WMD?

“Foolish.


A man knows when to quit, a fool wallows on.”

“Nice intelligent rebuttals Steve! As I've always been told, when a person feels small, they try and belittle their opponent to make themselves feel bigger.

I don't blame Congressional Dems for the Iraqi war, I congratulate most of them for voting for it, and the vast majority of them felt Saddam was a threat with his WMDs just the same. And you ask me, Buck (aka laqtis), where the WMDs are? Wherever they are, they sure ain't in Saddam's hands, thank God!”

“"Okay, laqtis, try and blame Bush for these pre-Bush statements on Saddam's WMDs. Hmmm... I guess Bush fabricated WMDs before he was even in office! Whoa! Conspiracies all over da place!

------------
"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


-----She doesn't say that he has'em, only that he would use them-----




"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

--------Doesn't say that he has them in 2003, let alone then.-----



"[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

------Doesn't say that he has them in 2003 and suggests that Clinton's pre-empitive measures might have worked------


"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

--------was this before or after the insepctors were kicked out?----


"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

-------not a complete sentence, nice snip. Please note, that during all of this, Buck fails to list all of the Repubs that where inline with this line of thinking, he only lists Dems. So, I suppose that NO Repub back then said ANYTHING like this, hmmmmmm?”

“laqtis, dude, these are pre-Bush quotes on purpose, since you blamed Bush for "bad info" after he was in office. I provided these as proof that this was the prevailing thought even BEFORE Bush came into power. I provided post-Bush quotes from Dems saying Saddam has WMDs earlier on, perhaps you missed them.

As for using Dem quotes, duh, I'm only using them because you think this was just some Bush thing. Of course Repubs supported the war, do I need to "prove" that? I thought that was pretty common knowledge? You lost me here, laqtis.”

“It's not very hard to lose you, Buck. Go look at the post agian and report back.”

“For laqtis (me) again... (sorry folks for being repetitive)

Okay, here's the POST-Bush quotes saying the same thing.

----------

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated 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, December 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 mandated 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), 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 weap ons 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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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”

“Man, you are dence! Where are the Repubs? Do you have anything out there BEFORE Congress was "briefed" about Saddam? All of your "quotes" happened after the Intel "briefing". Talk about slanted. Remember "It's the bad Intel, Stupid!"”

“No worries buck, I've no need to feel bigger.

If you feel belittled, so be it.

Go back and read your posts about all this...it's really funny to hear you now saying that because the Dem's made the same mistake that Bushy boy did it's, ok.

The Dem's didn't get us into a war over it.”

“If you feel belittled, so be it.


Hi Steve! No worries, man! I don't feel belittled, I just commented on your attempts to do so is all!

Go back and read your posts about all this...it's really funny to hear you now saying that because the Dem's made the same mistake that Bushy boy did it's, ok.

Steve, I just went back and re-read what I wrote, and contrary to what you said I said, here's what I ACTUALLY said, and I quote, "I don't blame Congressional Dems for the Iraqi war, I congratulate most of them for voting for it". So, you see, I wasn't "blaming Dems" for any mistake, I'm congratulating them for making the right decision. I like it when libs try and spin things that aren't spinnable!

The Dem's didn't get us into a war over it.

I'm quoting Dems who said they KNEW Saddam had WMDs, and voted for the war, so why ask ME where the WMDs are? If you are so concerned, ask the liberals who thought the same thing and even voted for it. That's all!”

“YAWN!

Same dismisal different post.”

“Man, you are dence! Where are the Repubs? Do you have anything out there BEFORE Congress was "briefed" about Saddam? All of your "quotes" happened after the Intel "briefing". Talk about slanted. Remember "It's the bad Intel, Stupid

laqtis, I gave you quotes before and after, discard them as you please, they are historical fact so just because you discard them doesn't mean they don't exist.

As for intelligence and Congress, again, here's a link:

a href="http://intelligence.house.gov/">U.S. House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence

"We take these oversight responsibilities very seriously, as does the leadership of Congress. Members of the committee are selected not by their party caucuses, but by those elected to lead their parties. All of the Members of the committee are appointed by the Speaker of the House. We hire a professional staff with experience in intelligence, legal, and legislative matters. We are very proud of the way the committee’s Members work in a bipartisan fashion on some of the most difficult national security problems faced by the United States."

Not only are there "independent" intelligence committees, but Congress can actually have access to, uhhh, gov't agencies like the CIA. Yes way.”

“Where are they?”

“laqtis, look, even if Clinton saying he's surprised and thought Saddam had WMDs in his possession up until he was just caught, as well as leading Dems saying Saddam had WMDs and was a threat, I certainly can't make you read this stuff. Whether to go to war or not as a solution to Saddam's WMDs is a good, healthy debate and that's not what I'm referring to. I'm merely referring that whether anyone thought war was a solution or not, the fact that Saddam was in possession of WMDs was prevailing thought regardless of Repub or Dem. And Congress has access to vital intelligence information apart from any sitting President. Nite nite."
Buck
11:55:58 PM
01/22/04
ignore this user

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

"November 17, 2003

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the Bush
Administration's policy in Iraq. I share your concern and have opposed
the President's approach in Iraq from the start.

When the President came to Congress last year seeking unrestricted
authority to use military force in Iraq, I fiercely fought that effort and
voted against the Resolution. It was clear that the Bush Administration
was implementing a strategy of unilateral pre-emptive war which I
vigorously opposed, and that going-it-alone in this manner would lead to
harmful consequences. We continue to see these consequences today.

As a result of the unwise course set by this Administration, we are faced
with this reality: Iraq is in shambles, our troops are committed there
and necessary to prevent terrorists from further destabilizing the country
and the region, and the country's infrastructure is in dire need of basic
re-construction.

I am enclosing, for your review, my full Floor remarks during debate on
the supplemental appropriation to fund the military troops currently in
Iraq and reconstruction efforts. It was my judgement that it was not wise
to withhold the equipment and resources needed to protect our troops and
the funds needed to rebuild the infrastructure damaged during the war.

I will continue to oppose the current unilateral approach by the
Administration. I believe the only workable option is immediately to
expand the role of the United Nations and other nations in Iraq, fully
internationalize the reconstruction effort, and accelerate the schedule
for transferring authority to a provisional Iraqi government.

Again, thanks so much for being in touch to express your views on this
very important issue. Let's continue to stay in touch on this and other
federal issues of concern to you.


Sincerely,




Sander M. Levin
Member of Congress





Thank you for contacting me regarding my support for a bipartisan review of the intelligence that Congress and the country received prior to the war in Iraq.

Our military forces conducted a brilliant campaign to rid the world of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Now our challenge must be to bring democracy and stability to Iraq. Our chances of meeting that challenge will be increased, and the risk to our troops will be reduced, if we actively reach out to involve the world community through NATO and the United Nations in the peacekeeping operations and reconstruction in Iraq.

To help gain international support, we must also face another challenge -- assuring the objectivity and reliability of the intelligence information our leaders use to make life-and-death decisions regarding our security.

Last January, the President stated in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Iraq recently sought to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Africa. The purpose of that statement was to make the American people believe that our government believed it. But the truth was that our intelligence agencies did not believe it. In fact, the CIA had successfully pressed the White House to remove a similar reference from a Presidential speech four months before the State of the Union address.

This issue about African uranium is not just about sixteen words in a speech. It is about whether Administration officials made a conscious decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat Iraq posed to America. And there is troubling evidence that the uranium statement was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the Intelligence Community and Administration officials in the buildup to the war.

Unless we address the objectivity and reliability of U.S. intelligence before the Iraq War, our government's warnings about future security threats will be greeted with skepticism here at home and around the world. Should the United States conclude, for example, that there is a significant connection between Iran and al Qaeda, it will be more difficult to gain the support of the American people and our allies for any action if they question the credibility of our intelligence.

This is not a partisan political issue. Recently, my Republican colleague Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, said it is "too serious here, for this country, to not know what happened. America will want to know what happened, as the world will. ... Did, in fact, we base our reasons for going to war on something that was faulty intelligence, or abused intelligence?" Indeed, that is the very question that must be thoroughly investigated.

Americans are united in our gratitude that Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is gone. But unless we can establish -- or if necessary, reestablish -- the objectivity and reliability of America's intelligence and its proper use, our national security and our leadership in the world will be diminished.

Again, thanks for contacting me on this matter. I will keep you views in mind as the Congress considers this issue.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin



Thank you for emailing Vice President Cheney. Your ideas and comments are very
important to him.

Unfortunately, because of the large volume of email received, the Vice
President cannot personally respond to each message. However, the White House
staff considers and reports citizen ideas and concerns.

Again, thank you for your email. Your interest in the work of Vice President
Cheney and the administration is appreciated.

Sincerely,
The White House Office of E-Correspondence





Thank you for e-mailing President Bush. Your ideas and comments are very
important to him.

Because of the large volume of e-mail received, the President cannot personally
respond to each message. However, the White House staff considers and reports
citizen ideas and concerns.

In addition to President@WhiteHouse.gov, we have developed White House Web
Mail, an automated e-mail response system. Please access
http://www.whitehouse.gov/webmail to submit comments on a specific issue.

Additionally, we welcome you to visit our website for the most up-to-date
information on current events and topics of interest to you.



Phuck Bush!"
laqtis
11:58:26 PM
01/22/04
ignore this user

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

"??? laqtis, you provide a couple letters from liberals who oppose Bush as some sort of proof? What, shall I provide a letter from Tom Delay that Bush was right on? Come on!"
Buck
12:02:18 AM
01/23/04
ignore this user

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

"Buck - Doesn't mater. Your swine went to war over it, all the while, back in the day, Clinton got leaned on for bombing asprin factories. Which is better? Those not in power, poo pooed Clinton for "Wag the Dog", while now, Bush lauds the fact that we invaded Iraq FOR asprin factories. TomAto, TomOto. You just don't dig it because now, it's your bud that's the moron now. Sad, isn't it?"
laqtis
12:03:58 AM
01/23/04
ignore this user

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

"My misinformed friend, Levin SITS on the Armed Serices Committee. If ANYONE would have the "outside proof" you say that all Senitor are privy to, it's HIM.

Doh!!!"
laqtis
12:06:09 AM
01/23/04
ignore this user

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

"Yep! Your silence is GOLDEN!"
laqtis
12:14:23 AM
01/23/04
ignore this user”

“So because we had faulty or slanted intelligence and because we convinced others it was true, we went to war.

Now I want someone with some balls, besides the inspectors, to simply say....we made a mistake.

Naaaa, ain't gonna happen, huh.”

“Oh for cryin' out loud! Just give it up already!

Cheney: Weapons Search Needs Time
In Interview, Vice President Also Repeats Assertion of Al Qaeda-Iraq Link ”

“Jesus!

Cheney lives in his own world.”

“A very very wealthy world.”

“Thank you! Geeezz US. this is gettingld. I'm not wasting any more time on run around issues. I guess you can lead a horse to water.......”

“Buck is a Cheney troll!”

“Nah. Buck is a cross between Stone Deaf and Furious Typer.”

“Just to let you know, in case you plan on sending me a bill, I'm not paying for your psychological evaluations.”

“Powell unsure whether WMD will be found in Iraq

Secretary of state to meet Georgian president, then Putin
Saturday, January 24, 2004 Posted: 8:04 PM EST (0104 GMT)


(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saturday that it remains unclear whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

On Friday, the Bush administration's former top weapons investigator, David Kay, told the Reuters news agency he had concluded that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of weapons.

Responding to the remark, the secretary of state said it was not clear who was right.

Last year, Powell presented evidence to the United Nations that Saddam had such weapons. President Bush used their alleged existence as the primary rationale for the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

"I think the answer to the question is 'I don't know yet,'" Powell told reporters. "Last year, when I made my presentation, it was based on the best intelligence that we had at the time. It reflected the National Intelligence Estimate that the intelligence community had presented to all administration officials and had briefed to the Congress. And it was consistent with the views of other intelligence agencies of other governments, and it was consistent with the body of reporting over the years."

Powell said the United States had demanded of Iraqi officials a full accounting of what had happened to the nation's weapons, "and all they did was make statements without proving it, proving it to our satisfaction."

Powell said the Bush administration still plans to transfer sovereignty at the end of June, though he added, "There are a lot of things that have to happen. We've got to get a fundamental administrative law written, and a lot of work is being done on that."

Powell made his comments aboard a plane en route to Tbilisi, Georgia, where he is to attend Sunday's inauguration of President Mikhail Saakashvili.

U.S. troops in Georgia are training and equipping Georgian forces to root out Chechen separatists and other militants operating in the Pankisi Gorge.

Powell played down any suggestion of a rift between the United States and Russia over what he called "a very modest presence" in Georgia.

The troops' mission is likely to be completed in the next several months and has been largely effective, he said.

"The number of terrorists believed to still be wandering around in the gorge area is much reduced from what it was before we started."

Those terrorists, he said, had been attacking Russia through Chechnya.

"And so, it was a mission that we had explained to the Russians all along. It is no threat to anyone. It was a way of assisting the Georgians in dealing with a terrorist threat that was affecting Russia," Powell said.

He predicted the United States would "probably maintain some continuing liaison with Georgian military and paramilitary forces in the gorge, so that we have a sense of what their needs are and what their training requirements in the future might be," but said the basic mission should be ending soon.

Powell is to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday in Moscow, as well as with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

Powell is scheduled to return to the United States on Tuesday.”

“Powell was right.
The WMD=The Weapons Missed Detection.You just can't expect the greatest power in history to be able to find much more than a wino in a hole.”

“Those dummies should have listened to Scott Ritter.




US chief Iraq arms expert quits

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3425429.stm

The head of the team searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, David Kay, has resigned.
Mr Kay said he did not believe Iraq possessed large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.

He is being replaced by a former deputy head of the United Nations weapons inspections team, Charles Duelfer.

Mr Duelfer said earlier this month he believed the chances of finding chemical or biological weapons in Iraq were now "close to nil".

Mr Kay gave no reason for leaving, but the BBC's Jon Leyne in Washington says sources there speak of a mixture of personal reasons and his disillusionment with the weapons search.

His resignation had been expected for a few weeks.


'No stockpiles'

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) team leader was appointed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) last June to head the post-war search for chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in Iraq.


The issue of banned weapons was the central element of the US case for invading the country.
In an interview with Reuters news agency after his resignation was announced, Mr Kay said he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.

"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

"I think we have found probably 85% of what we're going to find."

Our correspondent says these are powerful remarks from someone who once strongly believed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) represented a major threat.

Democrat criticism

In his recent State of the Union address, US President George W Bush quoted the conclusion of Mr Kay's interim report, which said only that WMD-related programme activities had been found in Iraq.

The Bush administration has not officially reacted to Mr Kay's latest remarks but correspondents say this is a serious embarrassment for the White House. On Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney said he still had not given up hope of finding WMDs in Iraq.


Leading Democrats have seized on Mr Kay's remarks.
"It increasingly appears that our intelligence was wrong about Iraq's weapons, and the administration compounded that mistake by exaggerating the nuclear threat and Iraq's ties to al-Qaeda," said Senator John Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

"As a result, the United States is paying a very heavy price."

Jane Harman, of the House of Representatives intelligence committee, said Mr Kay's comments pointed to a massive intelligence failure and could not be ignored.

On Friday, the new ISG group head, Mr Duelfer, distanced himself from his comments on US television earlier this month in which he expressed doubts that banned weapons would ever be found.

"I have now been given the responsibility of being in charge of the investigation and I don't know what the outcome will be. I don't want to pre-judge that," he said.

Mr Duelfer, 51, served as deputy executive chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq from 1993 to 2000.
”

“Powell casts doubt on Iraq WMDs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3426703.stm

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has conceded that Iraq may not have possessed any stocks of weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.
His comments came after the former head of the US weapons inspection team, David Kay, said he did not believe there were any weapons stockpiles.

Mr Powell was speaking on his way to the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

Less than a year ago, Mr Powell warned the United Nations Security Council about the danger from Iraq's weapons.


In the run-up to the US-led war against Iraq, he gave a presentation to the Security Council, in which he asserted that Saddam Hussein had amassed secret weapons of mass destruction.

He said then that he believed Iraq possessed, among other things, between 100 and 500 tonnes of chemical weapons agents.

But in his latest remarks, he told reporters travelling with him that it was an "open question" whether Iraq had any stocks of weapons of mass destruction at all.

"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Mr Powell said on his way to attend the inauguration on Sunday of the new Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili.

'No stockpiles'

On Friday, Mr Kay, who had led the US hunt for weapons in Iraq, resigned.

He told Reuters news agency he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.

"I don't think they existed," Mr Kay said.



"I have absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the intelligence was genuine."

-- UK Prime Minister Tony Blair



"What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s."

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said he still believed the intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein's regime was developing weapons of mass destruction that he used to justify committing British troops to the war.

"I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation," he told the Observer newspaper in remarks published on Sunday but made before Mr Kay's statement.

"I have absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the intelligence was genuine," Mr Blair added.

Responding to questions about Mr Kay's comments, Mr Powell said it was for the weapons inspectors still in Iraq to decide if there were any weapons stocks or not, where they had gone if they had existed, and, if there were ever any weapons, why that was not known before the war.

Mr Powell acknowledged that the US thought Saddam Hussein had illegal weapons, but added: "We had questions that needed to be answered.

"What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tonnes, 500 tonnes or zero tonnes? Was it so many litres of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Backtracking

The BBC's Jon Leyne, who is travelling with Mr Powell, says the secretary of state has made a significant concession on the weapons issue.

He says Mr Powell's language was very different from that of Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said just two days ago that it was too early to pass judgement on whether weapons of mass destruction existed.

Our correspondent says that with members of the Bush administration steadily backtracking from their earlier claims, the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could have a very uncertain future once sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis at the end of June.

Mr Kay has been replaced by Charles Duelfer, a 51-year-old former UN weapons inspector, who said he would not "pre-judge" the investigation despite previously saying that he did not believe banned weapons would be found.




I think in the end, Blair, Bush and Cheney will be the only ones still pretending to believe that crap.

Like the Three Stooges.


”

“Just wanted to point out on ths thread (seeing that it'll get more play) that 60 minutes will be airing a piece about Haliburton and it's ties to Iran and Lybia tonight. Something I think everyone should watch.”

“I haven't chimed in much on this topic for quite some time. I believed the "administration" when they say there is a real concern in Iraq. And I still do. I still think they did the right thing, all along the way.

That being said, it is a real embarrassment that no WMD's have been found, or displayed in way, shape, or form. The news, and press statements have long held that this is the primary reason we went to war. It is not the only reason, however.

There is plenty of justification for this war, and I for one, feel a little safer in this world without a Sadam Hussein free to what he pleases. Remember, he poisoned the sea outside Kuwait by having his men open the oil valves. He poisoned his own people. He murdered many, personally, and ordered countless more murders. We have the ready ability to put a stop to this man, and we used it, to the distinct pleasure of many of his victims and their families.

Let's not forget, at the end of the first Iraqi war, he promised to allow many things, unfettered inspections, etc, if we stop the war he started. He did not comply. He had it coming, 10 years ago. We would never had done this with a Hitler, why did we do this with him? We kept on until we had him in WWII.

Also, let's not forget about those 3 huge freighters circlig around in some ocean, that we are monitoring. As long as they keep circling, all seems well. Boarding those ships is, at best risky, if there are "bad things" there. Those ships are in violation of international law. This could well be treated the same as the leapfrog campaign of WWII on the Pacific, where every battle was not fought, some islands were isolated and guarded. And then again, this could be nothing also.

But I don't have access to the information that the administration has. They could be overzealous in promoting this war, or they could be doing a great job of guarding the security of this world.

Just some thoughts....”

“Monkeyboy - Can I ask you how you feel safer because Saddam's gone? What did you see as the impending threat to YOU that warrented us getting in there now. Forgive me, but I'm at a loss at this line of thinking.”

“Something that has been pointed out for months on this thread as well as around the globe, and the administration is just now getting around to telling the truth.
At least we are safe from the hairy guy in the spider hole. I heard he was resurrecting Hitler from some DNA that he had stashed.”

“I believe the Bush Administration is populated with pathological liars. I could possibly entertain the notion that they are grossly incompetent as well.

Wasn't that the line they used before? "We're the gov't and we know things you don't." It turns out that anyone with half a brain had more insight than Bush.

If you believe him, be on the lookout for people trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge....”

“Laqtis and Tilt, I see some emotional feelings in your posts, I can understand it. I really don't want to get involved in a pissing match, or name calling, or pushing some innuendo about some one's intelligence.

As far as feeling safer with Saddam gone, I put it to you: How would you feel safer with Saddam back in power?

How I feel safer with him out of the picture? Let's see now, there are hundreds of thousands of people not getting murdered, some where on this planet, by some despot. Yes I am concerned about this spreading to other areas of this world. While there are still some alive from WWII , talk to some of them about the Japanese and Germans. What happened was really terrible. It really did happen, you know, or do you. I was not there, so it is hard to envision what truly happened. I am not sure I truly appreciate the depth of all that happened. But they all started out the same way Saddam was going. There is no need for this guy to be allowed to continue.

A little insight to my personal life, which may help you to see things from my perspective: I was pretty well involved in a church some years ago, for 11 years. Perhaps you have heard about churches that abuse their parishoners? (Not the ongoing Catholic style of abuse). Basically, they would hide behind clerical confidentiality and demand that folks do "this" or "that" because the Lord says so. They would tear apart families, demand the unrealistic penances, etc.... It goes on and on. I knew these "leaders" personally. I could not believe all I heard. I chalked it up to disgruntled parishoners complaining, and basically said, "I haven't seen it, and they've never tried anything like that with me". Then some elders resigned. I was later to find out that they were encouraged to join in the demanding, and they stepped down instead. Then the leaders tried it with me. I was incredulous, I couldn't believe it. Wasn't long before I left.

So back to this killing thousands. This guy hasn't tried to kill me, or my family, or anyone I know, at least, not yet. And where would his ambitions stop? So Do I ignore these actions? I truly believe this guy needed to be stopped.”

“Did Saddam cooperate with the U.N. inspections? If no, why?”

“My hypothesis: He wanted the world to think he had them, they were his ticket to power.”

“and he is a bad poker player.”

“I don't see how anyone can trust the Bush Admin. It's just that simple.

We inspect less than 1% of the containers arriving in this country yet we're spending $87 billion in Iraq where there was no threat.

'Foolhardy' is the kindest word I can muster.”

“Saddam was cooperating fully with UN inspectors after Bush's sabre-rattling. But Bush couldn't stop there for some reason.

What WAS the actual reason? That's what I want to know... and I don't mean whatever new reason the Bush Admin. came up with time after time as the others collapsed... the ACTUAL reason.

Now they purport it to be some sort of humanitarian endeavour on their part. I simply don't buy it. Their credibility was shakey in the beginning and now it's kaputt.”

“What can you and I do about it?Nothing.Your vote can do really nothing. You wait until an elite few and the press get together and exchange a bunch of favors and money-then they come up with some Kerry or Dean dude and say "Here, vote for this guy or Bush".
Let's face it,this is a single party system,which of course has two ends----if you don't know the rest .....you're normal.”

“Monkey - Not looking into getting into a pissing match wth ya. Just looking for a reasonable answer to that qustion and thank you for doing that. It's rare response. I'm not really a fan of answering a question with a question, but none the less, you asked and I will provide:

"How would you feel safer with Saddam back in power?......"

Couple of things here.

#1 I know the horrors and the struggles of the Iraqi people. I grew up hearing of Saddams treachary and sadistic ways. The man was/is pure evil and the things you/are hearing in the press about his tactics are just the tip of the iceberg. He is an enviromental criminal, a war criminal, a criminal to his own people and will quite possiblity crack the top 25 worst people to lead a country in History. His actions towards Kuwait in the Gulf were awful, many people lost there lives. His tactics he used in putting down the uprising (that we called for and did not "support"), let alone what he did to the ecosystem right after the war, were jusitfication enough for me to go in there and remove his seed right then and there. Had we worked the channels a little better, we might not have had Gulf War Redux.

#2 - Saddam is and always has been, a game player. He has that "Survivor" mentality and I quite frankly think he gets off on it. To address the meat of your question, I would have to say that I personally do not feel any safer with Saddam out. Why? Whelp, he didn't have the "Horde" at our gates, he didn't have missles aimed at my ass, he didn't release any gas on my family, hell, the man was self endulgent. He'd rather torture his own, defenseless people and build palaces than bother with the US. He knew he didn't stand a chance, Mono e Mono.

That being said, I was sold on going in based upon what our President said. I believed him. I didn't vote for him, but my Grandfather taught me that in times of crisis, no matter what, you must support our Leader and to me, this is one of the biggest crisies this Country has seen in a real long time. I no longer support this President because he used me and people like you and I to extract personal revenge, that much is clear now. Out of the two areas of concern, getting Osama means more than outsting Saddam. That much is fact to me.

The reason I asked you about how you feel you're safer was to get insight on your and others who think that line of thinking is, and call me blind here, I do not see how that's true. Now, is the region safer? Arguebly yes. I'm sure Israel is happy he's gone. I'm sure Kuwaities sleep a little better at night. Iran I'm sure is happy that butcher is gone, but saying that the area is better should go without saying, that I would say is an obvious given. Now, WILL the area continue to be safer? That's a real good question because you see, it will depend on what kind of "situation" we leave behind. Bush, after getting hammered by the people, pledged we would be out and turn the place over by the end of June, only leaving some 20,000 troops behind. If this is not another lie and we hussel on outta there, Iraq WILL become the new Afgani and Iraq WILL become a threat to us, created by us, just like Afgani. Hell, it's happening now with all of hte Arab raditcals flowing into the country. That will be and is a very interesting thing to watch.

Hoepfully, this will give just a little insight on where I come from. I don't like pissing matches myself, however, I'm prone to get into them when they involve a certain "left-coaster" whose name rhymes with phuck ad that's my fault because I shoudn't give himthe satisfaction. If he could converse such as you do, points would be made and things could be understood a lot better. Thanks again for your insight and I hope to converse with you again!”

“Pot...........yes! frying pan......................
you're black..............
.

.”

“Hmmm... Where did all this go into Iraq, and get out in a few months come from? I know America expects this. I am not aware the administration said this. Japan and Germany, after WWII had our forces overseeing them and rebuilding for more than a decade. What are we to expect today in Iraq? I think that since we started this, we ought to see it through, with as little loss of life as possible.

As far as whether Saddam was co-operating with inspectors; all I know is what the press, which is definately anti Bush by and large, was reporting. From what they reported, he was not complying, any more than a little brat child, just as he's being dragged out behind the woodshed. At least, that's my take on it.

Personally, I am saddened to see this whole sorry mess going on. Too bad we didn't have a Rambo type to go in and off him years ago, with no fanfare, and avoid this whole mess. Treat his succesor the same if he's the same. Not sure I want that kind of government either...... Just rambling...”

“Sorry, I hate to respond this way, but this is the only way I can keep on track:

"Where did all this go into Iraq, and get out in a few months come from?...."

I'm guessing from what I remember about the events, that it came from when many people were #&%!$ing about a lack of exit plan. I deon't fully expect to see us outta there by then, however, it is what the President said. Whether he said it to just appease the masses....


I agree with the rest of your following statement and the flip-flopping on Iraqi policy is one thing that really tans my hide. Now that we're knee deep, let's take that shovel and get to it. I don't like being there, but leaving quickly would be worse.


As far as I can tell, Saddam started his whole "shuck and jive" thing all over again when we threaten force. One of the issues was "that we've been down this road before" and "he hasn't complied before, what's to say he willnow" type stuff. He was trying to reset the situation and get the UN to prolong it, so that Bush would look bad and we would throw him out, alla (no pun intended) Bush I.

I, too, share your discontent with what going on, that's why I can't sit by and watch. I fight for what I believe in, right or wrong. That's why I love America and hate to see her struggle.......”

“Laqtis, I haven't read everything printed from the administration, and often all the news gives out are sound bites. When you say "it is what the President said"; exactly what did the President say? Is there a link to what he said, so I may see it in quotes. There is, as always, a lot of "I heard him say this from someone else, or someone said he said that." There is also a lot of emotion running on this subject. I have never heard him give a short timetable to leave, only that it is a long road, or things along those lines. America wants it now, we are the "me now" generation.....”

“Monkey - Rodger that and understandable. It'll take some time here as I'm ready to leave fer the evening (not a dismisal!) soon, but....

Funny thing off question that I found when I reset the date range (cause I thought info was on this thread, but it might be on another thread), I came across this little ditty:

Wouldn't surprise me if we now hear Rumsfeld say the Syrians have the Iraqi WMDs, then once Syria is Invaded it'll be Iran........"
ynamiynami
02:32:22 PM
04/09/03

What makes it funny is that I JUST heard that same chit on reported on Fox. WoW! This board is more monitored than I thought :)

Monkey - Pls give me some time here to pull it up. I'm almost out he door for activities (the work of a Weslian Anarchist is never done...) but I don't want you to think I'm blowing you off. Cool?”

“all is cool”

“Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
By Con Coughlin
(Filed: 25/01/2004)


David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam
Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week
resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had
uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to
Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he
said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi
officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war,
including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what
went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that
needs to be resolved."

Dr Kay's comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad
to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam's regime and
details of Syria's WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was
entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and
chemical weapons arsenal.

Syria was one of Iraq's main allies in the run-up to the war and
hundreds of Iraqi officials - including members of Saddam's family -
were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi
dictator's regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for
conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to
have entered Iraq through Syria.

A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been
raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves
that they are false."”

“I would really like to see independent investigations into the mass hysteria generated by the bush/cheney administration over WMD's in Iraq. I would like to see an independent investigation into the World Trade Center disaster.

I believe they hold some culpability & civil liability into all these American deaths for dubious reasons.”

“It is interesting as to whee the WMD are. Are they on the freighters steaming in circles, are they in Syria, are they....

If they ARE, they are well hidden.....

If they aren't, there seems to be innaccurate intelligence on the subject. I just can't imagine how they got it so wrong that there are none.....”

“Yes, it's amazing how many excuses the Republicans can manufacture.

"They're in Syria"

"It's the fault of the intelligence community"


They've been floating that Syria line for months (mostly on fringe websites) and it still can't be confirmed by anyone.

And didn't the intelligence community tell Bush et al. NOT to rely on the flakey WMD reports? And now THEY are being blamed? How grimly comical.”

“No less than Condi Rice debunked that WMD to Syria rumor not too long ago. The ‘3 Iraqi mystery ships’ was debunked by US intelligence almost a year ago. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is silly on many levels.”

“Well, at least we know that Rush is on crack.”