceitful path too.. You can't have it both ways.

[Secretariat]

Sec, you know within a few months of us going to Iraq, Kerry continued to insist that Saddam must be dealt with, up to and including military force.. If you disagree with the decision to go, then at least admit that your Dem friends led you down a deceitful path too.. You can't have it both ways.

I agree Kerry beleived their were WMD's. However, he stated time and again that Bush rushed to war without building alliances, and without allowing the UN insoection process to work, AND most importantly without bringing up the vote to the UN to use force as Bush's father had done in the First Gulf War.

I don't blame Bush for beleiving Saddam had WMD's, I blame him for rushing to war in the middle of trying toi corral Bin Laden and avenge ourselves against those who DID invade our country. Bin Laden has been at large almost as long as Hitler since 911. THe poppy crop continues to fund his activites, and even some officials are saying it might be better if he is never captured. That's like saying it might be better if Hitler had never been captured or killed. What happened to the we'll get him Dead or Alive Bush? Now, he seems to not even mention Bin Laden anymore. Today, I see that Bush said the Iraqi borders are going to be tightened. What the heck have they been doing the last two years with those borders?

[sq764]

You earlier posted that Bush lied to the American public about believing there were WMD.. Now you say Kerry believed it too AND you don't blame Bush for believing they were there..

What gives?

[boxcar]

Secretariat wrote:

I agree Kerry beleived their were WMD's.

Ah...so Kerry lied to the American people too!

However, he stated time and again that Bush rushed to war without building alliances,

And the 37 countries or so that are part of the coalition forces today are what...chopped liver? They are not our allies? And just who did you expect to get to join with the U.S.? All the countries that were profiting big time from the U.N. Oil-For-Food Scam? All the countries who were as big of thieves as Saddam was? You really think for one moment that France, for example, was going to forego billions of dollars of found money to help the U.S. out?

and without allowing the UN insoection process to work,

Like Saddam wasn't always 10 steps ahead of those inspectors at all times? Oh, naive one, you really think those inspectors would have found anything that Saddam didn't want them to discover? Your absurd assumption here is that Saddam was being truthful and cooperating with them.

AND most importantly without bringing up the vote to the UN to use force as Bush's father had done in the First Gulf War.

Better go back and read that last resolution. What part of "serious consequences" don't you understand? What does this phrase mean to you? A mere slap on the wrist? More sanctions, so that the U.N. and other corrupt nations could profit even more off the poor Iraqi people?

Unbelievable... :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[46zilzal]

Saddam May Not Have Moved WMD

Monday, January 17, 2005

WASHINGTON — The final U.S. intelligence report on weapons of mass destruction (search) in Iraq is expected to address whether the banned armaments may have been smuggled out of the country before the war started.

Top Bush administration officials have speculated publicly that chemical, biological or radiological weapons may have been smuggled out, and the question is one of the unresolved issues on WMD. The report is due next month.

Intelligence and congressional officials say they have not seen any information — never "a piece," said one — indicating that WMD or significant amounts of components and equipment were transferred from Iraq to neighboring Syria, Jordan or elsewhere.

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's (search) chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (search) transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

A special adviser to the CIA (search) director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq.

"What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points," he said. "But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say."

Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

President Bush and top-raking officials in his administration used the existence of WMD in Iraq as the main justification for the March 2003 invasion, and throughout much of last year the White House continued to raise the possibility the weapons were transferred to another country.

For instance:

—Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in early October he believed Saddam had WMD before the war. "He has either hidden them so well or moved them somewhere else, or decided to destroy them ... in event of a conflict but kept the capability of developing them rapidly," Rumsfeld said in a Fox News Channel interview.

Eight months earlier, he told senators "it's possible that WMD did exist, but was transferred, in whole or in part, to one or more other countries. We see that theory put forward."

—Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed concern the WMD would be found. However, when asked in September if the WMD could have been hidden or moved to a country like Syria, he said, "I can't exclude any of those possibilities."

—And, on MSNBC's "Hardball" in June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said: "Everyone believed that his programs were more active than they appeared to be, but recognize, he had a lot of time to move stuff, a lot of time to hide stuff."

Since the October report from Duelfer, which said Saddam intended to obtain WMD but had no banned weapons, senior administration leaders have largely stopped discussing whether the weapons were moved.

Last week, the intelligence and congressional officials said evidence indicating somewhat common equipment with dual military and civilian uses, such as fermenters, was salvaged during post-invasion looting and sold for scrap in other countries. Syria was mentioned as one location.

However, the U.S. intelligence community's 2002 estimate on Iraq indicated there were sizable weapons programs and stockpiles. The officials said weapons experts have not found a production capability in Iraq that would back up the size of the prewar estimates.

Among a series of key findings, that estimate said Iraq "has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged" during a 1998 U.S.-British bombing campaign and "has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production."

Although the U.S. had little specific information, the estimate also said Saddam probably stockpiled at least 100 metric tons, possibly 500 metric tons, of chemical weapons agents — "much of it added in the last year."

[Lefty]

46zil, the point is moot.

[46zilzal]

moot
Pronunciation: 'müt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mOt, gemOt; akin to Middle High German muoze meeting
1 : a deliberative assembly primarily for the administration of justice; especially : one held by the freemen of an Anglo-Saxon community
2 obsolete : ARGUMENT, DISCUSSION

[Secretariat]

You earlier posted that Bush lied to the American public about believing there were WMD.. Now you say Kerry believed it too AND you don't blame Bush for believing they were there..

What gives?

Whew...I went back and reread every post in this thread. What i said was in response to Buddha:

"Originally Posted by Buddha
I think all along, most americans didn't buy into the WMD deal. Myself, and I know others that I know, realized from the start that GW was finishing business that his daddy didnt get to finish.

Woulda been nice if he had shared that with America and the Coalition of the Willing countries."

I was commenting that IF this was GW's motivation, "finishing business that his daddy didn't get to finish." then it woulda been nice if he had shared that with the Amercia people. I reread each post and nowhere do I question Bush's assertion that he used WMD's as an argument for war. In fact Ari Fleischer said it was the reason. I do question the "imminent" threat implication, and the rush to war without allowing inspections to finish or without building a coalition including Arabs.

I'd appreciate if you refer accurately to my posts, and not what you think they say.

[Secretariat]

46zil, the point is moot.

Why is the point moot? According to Ari Fleischer, this was the reason for going to war, the reason presented to our allies, the UN, and presented to Congress.

[Tom]

The point is moot because the whole article is anonymous-you are so quick to believe anything you read, even when it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated post.

[Lefty]

46, glad you looked it up.
sec, the point is moot because wmd's or no, we are there. The whole world blved in wmd's not just Bush. We are there, point is moot. Do you hope we win?

[hcap]

Food for thought

A dish served up by the neocons for the easily conned.
All you faux knee jerkers. And lemmings. Another four years to follow your leader. Wake up and smell the bs.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/HusseinWasRight.htm

" A German reporter managed to obtain a copy of the original report from Iraq, and then compared it with the truncated copy the U.S. gave to the UN. He found that the missing parts covered the Iraqis' acquisition of chemical and biological weapons from the U.S., the delivery of non-fissionable materials for a nuclear bomb by the U.S. to the Iraqis, and the training of Iraqi nuclear scientists at U.S. nuclear facilities in Los Alamos, Sandia, and Berkeley"

[sq764]

Food for thought

A dish served up by the neocons for the easily conned.
All you faux knee jerkers. And lemmings. Another four years to follow your leader. Wake up and smell the bs.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/HusseinWasRight.htm

" A German reporter managed to obtain a copy of the original report from Iraq, and then compared it with the truncated copy the U.S. gave to the UN. He found that the missing parts covered the Iraqis' acquisition of chemical and biological weapons from the U.S., the delivery of non-fissionable materials for a nuclear bomb by the U.S. to the Iraqis, and the training of Iraqi nuclear scientists at U.S. nuclear facilities in Los Alamos, Sandia, and Berkeley"

HarryBrowne.org.... Are you serious??

Do you have anything even remotely factual to add to the conversation?

[Lefty]

hcap, give it ip, the subject is moot. Do you want us to win? I've put this question in one form or another in 3 diff threads and not one liberal has responded...

[46zilzal]

you've won it hands down!

[sq764]

you've won it hands down!

Why do you even bother responding with such idiotic comments?

[46zilzal]

That was SPECIFICALLY directed to You, the archtypical Young Nazi like that character on the televsion show

[Lefty]

46,hcap, sec, lbj, eq, and assorted other libs,it's a simple straightforward question: DO YOU WANT US TO WIN?

[lsbets]

I seem to remember a thread a while back when the left tried to say how isulting the right is. In my quick perusal of this thread, I have seen some sarcasm from both sides, but then quickly followed by such wonderful comments from two of the lefties like Hcap calling everyone who disagrees with him easily conned lemmings, and 46zil calling sq the archtypical young nazi. Hcap, for such a peace lover, you sure do come across as a man full of hate. 46, you have resorted to the lefts old standby - when you have nothing to say, call those who disagree with you nazis. Keep going guys, I want your voices heard loud and clear by as many people as possible, you will gurantee Republican presidents for decades to come. Maybe the RNC can buy you some airtime during the campaigns, it would be brilliant!

[46zilzal]

My comment was not for the right..... just SQ and no one else!

[sq764]

Why in the world would you call me (or anyone) a nazi?

[Secretariat]

46,hcap, sec, lbj, eq, and assorted other libs,it's a simple straightforward question: DO YOU WANT US TO WIN?

Yes. Simple enough for you.

Now, my question to you...what exactly does that entail, and what are the limits of other people's sacrifices?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Berkeley?
So we can partially blame the UC Berkeley "bears" (no gay pun intended) for the Iraq nuke scare?

[Tom]

Why in the world would you call me (or anyone) a nazi?

"Dr. Mengele" is specializing in focused hate.

[46zilzal]

WRONG...Hate is too emotionally expensive..gave it up a long time ago....

That person qualifies on all counts ..... the winner of the Alex P. Keaton award as REACTIONARY of the year so the title is apt.

[lsbets]

46, you are more and more entertaining every day. You must know that you presence on this board is greatly appreciated. I'll take a good laugh anywhere I can get one, and the appearance that you consider yourself to be a deep thinker is good for hours of laughter.

[sq764]

WRONG...Hate is too emotionally expensive..gave it up a long time ago....

That person qualifies on all counts ..... the winner of the Alex P. Keaton award as REACTIONARY of the year so the title is apt.
You're just a joke anymore.. Not even worth responding to. You have yet to contribute even a slither of insight into any thread here.

[46zilzal]

Great examples of "journalists" (who really want to sell more Acuras and Swifter dusters) whom you guys might admire:

"God says, Earth is yours. Take It. Rape it. It's Yours." Ann Coulter.

"Feminism ws established so as to allow unattractive women easeir acess to the mainstream of society." Rush Limbaugh.

"It is true that if you are poor and can't afford a good lawyer, your odds of going to prison skyrocket. But you know what? Tough!" Bill O'Reilly.

"Oh, you're one of the sodmites. You should only get AIDS and die, You Pig! How's that? Why don't you see if you can sue me you pig. You got (great way with words don't you think??) You got nothing better to do than put me down, you piece of garbage?"
Michael Savage.

"Canada is a left-wing, socialist basket case. What kind of friends are they?"
Sean Hannity.

"Why is it they are SO MAD and angry all the time when they already control the White House, Senate, House of Representavtives, the Supreme Court, Wall Street, talk radio, and three of the four news channels?" They got their was, their tax cut...you'd think they'd be happy but they're not."

[Lefty]

sec, like a true lib, you answer a simple question with a question. So, i'll take your answer and the other libs' silence as a no. There was a professor the other day on O'Reilly who was actuall saying he hoped we lose the fight in Iraq.
If it means it will give Bush any credit you guys unfortunately are not on our side. Pity.
46, it's the libs who are angry and the conservatists just respond to your anger. The Rush quote by the way goes way back to when the women's lib movement first started and has no context with what's goin on today. Actually, and I imagine it escapes you, it was meant as humor.
Sean's quote is right on. Canada still hasn't given us back our deserters and their lib papers denigrate this country constantly.
Savage's quote is quite unacceptable and i'm ashamed of him just like you must be of several high profile libs.
O'Reilly, is not a conservative.

[Secretariat]

sec, like a true lib, you answer a simple question with a question. So, i'll take your answer and the other libs' silence as a no. There was a professor the other day on O'Reilly who was actuall saying he hoped we lose the fight in Iraq.
If it means it will give Bush any credit you guys unfortunately are not on our side. Pity.
46, it's the libs who are angry and the conservatists just respond to your anger. The Rush quote by the way goes way back to when the women's lib movement first started and has no context with what's goin on today. Actually, and I imagine it escapes you, it was meant as humor.
Sean's quote is right on. Canada still hasn't given us back our deserters and their lib papers denigrate this country constantly.
Savage's quote is quite unacceptable and i'm ashamed of him just like you must be of several high profile libs.
O'Reilly, is not a conservative.

Actually, Lefty, you need to reread my post. I answered YES to your question. Not sure I can get any simpler than that. Then I chose to ask you a brand new question. You predictably chose not to answer.

[Lefty]

sec, you are right; I needed to reread your post. I perceived a comma after yes and not a period. Glad you hope we win. Not all libs hope that.