CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Recommends freeing detainees held for weapons knowledge

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

U.S. study: Iraq likely didn't ship WMD to Syria

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is unlikely Iraq shipped banned weapons material into Syria before the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, according to report released by the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA/Pentagon team searching for Iraqi weapons programs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/26/iraq.main/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Absolutly no WMD's. Understand?

The first article mentions that some nuclear equipment may have been looted. It was quite convienent of the to leave out why...
++++++++++++++++++++====

Could Bush's Baghdad Blunder Lead to Nukes in New York?

With insufficient levels of troops on the ground, however, the U.S. had to prioritize. And so, American soldiers, while promptly guarding Iraq's oil fields, left its nuclear sites wholly vulnerable. "The International Atomic Energy Agency has found reports of looting at Iraq's nuclear facilities ‘disturbing’ and repeated its request Washington allow it to inspect them," the UPI reported in early May, 2003. "A dispute between Washington and the U.N. nuclear watchdog on what role the IAEA should play in postwar Iraq has delayed inspections of Tuwaitha's nuclear storage depots," CBS reported around the same time.

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/10/far04035.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just for fun lets look at another old link...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bush confident of finding banned Iraqi weapons
President hits back at critics on WMD question
Wednesday, June 18, 2003 Posted: 2:12 AM EDT (0612 GMT)

President Bush tells an audience at a Virginia community college that Iraq's Saddam Hussein "is no longer a threat to the free world."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush dismissed what he called "revisionist history" about the war in Iraq on Tuesday, and his spokesman said the president is still confident a Pentagon-led search will find Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/17/bush.iraq/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Die for oil suckers" - Cheney bin BushCo

how many times is the right wing media going to come out with this story?

Well, Trav, it is the CIA's FINAL (I repeat, FINAL) report. They want it beaten into our brains, lest we forget, or even attempt to think otherwise.

But, I wonder... how many reports will it take to bring the public percentage up to 90% as to those who think Bush deliberately misled us into war? :confused:

Originally posted by saycricket
But, I wonder... how many reports will it take to bring the public percentage up to 90% as to those who think Bush deliberately misled us into war? :confused:

It will never happen. The sheople cannot think for themselves. The only believe what their almighty ruler tells them to believe. And he has stated unequivocally that he does not make mistakes.

echo, for someone who copies and pastes 95% of her "original" posts, saying the "sheeple" cant think for themselves is laughable.

and please, as has been asked of me many times, givee us some proof we only believe what our leader tells us to believe, or that we think he doesnt make mistakes.

Originally posted by Travh20
echo, for someone who copies and pastes 95% of her "original" posts, saying the "sheeple" cant think for themselves is laughable.
Ummm, she does? I don't think so. She posts a lot of threads, but never says they are hers. And, I doubt 95% of the things she posts are "copy and pasted"

I never said she said they were hers. I know echos writing, and I know 95% of the threads she starts are copied and pasted from some other site. back off concubine

well.. at least we know 100%....

Originally posted by Decka
well.. at least we know 100%....

True.

We know 100% that GWBush is a fucking liar.

We know 100% that they lied about WMD's in order to get their little oil war off the ground.

We now know 100% that it was about OIL, and NOT about the bogus fucking "WMDs" that were claimed to exist.

We know 100% that Bush and his co-conspirators KNEW the WMD tales they were telling were lies.

We know 100% that at least 50% [IOW, the Conservazombies] of the American Public who vote are fucking morons with their heads in the sand, gullible idiots who believe anything BushCo tells them.

Originally posted by Freethinker
True.
We know 100% that at least 50% [IOW, the Conservazombies] of the American Public who vote are fucking morons with their heads in the sand, gullible idiots who believe anything BushCo tells them.

You left out the part about these [/b]Conservazombies[/b] being murderers ... 1500 dead troops ... 100,000 dead civilian Iraquis.

Every person that voted for this war belongs in Den Hague.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing

Every person that voted for this war belongs in Den Hague.

I do not consider what they did ---in voting for Bush's oil war-- to be criminal.

Just insane.

I view "Conservatism" as a form of mental disorder.

Originally posted by Freethinker


We know 100% that at least 50% [IOW, the Conservazombies] of the American Public who vote are fucking morons with their heads in the sand, gullible idiots who believe anything BushCo tells them.

I hate to complain, but pagan, how many of these are you going to overlook to find my use of the word liberal and point it out in every post?

I wonder, if Bush would go as far as deliberately lying and fabricating evidence so he could go to war, wouldn't he have planted some WMDs in Iraq to back up his claims?

thas exactly what I am saying. if bush was as evil as he is made out to be they would have found nukes in iraq, bin laden, and the terroist report would say there was no terrorist attacks at all. Micheal moore would have died mysteriously and a whole host of other things. of course we will be lead to believe the fact that these things did not happen just shows how clever carl rove is.

Originally posted by Travh20
thas exactly what I am saying. if bush was as evil as he is made out to be they would have found nukes in iraq, bin laden, and the terroist report would say there was no terrorist attacks at all. Micheal moore would have died mysteriously and a whole host of other things. of course we will be lead to believe the fact that these things did not happen just shows how clever carl rove is.

Philosophically speaking, you are correct except there is no way bush or the cia or the fbi or the xyz can fake a major wmd program and get away with it.

Those programs are being monitored by countries around the world and they would not only call his bluff, they would make an asshole of him for lieing on the world stage.

That's why he didn't fake the wmd's -- it can't be done.

they couldnt go out and bury a few dozen barrels of WMD's in the desert? come on dop, your conspiracy skills are slipping. anyone who could conspire to fly planes into the WTC and fool the world could find a way to "discover" a few jars of anthrax

Originally posted by Travh20
they couldnt go out and bury a few dozen barrels of WMD's in the desert?

bwahahahahahahahah - YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING.

no I am not kidding echo. if you are going to go to great lengths to "lie" about WMD's to the entire world, including altering the intelligence of other countries, why wouldnt you make sure there were some there to "find"?

There is no way in hell that could be faked. Think about it. We invade iraq and all we find is a hole in the ground with a couple nuclear bombs in it. No infrastructure on making them, no trail of how they got there, no miliary machinary to deploy them. But low and behold, a couple dozen counties can trace the movement (by satelite) of American special forces moving large truckloads of something to that very spot in the desert only two months earlier.

It would leak out. It would take too many people to move them, get them their, dig a hole, bury them, and then run like hell.

Our government can't even deliver a letter on time, do you really expect them to pull off something like that?

No trav -- they advertised major wmd's not a couple of b-b guns and a vile of carbona furniture polish.

They talked about hundreds of thousands of pounds (or gallons whatever) of chemical warfare and nuclear weapons, complete with delivery vehicles that could attack on 45 minutes notice -- they tralked about yellowcake refinement which requires buildings the size of a college campus ... that's what they would have to produce ... anything less and they look like liars.

Then while they try to convice the world, every other country that tracks this stuff would be showing no signs of any of these weapons on their satellite data ... it would be a hard sell.

well they seemed to do a good job of cooking up 9-11

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
No trav -- they advertised major wmd's not a couple of b-b guns and a vile of carbona furniture polish.

Let's define "they" a little better:

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

" We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has 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

Originally posted by Echo2
There is no way in hell that could be faked. Think about it. We invade iraq and all we find is a hole in the ground with a couple nuclear bombs in it. No infrastructure on making them, no trail of how they got there, no miliary machinary to deploy them. But low and behold, a couple dozen counties can trace the movement (by satelite) of American special forces moving large truckloads of something to that very spot in the desert only two months earlier.

It would leak out. It would take too many people to move them, get them their, dig a hole, bury them, and then run like hell.

Our government can't even deliver a letter on time, do you really expect them to pull off something like that?
Who said the weapons had to be nuclear? Nasty chemical weapons, which could've easily been produced, are capable of killing millions, and would have worked flawlessly in duping the world into believing anything our intelligence found. You don't think the US is capable of pulling the wool over other people's eyes? C'mon, give us some fucking credit...

Originally posted by saycricket
Well, Trav, it is the CIA's FINAL (I repeat, FINAL) report. They want it beaten into our brains, lest we forget, or even attempt to think otherwise.

But, I wonder... how many reports will it take to bring the public percentage up to 90% as to those who think Bush deliberately misled us into war? :confused: he did !!!!! he had a war, and just needed a reason. the fbi, and the cia were easy scapegoats.....like ollie north !!! but i like bush, he gave america what it needed. a wake up call on thinking that just because we hear a polititian, or see him in person, does not give us an open door to the knowledge of his premise !! we are terrible judges of character......all of us

Originally posted by Brooks
Let's define "they" a little better:

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

" We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has 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


All of those quotes were made either before the 2000 inspections of his country, or because Bush, and his whole Admin. made speech after speech saying he had weapons. Basically manipulating the senators. Nice try, though. And are they the ones who decided to launch war? No.

Were they all wrong or did the weapons disappear?

The timing of Ms. Albright's statement (of November of 1999) doesn't fit well with your premise.

And don't you think VP Gore's statements a year and a half after he left office might be based on some knowledge other than what President Bush said?

Originally posted by Overdose
All of those quotes were made either before the 2000 inspections of his country,

To what inspections are you referring?

Originally posted by Jester
I wonder, if Bush would go as far as deliberately lying and fabricating evidence so he could go to war, wouldn't he have planted some WMDs in Iraq to back up his claims? NO !@ you dont get it. he knew that if the weapons failed, he already had your ass thinking about those " poor iraqi's without our freedoms" ( imagine the manipulation in that ) we were just bombed and pissed, and he had us worrying about them ). and then, if that didnt get you, his failsafe was the "BAD INTELLIGENCE ". by that time, we were already at war !

"As the Bush-appointed *Commission on As the Bush-appointed Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United StatesRegarding Weapons of Mass Destruction report makes indelibly clear, the U.N. inspectors -- who exercised extraordinary access in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion -- were right. From the aluminum tubes debunked by the U.S. Energy Department to the Africa uranium story debunked by Ambassador Joe Wilson, from the anthrax-laden drone aircraft that White House briefers told senators threatened Florida to Curveball's futuristic-sounding mobile bio-weapons labs that have never been found, Powell and the White House were, as the president's commission has just unanimously concluded, "dead wrong." "________Robert Scheer

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/21680/

again, *bush appointed* people are telling us that they were all wrong. where is the grand conspiracy in that? shouldnt a *bush appointed* comision be saying what bush wants us to hear?

seriously, just like national security, the jackass leftwingers like freethinker use *bush appointed* to bash uus over the head. one day a bush appointed investigation cant be trusted, the next day we have to believe it becasue it is *bush appointed* what a crock of shit. face it, you believe what you want to believe

Originally posted by Travh20
again, *bush appointed* people are telling us that they were all wrong.

Doesn't matter.

The Conservazombies (and you seem to be the poster boy) will not pull their heads out of the sand and listen.

Originally posted by Travh20
where is the grand conspiracy in that?

No conspiracy is being implied by anyone I know of regarding the Commisssion that Bush appointed.

The conspiracy was the pack of goddamned lies Bush and his people fed the American sheeple in order to drag them into a war.

Originally posted by Travh20
seriously, just like national security, the jackass leftwingers like freethinker use *bush appointed* to bash uus over the head.

You've taken leave of your senses, evidently.

I simply quoted Robert Scheer. He included in the article the information that Bush appointed the commission........a mention he made, it seems to me, for one reason only; to lend their finding some bit of legitimacy in the eyes of the average rightwing cretin reading the article...

...if the Democrats had appointed the Commision, the conservatives reading the article would have simply dismissed their findings as partisan........IOW, I believe Scheer's point was that --- "Look, even Bush's OWN commission is saying this, so it must be given credibility".

Originally posted by Travh20
again, *bush appointed* people are telling us that they were all wrong. where is the grand conspiracy in that? shouldnt a *bush appointed* comision be saying what bush wants us to hear?

they did, we were very pissed after 911, and wanted revenge. you cant reason with an angry crowd, so you tell them what they want to hear. " we're gonna get those bastards " . and like usual, we dont even care if its the wrong people, " just kill someone baby ". travh, the real truth would not have made him as popular as he is now. imagine him saying;"we know osama did it, but we cant find his ass ".

yor righty freethinker, he added it was a bush appointed thing to give it some credibility, tomorrow you will point out it is a bush appointed thing to show it cant be trusted.

Originally posted by Freethinker
the U.N. inspectors -- who exercised extraordinary access in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion ....

Say what?

Brooks

Were they all wrong or did the weapons disappear?
They were wrong. Or, Bush was wrong. He was the one who said Saddam had the weapons, and he was the one who told Congress that Saddam had weapons. He gave them "proof" and basically manipulated them into thinking Saddam had weapons. That's why the Democrats said he had weapons.

And for Clintons statements, he was going off old weapons inspections. They searched Saddam after Clinton was President, and they came out with a new weapons report, that showed no weapons.

So Kennedy and Gore's statements of September of 2002 were just based on their blind faith in President Bush?

Originally posted by Travh20
yor righty freethinker, he added it was a bush appointed thing to give it some credibility, tomorrow you will point out it is a bush appointed thing to show it cant be trusted.

Actually, you're correct on both counts.

The writer Robert Scheer --I believe-- wanted to mention that the Commission was Bush's own, in order to send the message to certain readers who are reluctant to hear ANYTHING bad said about the Bush Administration-- "Hey, if you won't listen to the people that Bush himself appointed, who WILL you listen to?!?"

I, OTOH, would not trust anything that Bush and his band of fascists had a hand in.....they are the most thoroughly dishonest, lying and despicable band of thugs I have ever seen or read about in my entire lfe.

Even if Bush's Commission is admitting some level of complicity or wrongdoing on Bush's part and the part of his co-conspirators, they are still soft-soaping it, and fail to go far enough in their condemnation.

Bush is the head of the nation that is the world's number one exporter of terrorism. He and his henchmen orchestrated a campaign of lies to foment an illegal and unjust war of aggression. He deserves to be tried in the World Court for crimes against humanity.

Originally posted by Brooks
So Kennedy and Gore's statements of September of 2002 were just based on their blind faith in President Bush?
Their statements were influenced by George Bush, Ms. Rice, Powell and others saying and showing "proof" to Congress about Saddam having weapons. Regardless, what if the Democrats said these things? Those are 2 Democrats you have, out of millions. Besides, George Bush made the final decision. He is to blame, the buck stops at the top.

Originally posted by Overdose
Their statements were influenced by George Bush, Ms. Rice, Powell and others saying and showing "proof" to Congress about Saddam having weapons. Regardless, what if the Democrats said these things? Those are 2 Democrats you have, out of millions. Besides, George Bush made the final decision. He is to blame, the buck stops at the top.

but you can't say they didnt support it......

for YEARS they were for action against Saddam....

and you're saying Bush controlled EVERY SINGLE piece of intel they got about saddam? LOL

So if you are pissed at bush for going to war, be pissed at the democrats for also wanting it, until it was convenient for them to jump ship.

but you can't say they didnt support it......
And you can't blame them for supporting it when they are given false infomation and facts.

for YEARS they were for action against Saddam....
For years either

1. Before the UN Inspections during when Bush was in office.

or

2. Because Bush manipulated them into thinking Saddam had weapons.

and you're saying Bush controlled EVERY SINGLE piece of intel they got about saddam? LOL
Did I say he controlled "every single piece of intel" No, I don't think I did. But he did give speech after speech, and his intelligence agency that he approved of, gave out the infomation on the Iraq War. And, he used infomation that he gave Congress that he knew was fraud worthy. Chalabi was a man who we used for infomation regarding Saddam's WMD production. He was at Bush's State of the Union Address and we used him as some of our "facts", but Congress and others had no idea. Chalabi was a crook we arrested after we got the OK to launch war on Iraq.

Trust me, Bush did in many ways manipulate a whole country.

So if you are pissed at bush for going to war, be pissed at the democrats for also wanting it, until it was convenient for them to jump ship.
Why would I be pissed at the Democrats? They were given bad infomation, by George Bush. I blame Bush for giving them wrong infomation, since he is, after all, the President. It's funny how you hold Bush to a lower standard then others. He is the President. The buck stops at the top. He is to blame, for he is the President. Period.

hey you can blame him all you want... it doesnt matter to me

if the same circumstances were put into place again.... i would put 1+1 together AGAIN and support getting Saddam out AGAIN.

i'm not the kind of person who changes his opinion based on hindsight.....

And you want to talk about standards.... why do you treat all these democrats like children, saying they were manipulated by president bush.... they are ADULTS ... arent they? if someone tells you to do something, and you do it, you are held accountable..... Democrats had PLENTY of intel that WASN'T from president bush, and came to the conclusion that Saddam needed to be taken down.... what a concept? Stop letting these guys off the hook so easy geez.

Hey, i LIKE that the democrats like Kerry and Gore wanted to take Saddam down.... what i DONT like is them backing out, and i DONT like how you just wipe away any involvement with it... and i DONT like how you treat them like mindless idiots who only do what Bush tells them to do LOL.... if that's the case, than treat them like that all the time. Maybe its a GOOD thing none of those guys saw the white house when one of the card-carrying democrats doesn't even have enough faith in either and has to make 2nd grade excuses for them.

And while you reality-TV-watching, conspiracy-craving liberals want to beleive that Bush is deliberately trying to do all these EVIL things, somehow i sense its much more innocent and boring than you think.

hey you can blame him all you want... it doesnt matter to me
Why wouldn't I blame him? He's the President. The buck stops at the top.

if the same circumstances were put into place again.... i would put 1+1 together AGAIN and support getting Saddam out AGAIN.
And?

i'm not the kind of person who changes his opinion based on hindsight.....
Wait, why can't you change your opinion based on new infomation and facts?

And you want to talk about standards.... why do you treat all these democrats like children, saying they were manipulated by president bush.... they are ADULTS ... arent they?
I don't treat them like children. And, George Bush was the one who was feeding them the infomation through his intelligence community. The Democrats trusted that the Presiden was giving them valid infomation, he wasn't. They took the infomation they thought was true (for they trusted him) and agreed with the Iraq War. Now, we find that Bush was wrong. We were mislead. Why shouldn't we be allowed to blame the President? He's the TOP office in our country. HE is the leader of our country. All fault is on his shoulders once he takes the oath to be our President.

Democrats had PLENTY of intel that WASN'T from president bush, and came to the conclusion that Saddam needed to be taken down.... what a concept? Stop letting these guys off the hook so easy geez.
Yes, we had intel tht wasn't from President Bush. But a lot of it was, and we put forth trust in our President. And, why wouldn't I let my guys off the hook? They aren't the President, and they didn't make the final decision to launch war. Bush did.

Hey, i LIKE that the democrats like Kerry and Gore wanted to take Saddam down.... what i DONT like is them backing out, and i DONT like how you just wipe away any involvement with it...
They aren't and will never be for wiping away all involvement. We are in Iraq, we must fix or try to fix the mess we have created.

and i DONT like how you treat them like mindless idiots who only do what Bush tells them to do
Decka, you really have no grasp of reality, do you? George Bush and his Administration was giving speech after speech. Feeding everyone in Congress and America these false "facts" Of COURSE Congress is going to put faith in their President after something like 9/11 happened. Why would we have reason to doubt our President's reasons, when our country was attacked just a few months prior? He took our faith, which we got from 9/11 and used it to his advantage.

Don't tell me we are mindless idiots. I had faith in George Bush prior to the war. I believed him, and I honestly thought he was telling the truth. He wasn't. He used my emotion after 9/11 so he could launch a war on false reasons. He took all of our faith, American spirit, trust, and dragged it through the mud.

In Congress and all around America we were one America. Not two different parties. We trusted Bush, after 9/11. Almost all Democrats did. And when you say we are mindless, you have fallen ill to what really happened. We were attacked, Decka. It took all Americans by an emotional surprise. We were all hurt. We all wanted to do what was best for our country. We wanted to stand behind our leader and go forward on this fight against terrorism. George Bush said Saddam had large links to terrorism and WMDs. That he was a threat to our security. Not wanting to have another 9/11, Democrats trusted George Bush. We knew he cared about America, and we didn't think he would mislead us. He did. He took our trust and ruined it.

We were not mindless idiots. We were people who tried to have faith in our leader.

So here is a big fuck you, for laughing and saying "LOL" when we felt betrayed by someone we tried to trust after such a horrific event.

OD, are you back to saying bush lied again? for a while there you had said he didnt lie. let me guess, you got some new information and changed your mind, again.

Originally posted by Travh20
OD, are you back to saying bush lied again? for a while there you had said he didnt lie. let me guess, you got some new information and changed your mind, again.
I said he mislead us, and gave us bits and parts of the whole truth. Only using the "factual" infomation, that he thought was okay to share. So, yes, he did mislead us.

what is the difference between lied and mislead?

Originally posted by Travh20
what is the difference between lied and mislead?
Lets see...

Lying is when you give infomation that is 100% not true.

Misleading is when you give only bits of the infomation that fits your agenda. That's what Bush did. He gave infomation that helped his case, but didn't give the other facts that were out at the time, because it may have shown people that this war was not okay.

Yes, he gave "facts" or some "facts" when he showed us proof for the war. But he mislead us, because he didn't give us all the other facts, I'm sure he had prior to the war.

Originally posted by Overdose
In Congress and all around America we were one America. Not two different parties. We trusted Bush, after 9/11. Almost all Democrats did. And when you say we are mindless, you have fallen ill to what really happened. We were attacked, Decka. It took all Americans by an emotional surprise. We were all hurt. We all wanted to do what was best for our country. We wanted to stand behind our leader and go forward on this fight against terrorism. George Bush said Saddam had large links to terrorism and WMDs. That he was a threat to our security. Not wanting to have another 9/11, Democrats trusted George Bush. We knew he cared about America, and we didn't think he would mislead us. He did. He took our trust and ruined it.

WOW! - OD, you did a fine job. This paragraph sums the situation up in its entirety. Thank you!

yes, thats a great sob story, worthy of a sunday night movie of the week, unfortunatly, the senate intelligence comittee gets all the same intel bush gets, they never said anything about it. If I am correct, there are democrats on that comitee.

Trav, the point was that OD summed America's feelings up on one paragraph. You have to admit, you felt the same way, whether or not you believe the war was warranted.

the only problem is that the war in iraq hapend a couple of years after 9-11. the good ties had already dissapeared by the time the build up to iraq began. the senators holding hands singing god bless america on the steps of the capitaol was only a bad memory when we first ehard the term "wmd's"

Originally posted by Overdose
[
In Congress and all around America we were one America. Not two different parties. We trusted Bush, after 9/11. Almost all Democrats did. And when you say we are mindless, you have fallen ill to what really happened. We were attacked, Decka. It took all Americans by an emotional surprise. We were all hurt. We all wanted to do what was best for our country. We wanted to stand behind our leader and go forward on this fight against terrorism. George Bush said Saddam had large links to terrorism and WMDs. That he was a threat to our security. Not wanting to have another 9/11, Democrats trusted George Bush. We knew he cared about America, and we didn't think he would mislead us. He did. He took our trust and ruined it.

We were not mindless idiots. We were people who tried to have faith in our leader.

So here is a big fuck you, for laughing and saying "LOL" when we felt betrayed by someone we tried to trust after such a horrific event. [/B]man OD, that was a great piece of literature. you have always hit home with good points.......

Originally posted by korg
man OD, that was a great piece of literature. you have always hit home with good points.......
Thank you.

Yes, that was an emotional, well written paragraph, but based on some great leaps of faith.

One of the biggest is that the former Vice President, after seeing 8 years of intelligence, based his post 9/11 statements about Hussein solely on what President Bush said.

Decka is right. These guys publicly supported the war when it was popular, and then bad polls sent them running.

Here's a more cynical thought: perhaps they weren't behind it in the first place. Maybe their SUPPORT was poll driven.

Originally posted by saycricket
Trav, the point was that OD summed America's feelings up on one paragraph. You have to admit, you felt the same way, whether or not you believe the war was warranted.

i know you were talking to trav, but for me, bush was a sack of shit before he was elected, and is still a sack of shit.
i smelled a rat from day one of his getting elected. i smelled a rat when 9/11 happened. and i still smell a fuckin rat. it's name is george w. bush.

Originally posted by ivan
i know you were talking to trav, but for me, bush was a sack of shit before he was elected, and is still a sack of shit.

based off of all these pictures... if BUSH is a sack of shit, then what the hell are you?

Originally posted by Decka
based off of all these pictures... if BUSH is a sack of shit, then what the hell are you?

at least i haven't lied to millions, and lined the pockets of his rich boy buddies, and rip off the poor.

Brooks
One of the biggest is that the former Vice President, after seeing 8 years of intelligence, based his post 9/11 statements about Hussein solely on what President Bush said.
Okay, so you have ONE Democrat who thought Saddam had weapons, not because of Bush, but because of his own research. Okay, so you have one out of all the Congressmen, and all the Democrats in America. Wow, I'm sure proud of you.

Decka is right. These guys publicly supported the war when it was popular, and then bad polls sent them running.
They supported the war when they thought Saddam was a threat (because of what Bush told them) and then changed their minds when we went to Iraq and found out that he wasn't a threat to our security and that the WMD/ties to terrorism argunments were not or hardly valid. Sorry, but we have a right to change our minds if the first 2 reasons for going into Iraq, were deemed false.

Originally posted by Overdose


They supported the war when they thought Saddam was a threat (because of what Bush told them)

here you go... treating them like children again.... that is such a crock LOL... these "adults" cannot answer for themselves

Originally posted by Overdose

Okay, so you have ONE Democrat who thought Saddam had weapons, not because of Bush, but because of his own research. Okay, so you have one out of all the Congressmen, and all the Democrats in America. Wow, I'm sure proud of you.


Actually, most of those quotes were from 1998. I didn't think a Texas Governor held that much sway with Democrats in Washington back then. My guess would be it wasn't Governor Bush's influence. Call me crazy.

Thanks for the endorsement. Earning your pride means so much to me (and to think, we've had three exchanges without your witty riposte of calling me retarded)

Gonna repost

Originally posted by Decka
here you go... treating them like children again.... that is such a crock LOL... these "adults" cannot answer for themselves
I already answered this statement.

In Congress and all around America we were one America. Not two different parties. We trusted Bush, after 9/11. Almost all Democrats did. And when you say we are mindless, you have fallen ill to what really happened. We were attacked, Decka. It took all Americans by an emotional surprise. We were all hurt. We all wanted to do what was best for our country. We wanted to stand behind our leader and go forward on this fight against terrorism. George Bush said Saddam had large links to terrorism and WMDs. That he was a threat to our security. Not wanting to have another 9/11, Democrats trusted George Bush. We knew he cared about America, and we didn't think he would mislead us. He did. He took our trust and ruined it.

We were not mindless idiots. We were people who tried to have faith in our leader.

So here is a big fuck you, for laughing and saying "LOL" when we felt betrayed by someone we tried to trust after such a horrific event.

But of course, you are so narrow-minded you don't understand the emotion Democrats felt after 9/11 and you can't even fathom that we might have been emotionally hurt and that we wanted to try and have faith and trust in our leader. You just laugh it off. You are honestly hurting my feelings, Decka. And that is why I am getting so angry.

You don't even know how hurt I was after 9/11 or all the Democrats in congress. We wanted to trust Bush, and we did. Decka, go get some respect.


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

Brooks


Actually, most of those quotes were from 1998. I didn't think a Texas Governor held that much sway with Democrats in Washington. My guess would be it wasn't Governor Bush's influence. Call me crazy.
Even better, now you have no point to prove. In 1998 we didn't have the UN Inspections that occured during Bush's first term. Which thus means, he had old infomation to go on when he made those quotes.

we've had three exchanges without your witty riposte of calling me retarded)
Are you still bitter about that? Are you still going to cry over that? Honestly, get over it. Be a man, and get the hell over it. You say I'm childish for saying that to you, but what's even more childish, is the fact that you can't just let it go.

Wow.

Originally posted by Overdose
I already answered this statement.

We trusted Bush, after 9/11. Almost all Democrats did.

Their "support" of President was because they felt united as Americans. But they wanted another administration that would respond with tersely worded warnings and threats.

Originally posted by Brooks
Their "support" of President was because they felt united as Americans. But they wanted another administration that would respond with tersely worded warnings and threats.
No we didn't. That's such a lie. I supported Bush and I wanted him in office, because I put most of my political opinions behind, and agreed with his world action. That is such a lie, we didn't want another Administration. We wanted one America to go fight. And we had Bush, so we stood behind him. Until we found out we were mislead.

Originally posted by Overdose

Even better, now you have no point to prove. In 1998 we didn't have the UN Inspections that occured during Bush's first term. Which thus means, he had old infomation to go on when he made those quotes.


Are you referring to the Hans Blix January 2003 inspections when the UN had to call ahead and tell which sites they were going to inspect?

So when the Dems made those statements in 1998 were they right? If so, where did the weapons go?

Originally posted by Overdose

Are you still bitter about that? Are you still going to cry over that? Honestly, get over it. Be a man, and get the hell over it. You say I'm childish for saying that to you, but what's even more childish, is the fact that you can't just let it go.

Wow.

I never called it childish because I have children and they don't resort to that in an argument. It just sums you up.

Are you referring to the Hans Blix January 2003 inspections when the UN had to call ahead and tell which sites they were going to inspect?
I'm sure Saddam could move hundreds of weapons across Iraq while the inspections were going on, without anyone seeing them. With all the satelites(don't know if I spelled that right), I'm sure we could have seen them moving.

All eyes were on Iraq during those inspections. He couldn't have moved tons and tons of weapons without anyone seeing.

So when the Dems made those statements in 1998 were they right? If so, where did the weapons go?
They were wrong, because they were going off of infomation that wasn't true.

Where did the weapons go? Saddam disarmed. He got rid of the weapons.

I never called it childish because I have children and they don't resort to that in an argument. It just sums you up.
Brooks, how about you be an adult and just drop it and stop bringing it up? Did it really hurt you that much? Did a 15 year old really offend you to the point where you have to bring it up months after it was said?

Jeez, and it's always the republicans telling the liberals to stop being offended.

Originally posted by Brooks
Were they all wrong ...

It turns out they were all wrong.

Originally posted by Brooks
or did the weapons disappear?

They "disappeared" thru several means. Some [most] of the time-sensitve biologicals went out of date. Many were destroyed under the aegis of the weapons inspections programs. The vast majority of the stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles were destroyed by the Iraqis themselves, just as Iraq had claimed.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

Originally posted by Brooks
Their "support" of President was because they felt united as Americans. But they wanted another administration that would respond with tersely worded warnings and threats. no, they wanted someone who would BOMB THE RIGHT DAMN COUNTRY !!!. mr brooks, most of those guys were saudi. why wouldnt it make more sense to bomb them ? but it makes sense now, ( not that it didnt before), look at the cost of gas. i am convinced that this was all about money, and oil !!!!! that's it !

Originally posted by korg
mr brooks, most of those guys were saudi. why wouldnt it make more sense to bomb them ?

I think 15 of the 19 were Saudi. By your reasoning SA should get 75% of the bombs? If one was Lebanese, should Beirut get bombed. Suppose one was born in England?

Let's say we really wanted to attack Iraq. The Iraqi leaders would have been smart enough to realize it. Why would they intentionally not live up to the UN sanctions that guaranteed they would be attacked.

A couple of posts back OD said that many of the weapons were probably destroyed. When they destroyed their weapons, they were supposed to keep a record (video) of the weapons' destruction. Why didn't they do that?

Couple the fact that the entire political structure of the United Stated government concluded that these weapons existed. Without the benefit of selective memory, the entire operation was justified.

I wish the Democrats had their hindsight before the events unfolded. We'd never make a mistake.

I think 15 of the 19 were Saudi. By your reasoning SA should get 75% of the bombs?
He's just showing that far more were Saudi, and none were from Iraq. It does not make sense to attack Iraq first and never attack the Saudi Government who helped those 15 hijackers.

Why would they intentionally not live up to the UN sanctions that guaranteed they would be attacked.
But they did live up to the sanctions, and we found no weapons.

A couple of posts back OD said that many of the weapons were probably destroyed. When they destroyed their weapons, they were supposed to keep a record (video) of the weapons' destruction. Why didn't they do that?
If you could give me proof that they had to keep a record video, I'd like to see it. I've never heard that. And regardless, we sent the inspectors into Iraq to see if he still had the weapons, so that was the way we found we could check.

Couple the fact that the entire political structure of the United Stated government concluded that these weapons existed.
We were not 100% sure, and we had UN Reports of no weapons that went against everything Bush was saying.


Oh and Brooks...I see you didn't reply to

I'm sure Saddam could move hundreds of weapons across Iraq while the inspections were going on, without anyone seeing them. With all the satelites(don't know if I spelled that right), I'm sure we could have seen them moving.

All eyes were on Iraq during those inspections. He couldn't have moved tons and tons of weapons without anyone seeing.
Figures.

OD is convinced hindsight is the best way to fight wars and win arguments

OD, i couldnt have said it better. its just funny. if im hanging with a friend, and he tells me to do something illegal, and i do it, who should get into trouble ? i should ! it just doesnt matter what the dems thought or did, they didnt bomb the man, bush did ! i dont mind our president bombing a country for a good reason, this wasnt it ! you can say all you want , about what this man COULD have done, but korea is in the same position ! how come they cant send some koreans over here and have them bomb something ? why do we treat them differently, they hate us ( for our freedoms :rolleyes: ). and they profess to have what we bombed iraq for ! you guys are smart, but this defense of bush, to the core, disturbs me. you wouldnt be defending a dem like this if he'd done it, so its partisan, and scary ! i am NOT a partisan person, i dont care one way or the other. where i live, the mayor is a dem, and the county exec is a republican. do you know which one is fucking up the most ? its a damn tie ! we have a control board because of our mayor, and the county exec has just fucked everything up, and we no longer have parks to go to ! imagine that ! dems and reps are just divide and conquer specialist ! stop defending this man !

Originally posted by korg
korea is in the same position ! how come they cant send some koreans over here and have them bomb something ? why do we treat them differently,

Because, as everyone knows, Bush and his sycophantic followers are cowards.....the attack on Iraq had virtually NOTHING to do wih any supposed threat that they posed to this nation, but was because Iraq possessed huge OIL reserves that the despicable PNAC types --as was so well documented by their earier proclamations--- wanted for their own.

Originally posted by Overdose

Oh and Brooks...I see you didn't reply to

I'm sure Saddam could move hundreds of weapons across Iraq while the inspections were going on, without anyone seeing them. With all the satelites(don't know if I spelled that right), I'm sure we could have seen them moving.

All eyes were on Iraq during those inspections. He couldn't have moved tons and tons of weapons without anyone seeing.
Figures.

Iraq is the size of California and Hans Blix had to say ahead of time where they were going to inspect. Hundreds of weapons? One medium sized missile with VX gas can kill ten thousand people. How big or numerous did these weapons have to be?

With the size of Iraq (and a policy against inspecting the "palaces"), it probably wasn't necessary to move anything anyway.

Free, if oil is our reason for everything we do, wouldn't it have been much easier to force our will on Mexico?

Originally posted by Brooks

Free, if oil is our reason for everything we do, wouldn't it have been much easier to force our will on Mexico?

Sure, we could begin bombing Mexico into ruins and killings a few tens of thosuands of the peasants there......BUT, it would be much harder to brianwash the citizenry into accceptng it. And too, world opinion enters into it.

With Middle Eastern countries, the propaganda masters of the American Press have a built-in advantage; since the dusky-hewed folk in that land have the misfortune **worshiping the "wrong god"**, the propaganda ministry can tell the gullible populace that the Iraqis are "evil;" they are "evil doers", that the "evil doers" over there are bent on a religious jihad of killing every kindly flagwaving Christian in the world, that they are "jealous" of our wonderful consumerist culture and will not rest until they convert everyone in the world to the Muslim religion.

Then too, with Mexico plans were not already in place before 9/11 to attack them, as was the case with Iraq......also, there is the construction of a huge pipeline thru the Middle East to be considered. The Corporate masters here had already told the people in the Middle East who control the land where the pipeline is proposed that they will either go along with us, or we will anihilate them.

Also, i believe there is a larger reserve of oil in Iraq , making it more proftable (for the Big Oil faction) to bludgeon that country into submission than would be the case in Mexico.

Originally posted by Freethinker
The vast majority of the stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles were destroyed by the Iraqis themselves, just as Iraq had claimed.
Being that Saddam was a man of integrity, and Germany had nothing to gain by keeping him in power, I understand you accepting his word lock, stock and barrel. Actually - it makes a lot of sense when you think about it...

Originally posted by Brooks
Iraq is the size of California and Hans Blix had to say ahead of time where they were going to inspect. Hundreds of weapons? One medium sized missile with VX gas can kill ten thousand people. How big or numerous did these weapons have to be?

With the size of Iraq (and a policy against inspecting the "palaces"), it probably wasn't necessary to move anything anyway.

Free, if oil is our reason for everything we do, wouldn't it have been much easier to force our will on Mexico? mr brooks, they scared people with the "mushroom cloud " remarks, which was to imply that the weapons were nuclear. so i dont think that they were even counting vx gas. but i know that they are glad that you do, it keeps their argument alive. but lets take what they said, the way they said it, and not add what we think they meant.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Sure, we could begin bombing Mexico into ruins and killings a few tens of thosuands of the peasants there......BUT, it would be much harder to brianwash the citizenry into accceptng it. And too, world opinion enters into it.......

Also, i believe there is a larger reserve of oil in Iraq , making it more proftable (for the Big Oil faction) to bludgeon that country into submission than would be the case in Mexico.

That's just wrong. Mexican leaders are probably the easiest in the world bri.., um, "influence". Ease up on border control, as Vincente Fox wants, and then send some more personal "influence" his way.

My sister lives in Mexico. Most people there don't feel they are as involved in running the country as we "think" we are. Getting the populace to "accept" the government's decisions is not a big issue there. Especially since most of the people there would not be negatively affected by the removal of oil that no one is making an attempt to exploit.

No, Mexico would not be a difficult place to exploit, but not every decision we make is based on oil.

Originally posted by Brooks
That's just wrong. Mexican leaders are probably the easiest in the world bri.., um, "influence". Ease up on border control, as Vincente Fox wants, and then send some more personal "influence" his way.

My sister lives in Mexico. Most people there don't feel they are as involved in running the country as we "think" we are. Getting the populace to "accept" the government's decisions is not a big issue there. Especially since most of the people there would not be negatively affected by the removal of oil that no one is making an attempt to exploit.

No, Mexico would not be a difficult place to exploit, but not every decision we make is based on oil. he's right mr brooks. iraq was an easier sell. you could not get people to believe that someone in mexico was any kind of threat to us. it has to be sellable. after some arabs bomb the US, i could see bush trying to sell bombing mexico for that. the iraq shit should not have flown, but that would be more explainable. besides, there are a lot more mexicans in this country. hispanics are the number one minority now. and bush went after that vote.

Originally posted by korg
hispanics are the number one minority now. and bush went after that vote.
Hey - an accurate statement...miracles can happen. :) Ah, Korg - I'm just giving you shit. I see your point to a degree, and while President Bush did do some selling - I'm inclined to thinking that, overwhelmingly, the American populous is dumb, therefore, embittered ties between the US and Iraq coupled with mounting tension in the Middle East supplied a perfect platform to ensure future trade, provide stability and oil while giving us a mass presence there. Actually, despite all the negative press, I think the move was as bold as it was brilliant.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Hey - an accurate statement...miracles can happen. :) Ah, Korg - I'm just giving you shit. I see your point to a degree, and while President Bush did do some selling - I'm inclined to thinking that, overwhelmingly, the American populous is dumb, therefore, embittered ties between the US and Iraq coupled with mounting tension in the Middle East supplied a perfect platform to ensure future trade, provide stability and oil while giving us a mass presence there. Actually, despite all the negative press, I think the move was as bold as it was brilliant. damn.........i agree ! except for the brilliant....but bold as hell. come to think of it, there was a bit of brilliance in the way he went about it. but i still didnt agree with it.

you know, i personally dont disagree with getting our hands on the oil part. i remember discussing this with a few guys at work. and one guy made a damn good point. he said (korg), i may not agree with the way it was done, but im all about preserving our way of life here in america, and if thats what it calls for, im game. and i had to respect that . you know, i think that i would have respected this whole thing a lot more if it was put like that. i know it doesnt sound right, because that would be not accepting one bully tactic, but accepting another.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Being that Saddam was a man of integrity, and Germany had nothing to gain by keeping him in power, I understand you accepting his word lock, stock and barrel.

Nice bit of sarcasm.........but based on a falsehood that I (or any other progressive person in this country) viewed Saddam as a man of integrity or that I ""accepted Saddam's word"".

I accepted nothing from Saddam......evidently, you failed to follow the link provided.

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed;
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press

[an excerpt] "Newsweek magazine's March 3rd issue reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims." ....... The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf

Originally posted by Freethinker
[an excerpt] "Newsweek magazine's March 3rd issue reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 [b]told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims." ....... The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."


if it was common knowledge in 1995 that all the weapons were gone, than why did Clinton, Gore, Kerry , Edwards, etc. ALL think Saddam had weapons?

Originally posted by korg
he's right mr brooks. iraq was an easier sell. you could not get people to believe that someone in mexico was any kind of threat to us. it has to be sellable. after some arabs bomb the US, i could see bush trying to sell bombing mexico for that. the iraq shit should not have flown, but that would be more explainable. besides, there are a lot more mexicans in this country.

Freethinker's post said to bomb them. I said their leaders were easy to deal with. I DIDN'T say to bomb them (In fact, I said my sister lives there - how sick do you think I am - don't answer)

Shamanfreeguerilladop have set up a premise that we went into Iraq for oil. Freethinker now says that was easier than going to Mexico. To buy the entire premise you have to believe that it would have been harder to deal with Mexico than to do the following:

1. Stage 9/11, then
2. Lie about WMD's, then
3. Go to war with Iraq, then
4. Maintain a "lie" about why we're there, and
5. Damage our economy with this war.

You think this is an easier sell than dealing with Mexico????????


PS - as an aside to the open-minded freethinkers out there - Not everyone in Mexico is a peasant. I guess if they're not Amerricuns they are all brown peasants.

We establish certain personas on these boards, but occasionally our real selves slip through.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Nice bit of sarcasm.........but based on a falsehood that I (or any other progressive person in this country) viewed Saddam as a man of integrity or that I ""accepted Saddam's word"".

I accepted nothing from Saddam......evidently, you failed to follow the link provided.

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed;
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press

[an excerpt] "Newsweek magazine's March 3rd issue reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims." ....... The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf
You're right, I didn't read the link, but in all fairness - what makes you think that a man like Saddam would've disarmed? It's akin to thinking that a serial killer would stop killing based on his word. I'm sorry, but it's not in his pathology. I wouldn't buy the testimony of an Iraqi "weapons chief", regardless of the circumstances. First off - time is an issue. In '95, the war had ended only 4 years prior. I think it stands to reason Saddam was testing the waters. Just because he destroyed old stockpiles didn't necessarily mean that he wasn't planning on producing new ones. Secondly, the man was a power hungry, homicidal maniac. Given that fact alone - what on Earth would make you think he was going to play ball on a permanent basis? He deliberately padded the UN through France and Germany while leveraging power over us by way of their collective veto. A brilliant move, but one he had to pay for - and goddamn it - GW made him do just that.

Originally posted by Brooks

PS - as an aside to the open-minded freethinkers out there - Not everyone in Mexico is a peasant. I guess if they're not Amerricuns they are all brown peasants.

As an aside to YOU ----------I did not say, suggest or even imply that **all people in Mexico were peasants**, you intellectually dishonest twit.

You seem unaware that SOME of the people in Mexico ARE peasants, hence it would be possible for this country to kill a few thousand peasants there if it began to bomb Mexico in (hypothetically) an attempt to steal their oil.

You make me very angry with your lack of reading comprehension........it's either a lack of reading comprehension, or an outright and brazen lie on your part.

Originally posted by Brooks
I think it stands to reason Saddam was testing the waters. Just because he destroyed old stockpiles didn't necessarily mean that we wasn't planning on producing new ones. Secondly, the man was a power hungry, homicidal maniac. Given that fact alone - what on Earth would make you think he was going to play ball on a permanent basis?

Ah....the old bait and switch. How typically rightwing.

a)the discussion in no way concerns whether Saddam was "testing the waters". The huge stinking LIE that dragged this nation into war was that he HAD weapons and was an imminent threat. Bait and switch failure #1.

b) the discussion in no way concerns whether Saddam was "planning" on having WMDs later. The huge stinking LIE that dragged this nation into war was that he HAD them. Bait and switch failure #2.

c) the discussion in no way concerns whether Saddam was a power hungry, homicidal maniac. The huge stinking LIE was that he HAD weapons of mass destruction AT THE TIME Bush was trying to drag us into war. Bait and switch failure #3.


d) the discussion in no way concerns whether Saddam was going to ""play ball on a permanent basis"". The huge stinking LIE that dragged this nation into war was that he HAD WMDs. Bait and switch failure #4.

" ... You make me very angry ... "

Nobody makes you angry. That's something you do all to yourself. They're your emotions, own them.

Brooks---

Iraq is the size of California
And? There are thousands of Satelites in the sky. If we were that concerned about him moving the weapons we could have kept an eye on his entire country.

and Hans Blix had to say ahead of time where they were going to inspect. Hundreds of weapons? One medium sized missile with VX gas can kill ten thousand people. How big or numerous did these weapons have to be?
They didn't have to be big, but just because we "think" he moved the weapons (but we have no 100% proof) does not mean we have the right to attack his country. You go to war on 100% proof, not the "idea" that he could have "maybe" moved weapons. We had countries who had weapons, we didn't have to assume anything. But we didn't do anything to them...now did we?

With the size of Iraq (and a policy against inspecting the "palaces"), it probably wasn't necessary to move anything anyway.
And we sure have found those weapons, haven't we? Oh, and the fact that we are assuming these weapons are in the palaces and that we are assuming he moved them gives us the right to launch full out war? Waste millions of lives, and money? Right, makes sense to go to war on assumption.

Originally posted by Freethinker
As an aside to YOU ----------I did not say, suggest or even imply that **all people in Mexico were peasants**, you intellectually dishonest twit.

You seem unaware that SOME of the people in Mexico ARE peasants, hence it would be possible for this country to kill a few thousand peasants there if it began to bomb Mexico in (hypothetically) an attempt to steal their oil.

You make me very angry with your lack of reading comprehension........it's either a lack of reading comprehension, or an outright and brazen lie on your part.


Here's your statement, comprehend away:
"Sure, we could begin bombing Mexico into ruins and killings a few tens of thosuands of the peasants there......"

The only way to "bomb a country into ruins" without taking out a cross section of people is if you think that cross section doesn't exist. I think this DOES constitute "suggest or imply".

And another thing "Free"thinker, you have "originally posted by Brooks" preceding a long paragraph that I didn't write. Typical.

Similarly, I was on another thread last week when either you or Guerilla eventually admitted to altering a dictionary definition to suit your needs. If it was Guerilla and not you, it makes my point of the whole Shamanfreeguerilladop thing.

Originally posted by Brooks
Similarly, I was on another thread last week when either you or Guerilla eventually admitted to altering a dictionary definition to suit your needs.
I'm pretty sure it was FT.

Originally posted by Brooks
If it was Guerilla and not you, it makes my point of the whole Shamanfreeguerilladop thing.
I see you did reply to me, oh well.

Anyway, why don't you stop lumping most of the liberal posters together? I could do the same with you, and many others on this forum. Why don't you debate one poster at a time and not bring in other posters? You aren't proving any point by saying things like Shamanfreeguerilladop....

seems like brooks is starting to go the way of Trav...

This war was about oil. If it wasn't then:

Why did Bush tell the Iraqi people not to sabatoge oil wells on the "opening night" of the war?

Why did Wolfowitz admit it was, and everyone knows, it was about oil. Only to attemp to retract the statement days later?

Why was the original name Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)?

Why were nuclear site the IAEA demanded the US guard against looting left completely ungaurded while the oil wells were the first things secured?

Why was the minisry of oil and the ministry of interior the first and only infrastructure protected by US troops?

Lie to yourself all you want, but most of the rest of us treat ourselves better than that.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
1. seems like brooks is starting to go the way of Trav...

2. Why was the original name Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL)?


1. FINALLY, a compliment

2. Wow, there's proof!

Just a thought regarding satellites - there are thousands of satellites, but most of them are communications satellites, not spy satellites. Also, most spy satellites are not in geosynchronos orbit, so they don't hover over a spot and see all - they fly over a country and take pictures of a swath of land. They can't see the whole country. They can be moved a little bit from orbit to orbit, but not a lot.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Just a thought regarding satellites - there are thousands of satellites, but most of them are communications satellites, not spy satellites. Also, most spy satellites are not in geosynchronos orbit, so they don't hover over a spot and see all - they fly over a country and take pictures of a swath of land. They can't see the whole country. They can be moved a little bit from orbit to orbit, but not a lot.

This feature makes it very easy to see things being moved around. Everytime the satelite passes overhead it takes pictures, comparing the pictures shows troop movement, truck movement, and most especially anyone trying to move large weapons and weapon delivering systems.


If they moved them, we would know.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Also, most spy satellites are not in geosynchronos orbit, so they don't hover over a spot and see all - they fly over a country and take pictures of a swath of land. They can't see the whole country. They can be moved a little bit from orbit to orbit, but not a lot.
That's exactly what I was saying to Echo not too long ago.

Ok, on the satellite thing... how many times does a satellite pass by a particular point of interest? As many times as we need it to pass by (I mean, can we control it?) or as many times as the earth orbits? If we can control WHAT we're looking at all the time, then it would seem to me that whether there were weapons or the lack of them, the images would be in plain view at a moment's notice.

Or, not?

Originally posted by saycricket
If we can control WHAT we're looking at all the time, then it would seem to me that whether there were weapons or the lack of them, the images would be in plain view at a moment's notice.
Or, not?

They cannot move any vehicle of any size in Iraq that our satellites are not able to track.

Don't fall for the Bush worshipper's lame excuses.

Originally posted by Freethinker
They cannot move any vehicle of any size in Iraq that our satellites are not able to track.

Sure they can. If you know when the satellite's flying over, you park it in a building. When the satellite leaves, you continue on.

I'm not saying they did, because I have no idea, but it's quite possible.