Bush: Iraq Sought Uranium in Africa
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, State of the Union, 1/28/03

Fact: Administration Was Warned for Nearly a Year That Evidence Was Unreliable
White House Was Repeatedly Warned Not To Cite Niger Report. In March 2002, both the CIA and State Department learned that evidence linking Iraq to Niger was unfounded. In October, CIA Director Tenet personally intervened with Condoleezza Rice's deputy National Security Advisor to have the charge removed from Bush's speech to the nation. Rice herself was sent a memo debunking the claim. In January, just days before Bush uttered the false charge CIA officials tried again to remove the language, but the White House insisted it remain-with the added claim that they had received the information from British sources. [Bush State of the Union, 1/28/03; Time, 7/21/03 Issue; Hadley/Bartlett Gaggle, 7/22/03; New York Times, 7/13/03; Washington Post, 7/20/03; NPR, 6/19/03]

Bush: Unmanned Drones Could Attack From Iraq
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."

Fact: Air Force Intelligence: "We Just Didn't See Anything We Regarded as Credible Evidence"
Air Force Was Never Convinced Iraq Had Effective Drones. The Wall Street Journal reported: "In making its case for war with Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration painted a much more threatening picture of Iraqi drones than was justified, according to Air Force intelligence estimates now coming to light....The Air Force, which has expertise in designing such unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, was never convinced Baghdad had developed drones capable of effectively distributing chemical and biological weapons as the White House claimed. But the Air Force dissent, attached to a classified report last October on the Iraqi threat, was kept secret even as the president publicly made the opposite case last fall before a congressional vote on the war resolution." Air Force Senior Intelligence Analyst Bob Boyd said of the drone, "We just didn't see anything we regarded as credible evidence." [Wall Street Journal, 9/10/03]

Senators Told Iraq Could Deliver Weapons To American East Coast. In December 2003, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) revealed that he and approximately 75 other senators were told in classified briefings held in the fall of 2002 that Iraq had the means to attack the American East Coast. Nelson said the senators were told that Iraq not only had biological and chemical weapons, but could deploy them on America's Eastern seaboard using unmanned aerial vehicles. [Florida Today, 12/16/03]

Bush: Attack Could Come as "Mushroom Cloud"
"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." -- President Bush, Cincinnati OH, 10/7/02

Fact: U.S. Intelligence Said Saddam Wasn't Able to Make a Bomb
Saddam Did Not Have Chief Requirements For Nuclear Weapons. The Washington Post reported, "What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S. government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials." Inspectors in postwar Iraq have "found the former nuclear weapons program, described as a 'grave and gathering danger' by President Bush and a 'mortal threat' by Vice President Cheney, in much the same shattered state left by U.N. inspectors in the 1990s." [Washington Post, 8/10/03, 1/7/04]

Bush's "Mushroom Cloud" Language Was Part Of a Deliberate Effort To Sell The War. The Washington Post desrcibed the White House's pre-war plans to convince the American public on the need for war in Iraq. "The escalation of nuclear rhetoric [during the summer and fall of 2002], including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it... Systematic coordination began in August [2002], when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the [WHIG], to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad...In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, [2002] Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. 'From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August,' he said. The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff." [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Bush: IAEA Found Saddam Was Six Months From a Nuclear Bomb
"...a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." -- President Bush, Camp David, 9/7/02

Fact: There Was No IAEA Report
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Report Bush Cited Did Not Exist. "Bush cast as present evidence the contents of a report from 1996, updated in 1998 and 1999. In those accounts, the IAEA described the history of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that arms inspectors had systematically destroyed. A White House spokesman later acknowledged that Bush 'was imprecise' on his source but stood by the crux of his charge." [Washington Post, 8/10/03; 10/22/02]

Bush: Iraq Tried to Buy Aluminum Tubes to Make Uranium
"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." -- President Bush, 9/12/02

Experts: Tubes Were Unsuitable for Uranium Production
Use For Aluminum Tubes Was Hotly Disputed. Gas centrifuge experts in the United States told the government "repeatedly for more than a year [before the war began] that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the centrifuge theory as impossible." One intelligence analyst complained, "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's just a lie." [Washington Post, 8/10/03; The New Republic, 6/30/03 Issue]

Bush: Saddam Met Often with Nuclear Scientists
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen," his nuclear holy warriors. -- President Bush, 10/7/02

Fact: Scientists' Work Was "Largely Benign"
Scientists Were Working On Non-Nuclear Projects. Despite Bush's allegation that Hussein met often with Iraqi scientists, he "did not disclose that the known work of the scientists was largely benign. Iraq's three top gas centrifuge experts, for example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a mechanical engineering design center at Rashidiya." [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Bush: Iraqi Defectors Gave Us Intelligence About Iraqi Weapons
"From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them." -- President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/03

Fact: Many Defectors Were Not Credible
Intelligence Community Disproved Defectors' Claims. The Los Angeles Times reported that at least three Iraqi defectors such as those cited by Bush were suspected as frauds by both the CIA and State Department. "One, an Iraqi engineer, told the [Defense Intelligence Agency] in 2001 that he knew the location of biological weapons. However, no bioweapons have been found at the sites he named. A second defector...described what he said were mobile labs that could produce several hundred tons of biowarfare agents per year. The CIA has concluded that two trucks found in northern Iraq after the war were probably designed for biowarfare, but outside experts have sharply disputed those claims. U.S. intelligence authorities dismissed the third defector, who claimed to be an expert in nuclear isotope separation, as a fraud." [Los Angeles Times, 8/28/03; Los Angeles Times, Editorial, 8/29/03]

Despite CIA's Doubts, Bush Officials Trusted Stories Of Iraqi Defectors Who Seemed to Confirm Their Own Opinions. Some Iraqi defectors had claimed that vast underground weapons manufacturing plants existed. "The CIA, at first, was skeptical. Defectors in search of safe haven sometimes stretch or invent the facts. The true believers in the Bush administration, on the other hand, embraced the defectors and credited their stories." Many defectors came to the United States through the work of Ahmed Chalabi, whom the CIA did not trust and who was an associate of Rumsfeld advisor Richard Perle. "But rather than accept the CIA's doubts, top officials in the Bush Defense Department set up their own team of intelligence analysts, a small but powerful shop now called the Office of Special Plans-and described, half-jokingly, by its members, 'the Cabal.'" A Pentagon official admitted to the New Yorker that "Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true." [Newsweek, 6/9/03; New Yorker, 5/12/03]

Bush: Mobile Trailers Prove WMDS Existed
In an interview with Polish television on May 30, Mr. Bush cited the trailers [found in postwar Iraq] as evidence that the United States had "found the weapons of mass destruction" it was looking for. -- New York Times, 6/26/03

Fact: Bush Jumped to Premature Conclusion
State Department Said Bush Rushed To Judgment. The New York Times reported: "The State Department's intelligence division is disputing the Central Intelligence Agency's conclusion that mysterious trailers found in Iraq were for making biological weapons, United States government officials said today. In a classified June 2 [2003] memorandum, the officials said, the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research said it was premature to conclude that the trailers were evidence of an Iraqi biological weapons program, as President Bush has done...Administration officials said the State Department agency was given no warning that the C.I.A. report was being produced, or made public." [New York Times, 6/26/03]

Bush Team Never Talked To Source With Mobile Weapons Claims. The Washington Post learned that the Bush team's claims of mobile weapons labs in Iraq "rested largely on information from an Iraqi defector working with another government who was never interviewed by U.S. intelligence officers, according to current and former senior intelligence officials and congressional experts who have studied classified documents...The claims about the mobile facilities remain unverified...and now U.S. officials are trying to get access to the Iraqi engineer to verify his story, the sources said, particularly because intelligence officials have discovered that he is related to a senior official in Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, a group of Iraqi exiles who actively encouraged the United States to invade Iraq." [Washington Post, 3/5/04]

Bush: We'll Be in Iraq No Longer Than Necessary
"We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before, and the peace that followed a world war." -- President George W. Bush [Remarks To American Enterprise Institute, 2/26/03]

Fact: Bush Didn't Plan for Postwar Iraq
Military Complains that Bush Failed To Plan For Postwar Iraq. Months After He Declared End To Major Combat, American Troops Continue To Die. In August, 2003, the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared a secret report called "Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned." The report, described by the Washington Times, blamed "setbacks in Iraq on a flawed and rushed war-planning process that 'limited the focus' for preparing for post-Saddam Hussein operations." The report admitted that "Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD) elimination and exploitation planning efforts did not occur early enough in the process to allow Centcom to effectively execute its mission." According to the Times, the report "also shows that President Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August [2002]. That was eight months before the first bomb was dropped and six months before he asked the U.N. Security Council for a war mandate he never received." As of March 2004, more than 400 troops have been killed since May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. [Washington Times, 9/3/03; Iraq Casualties]

Bush: Diagrams of American Nuclear Plants Found in Afghanistan
"Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears and showed us the true scope of the task ahead... We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world." -- President Bush, State of the Union, 1/29/02

Fact: Two Years Later, White House Admits "No Basis" for Claim
White House Admitted "No Basis" For Bush Claim On Nuclear Plants. On February 9th 2004, the White House admitted that "no plant diagrams were actually found in Afghanistan. 'There's no additional basis for the language in the speech that we have found,' a senior administration official said." The Wall Street Journal reported that "the suggestion that plant blueprints might have been in the hands of terrorists sparked concern among environmental activists and local communities near the country's 103 nuclear stations, according to Greenpeace...The White House was forced to comb back over Mr. Bush's 2002 speech...after Greenpeace released a letter from a senior official at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that cast doubt on Mr. Bush's claim." The letter, by NRC commissioner Edward McGaffigan and dated February 4, 2002, noted that "he had testified two years ago in 'one or more' closed-door Congressional hearings and told lawmakers that he 'was aware of no evidence' that plant diagrams had been found in Afghanistan. The NRC is responsible for maintaining security at the nation's nuclear power plants." [Wall Street Journal, 2/10/04]

http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/iraq_lies/

(Now that I posted that link, the Republicans won’t read this, and say it’s fake, even though there is quotes, and many facts proving Bush was wrong)

noone reads your regurgitations parrot boy

Originally posted by Travh20
noone reads your regurgitations parrot boy

You don't read it, because you know it will make your little President look like a moron.

Keep living in your own little world Trav, I'm glad you could refute the points this article made. Good job!

I am not going to rehash the bush lied thing everytime some new leftist writes a paper about it. you think he lied, i dont. you seem to prefer the terrorists and dictators rule the mid east, I dont. I have said it once and I wills ay it again. you may not be on the terrorists side, but if you were you would act no differently

Seriously, just link whatever mound of information that you want other people to read, and then make a short post about what point you want to make. No one is interested in lectures.

OD as for the drones look at this picture and tell me what it is, ok?

Also check out this credible news outlet. Your words by the way. DRones (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html)

Thanks for reading it, BV

Originally posted by Travh20
noone reads your regurgitations parrot boy

I understand how you feel Trav, but isn't there a better way to put it?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
OD as for the drones look at this picture and tell me what it is, ok?

Also check out this credible news outlet. Your words by the way. DRones (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html)

It's obviously a UAV, whaich has many battlefield uses other than spreading bio weapons.

I doubt if terrorists choose to use bio weapons that they would use a UAV to spread them. There are too many easier ways to do it, especially if you have people willing to undertake suicide missions.

Well now you are assuming that Hussein had any knowledge of strategy. Or common sense, just making the point that the drones existed so the ability would have been there. WHen evidence is lacking all you have to go on is past actions so it would be neglectful to assume he had changed.

9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers


In reporting Judge Harold Baer's $104 million judgment against Hussein
and Osama bin Laden, only the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Chinese
news service Xinhua mentioned Salman Pak by name.

But according to courtroom testimony by three of the camp's instructors,
the facility was a virtual hijacking classroom where al-Qaeda recruits
practiced overcoming U.S. flight crews using only small knives - a terrorist
technique never employed before 9/11.

At least one veteran of Salman Pak, Sabah Khodad, has maintained that
the 9/11 hijackers were actually trained by Saddam's henchman. He told
PBS in October 2001 that the World Trade Center attack "was done by
graduates of Salman Pak."


No connection between Hussein and 9/11? I just found this report of a ruling . OD Korg, is this the kind of evidence you want? I am not saying that it is true but it should be considered. Pay close attention to the bold paragraph, to me that stands out and gives this report credibility.

Yes, BV , There are many of us that used the equasion of human logic and long ago knew that Saddam was an enemy of Democracy . An enemy that would use any means to maintain and justify his own agenda. Sorry to say that some, seemingly logical people, still view the attack on Iraq as an attrocity.

An enemy we gave weapons to. haha

An enemy we gave weapons to. haha
*Shoves a bottle down your throat*

*ouch*

Originally posted by Overdose
An enemy we gave weapons to. haha
OD who were they fighting when we gave Hussein weapons? And by the way what countries weapons does he use mostly?

We gave him the weapons to fight the Kurds, look it up.

PS: Your signature is in the minority. Most Independents I know or Republicans who all voted for Bush last time, are "forced to vote for Kerry". Also the polls show most independents support Kerry. :)

Originally posted by Overdose
We gave him the weapons to fight the Kurds, look it up.

PS: Your signature is in the minority. Most Independents I know or Republicans who all voted for Bush last time, are "forced to vote for Kerry". Also the polls show most independents support Kerry. :)
Actually we gave him weapons to fight Iran first, dont have to look it up I was alive and not far away.
As for the polls since when have you known me to follow what the majority thinks? I stand up for what I believe unlike Kerry who seems to say (as most politicians do) what he thinks others want to hear.
You never answered what countries weapons did he use the most? Hint who made Scuds, t-38 tanks and ak-47's.

Regardless of “what weapons he used the most”, he still used many we gave him to fight Iran and the Kurds. The fact remains, we had no issue with the weapons “other” countries gave him, because we were also committing in giving him weapons as well. So we approved him receiving weapons from all over, including the ones we gave him.

Ok just so you would know, Soviet, Chinese were his primary weapons.
Now to make this even more clear, if I sell you a gun(if you were old enough) and you kill a member of my family that doent make your crime ok? Just ironic.

Hussein is a bad man Iraq has been linked to 9/11 even and Salman Pak existed. WMD's were in Iraq prior to our invasion and some might still be.
No matter what you say the facts which are supported will not change.
New argument please.

Originally posted by Overdose
Regardless of “what weapons he used the most”, he still used many we gave him to fight Iran and the Kurds. The fact remains, we had no issue with the weapons “other” countries gave him, because we were also committing in giving him weapons as well. So we approved him receiving weapons from all over, including the ones we gave him. overdose, it kills me that most of those guys responding sound like you just exposed their underwear and they didnt know what to say. you are telling FACTS ! thats it. i just think its funny, put a democratic hat on this situation, and 90% of these guys would be bringing up the info your bringing to the table. people are such hypocrites. most of the responses are party oriented....not truth oriented....bush said all of those things, but if it were clinton, they would have been talking impeachment. not that im such a clinton, or dem fan, i just cant believe the gall of people.....and blibblob needs that bottle shoved in another place......lmao......keep up the fight man, your gaining hero status

Overdose, I am an Independent that sees Bush as the only option at this time.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Hint who made Scuds, t-38 tanks and ak-47's.

I think Scuds are North Korean in origin, T-38 tanks were manufactured by Czechoslovakia during WWII and used by the Soviets and the Nazis, and of course AK-47's are Russian.

Do I get a cookie?...:D

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

Hussein is a bad man Iraq has been linked to 9/11 even and Salman Pak existed. WMD's were in Iraq prior to our invasion and some might still be.
No matter what you say the facts which are supported will not change.
New argument please.

I have arguments that he was not linked to 9/11 (Even Bush quotes that).

I have quotes, and links to show he didn' thave WMD's, and Colin Powell and others have admitted it was not true. Our "facts" for the WMD threat was from a bad source...also.

And I've supported many things in many threads I've posted. So yes, you've supported yourself, but I've also supported myself. So don't just think you can "sway" my opinion, when I have facts as well.

Originally posted by Overdose
I have arguments that he was not linked to 9/11 (Even Bush quotes that).

I have quotes, and links to show he didn' thave WMD's, and Colin Powell and others have admitted it was not true. Our "facts" for the WMD threat was from a bad source...also.

And I've supported many things in many threads I've posted. So yes, you've supported yourself, but I've also supported myself. So don't just think you can "sway" my opinion, when I have facts as well. i believe you od. these guys dont have any facts that say he had something to do with it, its like the guy said on tv after, according to him, he was falsely accused:"these guys could indict a ham sandwich if they wanted to. of course they're gonna say that they had evidence that saddam had something to do with it, they had to drum some up to get the people to go along with it, just like what you said about the nuclear weapons. look, people can justify anything, they just need believers.....thats it. i really believe, if this was done by a democrat, everyone thats for this crap, would be against it.......

why do verdose and korg think that becasue we gave saddam weapons we have no right to do anything to him ever again? we gave teh soviets tons of weapons and aide during WW2 becasue they were fighting the bigger threat at the time. when we gave saddam weapons to fight Iran (not the rag tag kurdish rebels) Iran was the bigger threat at the time. your uncanny ability to use hindsight as your main argument is truly amazing :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Overdose, I am an Independent that sees Bush as the only option at this time. although i would normally vote against bush, (not the republican party), but bush, i cant see a dem straightening this problem out. with all of the conspiracy talk, im suprised no one had the thought of bush making sure he'd be elected another term. i dont even know why any democrat would want this problem......its like trying to make a hooker your wife ....lmao

what that means is that you might be able to make it work, but your chances are slim .....

For a long time I have complained that politicians put their re election before their principles. I have to hand it to bush, he did what he thought was right and didnt seem to worry more about gettign re elected. saddam is gone, even if bush loses, as long as his replacement doesnt just blow it big time, that wont change. saddam is gone people, a part of history. iraq now has a chance to become a functioning member of the world community, and as long as lilly livered peace types dont let the terrorists dictate iraqs future, it will be. now its all about will, who has more will. we know we have the power, but do we have the resole to see it through? will peoples petty political prioritys overcome the chance of a lifetime for the iraqis?

Originally posted by Travh20
For a long time I have complained that politicians put their re election before their principles. I have to hand it to bush, he did what he thought was right and didnt seem to worry more about gettign re elected. saddam is gone, even if bush loses, as long as his replacement doesnt just blow it big time, that wont change. saddam is gone people, a part of history. iraq now has a chance to become a functioning member of the world community, and as long as lilly livered peace types dont let the terrorists dictate iraqs future, it will be. now its all about will, who has more will. we know we have the power, but do we have the resole to see it through? will peoples petty political prioritys overcome the chance of a lifetime for the iraqis? you think that bush did what he thought was right huh ? wow. so all of this bullshit was worth it to you huh? you cared that much about iraqi people huh ? you people gotta be kidding me. people didnt want to ride anywhere with a middle eastern person on board.......you people are a bunch of hypocrites. tell me travh, would you be saying the same thing if clinton had done what bush did after 9-11......be honest......

it doesnt matter who the president is, when they send out troops, i am behind them, I was behind clinton on all his forays, and was part of two of them. I fclinton sent a alrge ground force into iraq to oust hussein i would be just as for it as I am now. not everybody bases their support for the US military on who is in the oval office korg. I do think all this "busllshit" is worth it, and freeing the oppresed is always important to me.

De Oppreso Liber--"to Free the Oppressed"

US Special Forces Motto

this is no game korg, this is serious shit. your college undergraduate mentality can never grasp the magnitude of what is happening. to you its all politcal. "oh george bush lied to us, boo hoo" wake up jackass, stop overlloking all the facts that go agaisnt your beliefs. if you want saddam in power then say so, if you are glad he is out of power shut the hell up.

Trav, do you really think it's prudent to back the president on anything he does? if Bush decided he wnated to invade Canada what would you do? would you actually stand behind a decision like that?

also: (sorry to double post)
when we give the Iraqis a democracy, it will suck. they are forming poltical parties along religous lines, and they will end up duking it out over who gets power. and whichever group loses will be oppressed by the other. we're going to leave the country in shambles, and there doesn't seem to be any remotely logical way to make this all work.

there are and always will be doubters and worry warts like whammybar. sometimes in life you can only sit around debating and what-if'ing for so long. is the fear of not giving iraq a pefect constitutional democracy in one year enough to keep you from trying at all? we got to start somewhere. it seems the only ones not wanting a democracy in iraq are you and the terrorists.

Vile, manufactured yes but origin of the scud and t-38 are Soviet. Ak was also manufactured in many locations.

Korg in most situations a lack of evidence doesnt prove a negative. If there was NO evidence then it could lead to an ASSUMPTION that they did not exist. If evidence of prior violations exist and now the evidence is not enough to either prove or disprove then you either, A, wait for more evidence or B, use past history to fill in the blanks.
Either was is acceptible unless you have concerns for your safety.
Example, if your neighbor had waved a gun at you in the past and others said he still had it, then one night he has something behind his back and walks toward you and someone across the street yells he has a gun, what would you do? Wait till he shoots you or react as if he had the gun. Remember he has had it before.

The thing wrong with your story BV, unlike the real story on Saddam and the WMD threat, is that he was asked to disarm...and the UN found no weapons...as I've shown in many quotes.

So in your story, you should add in "The police told him to give his gun away, and then they searched his house and didn’t find the gun." So then what do you do? Attack him because the neighbor said he had a “gun”. But you forget most of our intelligence was from a man in Iraq, who we paid to tell us what we "wanted" to hear, and told Bush he was going to attack us at any moment, and we better invade. So you're going to be believe that neighbor, who is unreliable, and go against the Police searching? Alrighty then.

ya, hitler signed papers and treaties left and right promising not to attack anyone, and the league of nations swore it was legit.

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, hitler signed papers and treaties left and right promising not to attack anyone, and the league of nations swore it was legit.

Those things are not comparable.

1. Hitler swore not to do it, while Saddam said he didn’t have WMD’s.

A. We never invaded Hitler’s house or Government to see if he had plans for the attacks. We did invade Iraq to see if Saddam had weapons. Meaning that we had proof that Saddam wasn’t lying, and we had to go on Hitler’s word.

Knowing we could not trust people like Hitler again (Saddam) we decided to go in ourselves and make sure…and that is exactly what happened.

Originally posted by Travh20
there are and always will be doubters and worry warts like whammybar. sometimes in life you can only sit around debating and what-if'ing for so long. is the fear of not giving iraq a pefect constitutional democracy in one year enough to keep you from trying at all? we got to start somewhere. it seems the only ones not wanting a democracy in iraq are you and the terrorists.


Trav, I'm not kidding. what would you do if Bush decided tomorrow to invade Canada? it's really really stupid (not calling you stupid, don't freak) to trust the president no matter what. I agree that worrying too much isnn't good, but it's frickin war we're talking about here. human lives. this isn't something that you can go rushing into.
plus, I'm a Jewish woman, worrying is encoded in my DNA :D

Trav, I'm not kidding. what would you do if Bush decided tomorrow to invade Canada
That's not a very good question to ask when looking for an answer of disagreement...

Originally posted by Overdose


Knowing we could not trust people like Hitler again (Saddam) we decided to go in ourselves and make sure…and that is exactly what happened.

now your starting to get it, would you have believed hitler and the league of nations when they both promised peace in our time?

Originally posted by WhammyBar
Trav, I'm not kidding. what would you do if Bush decided tomorrow to invade Canada? it's really really stupid (not calling you stupid, don't freak) to trust the president no matter what. I agree that worrying too much isnn't good, but it's frickin war we're talking about here. human lives. this isn't something that you can go rushing into.
plus, I'm a Jewish woman, worrying is encoded in my DNA :D

OK, first of all, canada and iraq ae not even in the same ballpark, secondly, if you think bush just started a war in iraq overnight I feel you nmay have missed the entire lead up to the war. if I remember correctly, congress, the senate and the UN all approved the attack. presidents are not dictators, they dont just start wars, the senate knows about them, the congress too, no war can last if not approved by the congress, so saying would I follow the president to war, I would say no, but if the majority elected officials approve, as is the case in iraq, i wouldm as that is how our government works.

"Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlin, 1936 or 1938. Non-Agression-pact, Germany-Russia, 1939. Hitler violated the Versailles treaty time and time again. League of nations did nothing then as the United Nations does nothing now. Treaties, documents and agreements are nothing but horse shit. They are only to appease the aggresor and make a false sence of security. There are very similiar notions between Hitler and Sadam. They both killed and murdered there own people. They both killed and murdered aposing members of there party. They both went to war for territory expansion. Very much similair, history repeats itself. Sadam did want to expand Iraq to make it the new Babylon. Hitler wanted living space. Similiar notion. Evil Dictators from different time periods. Yep OD, they are not comparable. Right. Study History, the answers are there. Specially war. Plus, also look past the facade of an individual. there is more than what is on the surface.

OD in my story did I say the police where there? No you are alone, make a decision quick, like the battlefield. Live or die, do you trust your neighbor?

Originally posted by Travh20
it doesnt matter who the president is, when they send out troops, i am behind them, I was behind clinton on all his forays, and was part of two of them. I fclinton sent a alrge ground force into iraq to oust hussein i would be just as for it as I am now. not everybody bases their support for the US military on who is in the oval office korg. I do think all this "busllshit" is worth it, and freeing the oppresed is always important to me.

De Oppreso Liber--"to Free the Oppressed"

US Special Forces Motto

this is no game korg, this is serious shit. your college undergraduate mentality can never grasp the magnitude of what is happening. to you its all politcal. "oh george bush lied to us, boo hoo" wake up jackass, stop overlloking all the facts that go agaisnt your beliefs. if you want saddam in power then say so, if you are glad he is out of power shut the hell up. look around you travh, you hypocritic jerk......before we were even bombed there were and still are countries that have a lot more death and torture going on. in iraq there may have been thousands like you say, but there are millions in other countries.....how do we pick and choose who to rescue, it certainly doesnt seem to be numbers, it has to have something to do with how much its worth.....you tell me ! why not other countries where there is serious ethnic cleansing going on. i dont believe your moto, because we dont do it for the more helpless people.... we give them crackers.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Vile, manufactured yes but origin of the scud and t-38 are Soviet. Ak was also manufactured in many locations.

Korg in most situations a lack of evidence doesnt prove a negative. If there was NO evidence then it could lead to an ASSUMPTION that they did not exist. If evidence of prior violations exist and now the evidence is not enough to either prove or disprove then you either, A, wait for more evidence or B, use past history to fill in the blanks.
Either was is acceptible unless you have concerns for your safety.
Example, if your neighbor had waved a gun at you in the past and others said he still had it, then one night he has something behind his back and walks toward you and someone across the street yells he has a gun, what would you do? Wait till he shoots you or react as if he had the gun. Remember he has had it before. like i say beirut, im gonna believe what my ears , eyes, and heart says, but good analogy

Originally posted by Travh20
there are and always will be doubters and worry warts like whammybar. sometimes in life you can only sit around debating and what-if'ing for so long. is the fear of not giving iraq a pefect constitutional democracy in one year enough to keep you from trying at all? we got to start somewhere. it seems the only ones not wanting a democracy in iraq are you and the terrorists. why iraq travh.....huh? why havent we gone to WAR!! for the other countries that have it bad ? dont give me wmd's, havent found them! dont give me his ties to terrorism, thats not a given......so why havent we gone to WAR!! for other countries ? i have no problem rescueing the helpless, but there were a lot more helpless people in other countries......if its weapons of mass destruction....why havent we dealt with korea in this manner.....you are a hypocrite. you dont care about iraqi's......thats a bunch of crap.....what did you say right after 9-11, "we should go over there and help those poor middle eastern people....!!!

so you want to launch simeltaneous war on every dictatorship in the world? for someone who thinks we cant get the job done in iraq thats a pretty bold propostion. I love seeing the anti war types proposing attacks on north korea and china as a way to discredit the war in iraq, talk about idiotic. either your anti war or not, stop asking why we didnt attack north korea as away to say we shouldnt attack iraq, its dumb. if you still cant see why iraq was the top priority of dictatorships to remove you either are a cmplete idiot or just really dont want to see it. I dont remember north korea firing on our planes everyday, planes simply enforcing the UN resolutions. remember the UN? remember the no fly zone? get a clue and get your head out of your posterior korg, people are sick of you and your buddies constant bitching and defeatist attitude, its sickening.

Originally posted by Travh20
so you want to launch simeltaneous war on every dictatorship in the world? for someone who thinks we cant get the job done in iraq thats a pretty bold propostion. I love seeing the anti war types proposing attacks on north korea and china as a way to discredit the war in iraq, talk about idiotic. either your anti war or not, stop asking why we didnt attack north korea as away to say we shouldnt attack iraq, its dumb. if you still cant see why iraq was the top priority of dictatorships to remove you either are a cmplete idiot or just really dont want to see it. I dont remember north korea firing on our planes everyday, planes simply enforcing the UN resolutions. remember the UN? remember the no fly zone? get a clue and get your head out of your posterior korg, people are sick of you and your buddies constant bitching and defeatist attitude, its sickening. people like who , you drag queen. you NEVER stick to the point do you. were you molested by a priest or something. i never said that i was anti war. i think war is a last resort. but for the reasons you give as to why we are over there in iraq, we should have gone other places first.....you talk about the weapons, well, other countries actually HAVE the weapons your talking about....thats my point. for every reason you think that we should be over there, those same reasons can be applied everywhere else.....why not korea !!!? they have what we accused iraq of having...why not somalia, they're suffering under a bad man or men. im just saying you sausage smoker, .....we fired on canadian planes, we've fired on our own plane you stupid fuck........you havent proven why we should be in iraq but not in the other countries........and if you remember, you crossdressing hemophrodite, most of our hard to fight wars came from asian countries....why not stop n korea from completely arming themselves with wmd's...i'll tell you why, because they're a more formidable opponent....fag wipe..........oh....have a nice day.

children these days :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Travh20
talk about idiotic. , its dumb. you either are a cmplete idiot or just really dont want to see it. get a clue and get your head out of your posterior korg, people are sick of you and your buddies constant bitching and defeatist attitude, its sickening. idiotic so.....im the child. i dont see people always telling me to stick to the point. you insult people all of the time, but someone insults you..........childish. what makes you any different than me when it comes to this ? shemale.....lmao

Originally posted by Travh20

this is no game korg, this is serious shit. your college undergraduate mentality can never grasp the magnitude of what is happening. to you its all politcal. "oh george bush lied to us, boo hoo" wake up jackass, stop overlloking all the facts that go agaisnt your beliefs. if you want saddam in power then say so, if you are glad he is out of power shut the hell up. remember this you inane drone.......you have a LOT of nerve. thats like the pot calling the pot a pot.......jerk.......ooo spongebob is on...gotta go

did anyone hear that? I thought I heard someone talking, I couldnt tell if it was beavis or butthead.

remember this you inane drone.......you have a LOT of nerve. thats like the pot calling the pot a pot.......jerk.......ooo spongebob is on...gotta go
What about pots? I think you're just having too much of it.

Originally posted by Travh20
did anyone hear that? I thought I heard someone talking, I couldnt tell if it was beavis or butthead. yeah.......funny transvest..........i mean travh

Originally posted by Blibblob
remember this you inane drone.......you have a LOT of nerve. thats like the pot calling the pot a pot.......jerk.......ooo spongebob is on...gotta go
What about pots? I think you're just having too much of it. ......blib blob i was takin a bath..........

Originally posted by Blibblob
remember this you inane drone.......you have a LOT of nerve. thats like the pot calling the pot a pot.......jerk.......ooo spongebob is on...gotta go
What about pots? I think you're just having too much of it. i think if you guys smoked a little pot, you'd say "hey, i hadn't noticed til now, but that bush fuckin sucks man....

Originally posted by Travh20
did anyone hear that? I thought I heard someone talking, I couldnt tell if it was beavis or butthead. travh, i really think that you like talking crap more than talking issues.....i bet you were the class gown........i mean....clown

I bet you were the class dunce

Boys, boys...take a chill pill...

Just out of curiosity Trav, after we're done in Iraq (whenever that is) who do you think we should attack next?

I think we should attack massachuesetts

Originally posted by big worm
"Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlin, 1936 or 1938. Non-Agression-pact, Germany-Russia, 1939. Hitler violated the Versailles treaty time and time again. League of nations did nothing then as the United Nations does nothing now. Treaties, documents and agreements are nothing but horse shit. They are only to appease the aggresor and make a false sence of security. There are very similiar notions between Hitler and Sadam. They both killed and murdered there own people. They both killed and murdered aposing members of there party. They both went to war for territory expansion. Very much similair, history repeats itself. Sadam did want to expand Iraq to make it the new Babylon. Hitler wanted living space. Similiar notion. Evil Dictators from different time periods. Yep OD, they are not comparable. Right. Study History, the answers are there. Specially war. Plus, also look past the facade of an individual. there is more than what is on the surface.

Hitler violated treaty after treaty and I understand that. I’m not denying that.

The UN did nothing, to Iraq? How can you say that to be true, when they have been in Iraq since I believe 1994. Meaning they did indeed “act” when Saddam didn’t follow treaties.

Reports show that he didn’t have any weapons all the way back till 1994 and we didn’t have evidence to go into Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?itemID=386249&extID=10032&oliID=213
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,,1429_W_884518,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/
http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1304878&nav=0RceGAGn
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/sprj.irq.kay/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3081006.stm
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php
http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/090803B.shtml
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00095.htm
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/1616976.php

Making it clear that Saddam was not a threat, and that it was not realistic with these reports.

Another thing the UN did was stop exports and imports to Iraq so he would disarm. So actually the UN did act, and they found no weapons, and cut his supply line off until he complied, and when he did, we proved it when the UN went into Iraq.

I don’t think the League of Nations (during Hitler’s time), went into his country to see if he had any plans of war or breaking treaties, nor did they cause a downfall in his economy, like they did to Iraq.

Also Chalabi told Bush of the “imminent” threat and the “warning” of Saddam.

When it was just indeed not true. He took his word, and used this as our intelligence for the war with Iraq.

http://www.keepmedia.com/ShowItemDetails.do?itemID=475219&extID=10032&oliID=213
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0520-14.htm

This man gave us fake intelligence, and Bush trusted this crook to plunge us into a war that was based on false information.

Colin Powell said Chalabi or the intelligence was “deliberately misleading” meaning he gave us fake information.

And Bush trusted a man we paid over 300,000 dollars a month, so we could hear what we “wanted” to hear.

od, i bet you belive everything that the media tells you also.

Originally posted by big worm
od, i bet you belive everything that the media tells you also.

I bet you didn’t read the links, that have quotes, and factual information to support what I said.

Typical Republican…blames the media and says it’s all LIES!

So anything that is true and backed by quotes, they won’t read or look at because it just MAY prove them wrong.

I read them and nowhere do the facts say that there was evidence that weapons did not exist. Again to prove a negative takes evidence that they didnt exist. A lack of evidence only proves that we dont know. So again using past history we would HAVE to conclude that they do exist and we havent found them yet.
And if you dont like this type of thinking, move because our entire justice system is based on past history or similar circumstance.

Do you not see the quotes and reports from the UN showing no weapons were found, and no threat was present in Iraq? Wow, I mean honestly.

Originally posted by Overdose
Do you not see the quotes and reports from the UN showing no weapons were found, and no threat was present in Iraq? Wow, I mean honestly.
Did you not see the part that said there was evidence of his producing weapons? If there is evidence of production maybe he actually made them and hid them.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Did you not see the part that said there was evidence of his producing weapons? If there is evidence of production maybe he actually made them and hid them.

All that may be true, but hopefully we're not going to go to war with other countries based on "maybe's".

Maybe's only in the minds of those who dont want to believe he had them, I said maybe in a sarcastic tone.
I firmly believe that the WMD's exist and we didnt get to them in time. And to me that is a good reason to be angry with the President, he gave them too many warnings and too much time to get rid of them.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Boys, boys...take a chill pill...

Just out of curiosity Trav, after we're done in Iraq (whenever that is) who do you think we should attack next? .............lmao

Originally posted by Travh20
I think we should attack massachuesetts ...travh....seriously, all bullshit aside man........you are one fumb duck.....really....i mean it man. you are the posterboy of fumb duckism.....you are bizzaro einstein........

Originally posted by Travh20
I bet you were the class dunce hey travh....hey man, i wish you were my son man.....i mean, i would have been your daddy but the monkey beat me up the stairs.........lmao

Korg, what we need to do is exchange ideas and debate them not insult. I enjoy a good argument without insult.
FOr the love of God please make a point here so I can tell you that you're wrong.
:lolhit:

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Maybe's only in the minds of those who dont want to believe he had them, I said maybe in a sarcastic tone.
I firmly believe that the WMD's exist and we didnt get to them in time. And to me that is a good reason to be angry with the President, he gave them too many warnings and too much time to get rid of them.

I firmly believe he didn't have WMD's, and I have my links and facts, and you have yours...I guess.

Also if he did have the weapons wouldn't we have found them or wouldn’t' he have used them when we attacked him?

Seriously, all the UN reports said he didn't have WMD's, and we go into Iraq based on fake, and "deliberately misleading" intelligence...going against what the UN reports showed.

Since he is trying to convince the world that he doesnt have them using them would have been stupid even for him. I am sure that most were taken out into Syra and more buried probably near the Syrian border. I dont know if many of you remember that while I was in Beirut we fought the Syrian military almost daily. After we killed the General of thier military they vowed revenge at all cost. So for them to assist our enemy is not a paranoid delusion but a reality.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Since he is trying to convince the world that he doesnt have them using them would have been stupid even for him. I am sure that most were taken out into Syra and more buried probably near the Syrian border. I dont know if many of you remember that while I was in Beirut we fought the Syrian military almost daily. After we killed the General of thier military they vowed revenge at all cost. So for them to assist our enemy is not a paranoid delusion but a reality.

So he shouldn’t use them when we are attacking his country? I mean if our intelligence was so strong, and we knew he had weapons, then when we were attacking him, why didn’t he just use them, as a last resort? Sadly, he didn’t and we haven’t found enough evidence of WMD’s in Iraq to account for everything Bush said Saddam had, (just that Gas that was found that not even the President called attention to).

And if the weapons are in Syria then why don’t we attack where they ARE, not where they WERE. That makes no sense to attack Saddam, if they aren’t even in his country anymore.

Before the 2000 election, Enron employees pondered the possibilities of a Bush win.

"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker.

That didn't happen, but they were sure President Bush would fight any limits on sky-high energy prices.

"When this election comes Bush will f------g whack this s--t, man. He won't play this price-cap b------t."

Crude, but true.

"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.

Both the Justice Department and Enron tried to prevent the release of these tapes. Enron's lawyers argued they merely prove "that people at Enron sometimes talked like Barnacle Bill the Sailor."
"It'd be great. I'd love to see Ken Lay Secretary of Energy," says one Enron worker. ....you people can believe that bush bullshit if you want........halliburton, and enron............but who gets indicted...........martha stewart !!!???"We will not take any action that makes California's problems worse and that's why I oppose price caps," said Mr. Bush on May 29, 2001.

I hope that you didnt just say it was sad he didnt use them. If we had attacked Syria first then the world would have gone nuts. I am afraid that the logic you used here is flawed. Let me explain.
1. Saddam has always told his people that he won every war. So he wouldnt use the weapons hoping that we would be defeated and he would prove to the world that he doenst have them.

2. Iraq borders two of our biggest threats in the middle east. Iran and Syria, so yes maybe we will go on over or maybe we have and you just dont know it. I have been involved in the delivery of many ops that never made the press. So we maybe using Iraq as a staging point for small scale raids into Iran and Syria.

wrong section
might want to take it off and delete it

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I hope that you didnt just say it was sad he didnt use them. If we had attacked Syria first then the world would have gone nuts. I am afraid that the logic you used here is flawed. Let me explain.
1. Saddam has always told his people that he won every war. So he wouldnt use the weapons hoping that we would be defeated and he would prove to the world that he doenst have them.

2. Iraq borders two of our biggest threats in the middle east. Iran and Syria, so yes maybe we will go on over or maybe we have and you just dont know it. I have been involved in the delivery of many ops that never made the press. So we maybe using Iraq as a staging point for small scale raids into Iran and Syria. beirut.....dont we have to win this one first ? damn

But you said the weapons are not in Iraq, but in Syria...or other countries.

So you're saying we are using Iraq as a way to get to Iran and Syria? Well if that's the case, I'm appalled at my Government.
--------------------------------------------------
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...

President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]

...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE

"U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
-----------------

Seems to me we used this intelligence (fake, wrong and unreliable), went against the UN reports (finding no WMD's). Then went to Iraq to get a good position around the Arab World so we cam become imperialists.

But in the mean time we get the Arab World to hate us because Bush mismanaged the war so much with the Prisoner Abuse and what not.

Increasing the Al Quidea membership, and made the enemies we have in those countries increase, and be willing to fight with more rage against Americans. Good job, Bush!

Imperialists are you insane? Or just so liberal that the truth of how a military operates evades you?
Let me put it this way, we went into Iraq to remove Hussein from power, that was accomplished, so Korg we did win this one. What Iraq does with it now is up to them. Back to OD look back at the history of armed conflict. To occupy a country and use that location to further the battle into other regions is well documented. The Japanese called it island hoping we called it keeping supply lines intact.
We took Hussein out, he was the in control of the fourth largest military in the world so he was the bigger threat but now we must deal with all of the rest of the threats to our security.
Imperialist dont return control of the occupied country back to its people, Liberators do.

He was not a threat, and I have reports, quotes and links to prove it. The United Nations found no WMD’s in Iraq, proving he was no real threat to Americans. Reports date back to 1994 that he didn’t have any weapons. Even his brothers, who came to America out of defiance and disgust of Saddam, said he didn’t have any weapons. The weapons that he may have had, he maybe (assumption) gave away. So then he wasn’t a threat, like Bush said he was in all of those speeches. The intelligence he ran on was false, fake and wrong. He knew it and used it so he could get a spot in the Arab world or get back at Saddam for the hardships he caused his father.

The fourth largest military? So this military you speak of, what has it done to our forces? I mean, I admit we haven’t lost much life…so if this military was so strong and supportive of Saddam why haven’t we lost more life? I wouldn’t consider his military a threat either, especially to Americans…because they’ve hardly touched us in this war. Plus, if he did have a big army, none of them were loyal enough to support or fight for him.

Oh and the argument that he could “produce” weapons is just insane. It’s so easy to take satellite pictures and with the technology it wouldn’t have happened, without us knowing it or the UN knowing it (since they were in Iraq).

Basically you think we should just attack the Arab countries because they are threats to us? That is why we have a position in Iraq? What a lame, sickening reason…to be in Iraq. So many Iraqis have been put to death…for such a horrible cause, and if this cause is true our Government is keeping it from us.

Then the argument that he was a mass murderer is out because countries in Africa commit murderous acts all the time. And that was not our first reason to go into Iraq, because Bush nor did anyone in America care about that, we just wanted to remove this “WMD threat” (NOT military threat or mass murderer threat).

In doing so we have now a 90% chance of an attack on American soil, increased hatred around the world, and in most Arab countries…and an increase in Al Quidea members.

OD you have showed more flaw in the response, just because you have quotes and links to show that Hussein wasnt a threat does that mean it is so? I have many links that show he halped plan 9/11 I have pictures of a terrorist training facility that shows the fuselage of a jet that was used to train terrorist to hijack an aircraft. The instructors at this facility said that they trained many of those who DID hijack the planes on 9/11.
Bush said that he didnt see any connection to Iraq with 9/11 a fews days after the attack but evidence since we captured Salman Pak we have seen evidence that says otherwise.
Hussein's military did major damage to Kuwait and to his own oil fields. I am thankful that his tactics on the battlefield were without thought. UNlike your statement I am thankful that we didnt lose more lives in the campaign to Baghdad.

Oh OD I am for whatever it takes to protect the country I love. I have given to the freedoms that you enjoy but others have given much more for you.

I have reports, and the UN saying he was no threat. Colin Powell and others in the Bush Administration admit he was never a threat and the intelligence we were given was “deliberately misleading” meaning it was not true and fake. Making this war unethical.

Oh and do you remember who trained, gave Osama Bin Laden weapons and billions of dollars? So before you turn around and attack Saddam for helping support Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 look at your OWN Government.

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]

**Notice the dates…also**

Regardless the UN had no evidence and the evidence we had was “deliberately misleading” and from an unreliable source.

Ok sorry to do this but I have been forced to post quotes and such to prove a point.


John Kerry: “When I vote 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 Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

John Kerry: “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he 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 Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, Washington, DC, 1/23/03)


Letter To President Bush, Signed By Sen. Bob Graham And Others: “There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” (Sen. Bob Graham And Others, Letter To President George W. Bush, 12/5/01 as quoted in Dennis Jenkins, Letter To The Editor, The Bellingham Herald, 10/2/03)

Nancy Pelosi: “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. The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people.” (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, “Statement On U.S. Led Military Strike Against Iraq,” Press Release, 12/16/98)


Notices dates.
Also here are the links that say you are wrong.


Salman Pak (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/814.html)


Terror links (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528006,00.html)

Originally posted by Overdose


Oh and do you remember who trained, gave Osama Bin Laden weapons and billions of dollars? So before you turn around and attack Saddam for helping support Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 look at your OWN Government.




My government? where do you live? Or do you reject the government because you might have to fight to defend your freedom? Others have done it for you, now your turn will soon be upon you, be prepared and pray that the people whom you are defending appreciate what it is you are doing.




By the way OD have you ever played Chess, Risk or even Diplomacy?

Let me link the report of the UN written by Blix and tell me where in the report it says that there are no WMD's in Iraq?
Here are some short out takes from the report and of course the link to the full report will follow.

The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

Iraq has declared that it only produced VX on a pilot scale, just a few [metric] tons and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponized. Iraq said that the small quantity of agent remaining after the Gulf War was unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

UNMOVIC, however, has information that conflicts with this account. There are indications that Iraq had worked on the problem of purity and stabilization and that more had been achieved than has been declared. Indeed, even one of the documents provided by Iraq indicates that the purity of the agent, at least in laboratory production, was higher than declared.

There are also indications that the agent was weaponizied. In addition, there are questions to be answered concerning the fate of the VX precursor chemicals, which Iraq states were lost during bombing in the Gulf War or were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq.


The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 [metric] tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.


Hans Blix's Report to the U.N. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76710,00.html)

And it is unedited so I dont want to hear its fox news.

All of those quotes by John Kerry were made because of Bush’s false accusations on the WMD threat. He got intelligence from a man, that “deliberately mislead” us. So of course he “thought” Saddam had Weapons, even though David Key and almost all other UN inspectors found no WMD’s in Iraq.

And of course he dropped bombs in 1980-88 because he was fighting Iran (something we wanted him to do) plus we gave him weapons to fight Iran. After that war we called for his disarmament and that is what happened all the way back in 1994 when the reports showed he did not have WMD’s.

If you knew anything of John Kerry you’d know he supports this war, but not the way it has been managed and handled. So putting quotes of him saying it, is useless because I CAN think differently then the candidate I’m supporting for the Presidency.

Again, I’ve given you links, quotes and resources to prove that almost all the UN inspectors said he didn’t have weapons, along with Colin Powell, Tony Blair and others now say there never WAS any WEAPONS in Iraq.

OD,

Do you mean to tell me that John Kerry only gets his information about Iraq from George Bush? Do you honestly think that he did no research into Iraq's weapons for himself? Do you really think that Kerry could not come up with his own conclusions on his own investigations and relies on someone else to make their decisions for them?

If that is the case then that is certainly not the person I want as CIC.

And what about Kerry's quotes and open letters to President Clinton to take action against Iraq? Did George Bush influence him then as Governor of Texas?

You don’t understand that between Clinton and Bush more reports were coming out showing that Iraq had no WMD threat. And Bush went against this information and launched a full out war against Iraq, based on information that was from a fraud in Iraq.

But of course, bring Clinton into the situation because that’s all you Republicans CAN do. And even I believed President Bush because I didn’t know where his facts were coming from, and I thought they were reliable and they weren’t.

Now that I look back all of the UN inspectors said he didn’t have weapons along with his brothers.

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

BV,
All of those quotes by John Kerry were made because of Bush’s false accusations on the WMD threat. He got intelligence from a man, that “deliberately mislead” us. So of course he “thought” Saddam had Weapons, even though David Key and almost all other UN inspectors found no WMD’s in Iraq.

And of course he dropped bombs in 1980-88 because he was fighting Iran (something we wanted him to do) plus we gave him weapons to fight Iran. After that war we called for his disarmament and that is what happened all the way back in 1994 when the reports showed he did not have WMD’s.

If you knew anything of John Kerry you’d know he supports this war, but not the way it has been managed and handled. So putting quotes of him saying it, is useless because I CAN think differently then the candidate I’m supporting for the Presidency.

Again, I’ve given you links, quotes and resources to prove that almost all the UN inspectors said he didn’t have weapons, along with Colin Powell, Tony Blair and others now say there never WAS any WEAPONS in Iraq.

OD-

You posted that we knew as far back as 1994 that he disarmed. If, in fact, what you have posted is true then where is the difference between Clinton and Bush? Wouldn't that mean that Clinton lied as well?

Thank you for also either missing my point, or failing to acknowledge it and trying to turn my mentioning of a letter by Kerry to Clinton as all I can do. Clinton happened to be the recipient of the letter and that is the only reason his name was mentioned. You still have failed to answer my questions in my previous post.

What are you talking about Saddam's brothers? Saddam had 3 half brothers who were played a large part in his regime. Are you talking about his son-in-law (http://www.rense.com/general35/destr.htm) ?

So what were the WMD that the UN found in 1998 causing Iraq to expell the UN inspectors and Clinton to launch missle and air strikes on Iraq for two days? Afterall acoording to Hussein Kamel they were all destroyed in 1995.

TheRepublican, I am not discussing Clinton’s actions, words or misjudgments. I am focusing on President Bush, and his incorrect decisions that were falsely backed up. I do not give a damn if Clinton thought he had weapons, nor if he attacked Iraq for two days. I’m not debating that, because, Clinton is not in office, and if all of these things are true (skeptical), then Clinton was wrong (wow, I’m saying a Democrat was wrong!)

Regardless, President Bush launched war, and Clinton never launched war against Iraq. Plus, the reports say all the way back in 1994 he did not have weapons, but most people didn’t believe that. So when the UN was in Iraq during 2000, they had more information and facts supporting he did disarm. I’ve posted the links, quotes and sources many times…and I will post them again if need be.

David Kay said Saddam had no weapons, and then a few days later Cheney comes out and says Saddam does have the weapons and we are in grave danger. It’s just so ironic, how things play out.

I guess we were believing one single man in Iraq, to give us all the information on Saddam’s weapons. Which is just insane. President Bush presented information that was “deliberately misleading” and won’t even take reasonability for that.

Again, the only thing you Republicans have is to blame Clinton, but lord forbid Bush does the same thing, except launches a more massive campaign against Iraq (war) and Clinton never did.

The WMD’s that were found in 1998 (source please), if that is the case, then we should have launched war then…but we attacked Iraq in a two day campaign. We would have continued to attack if Saddam has not agreed to disarm.
Sadly, this report that came out in 2004 said that he didn’t have weapons, all the way back in 1994.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

Other evidence he had no WMD’s:
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/06/1616976.php
http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/040703C.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3157246.stm

(I have others in other posts, if you want to see more evidence and quotes)

And don’t you think he would have used the weapons by now? Or don’t you think we would have found the weapons by now? President Bush said we knew exactly where they were, and wow, where are they? I guess we didn’t know as much as we thought.

Read Blix's report the para about the dropping of bombs was only mentioned to show that 6500 bombs were missing and Blix said we have to assume they still exist. This is his report to the UN. You know the people you have been saying that said he did not have wmds.
As for the remarks Kerry made were because of Bush, well then I guess Kerry is not a man who speaks his own mind.
Uhm do you know who Blix is? He was Kays boss you know the head of the UN inspection team, the man whom the UN listened to, the guy who okayed the reports you have been quoting.

You keep refering to " Americans " as if you are not one. How about we once in awhile unless you arent one of us.
Also you said that you knew in 94 that he didnt have WMD's you were 4!!!!!!!!

In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,935251,00.htm
-------------------------
"Show me the WMD, Bushy," Blix sang as he danced around the UN General Assembly chamber. "You can't blame me, you lying Bushy."

http://www.freepressed.com/bush_speech_0907.htm
---------------------
Blix told the council that no weapons of mass destruction were found in the country

http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
------------------
"I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction, and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were none," Mr Blix told the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/05/1614090_comment.php

It was his report I asked you to read!!! How is it when I asked you to read it you said it was in contrast to David Kay(no relation to John Kay, or is there) now yuo quote him to prove your point. BLix is not a double edged sword.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/threat.htm

Interesting article on Iraq's WMD. It is a pretty good read.

You say Blix said we must assume he still has those weapons, right? Well assumptions are not good enough, especially when you go to war on assumptions.

I did click on the article, and it provides somewhat good evidence for your side. But I also showed Blix saying that he didn't think Saddam ever had weapons, etc. Plus I've posted other sources proving he didn't have weapons.

I mean come on, even Colin Powell said he didn't have any weapons, and if he had all of those things that were "missing" don't you think we would have found them?

The report never said he didnt think saddam ever had weapons OD. The report said there was no evidence to support Iraq's claim that they have destroyed all of the weapons and that approx 1 metric ton of VX may still exist.
Well I every war that has started has been on an assumption or two, come one if the evidence showed that the weapons did exist and now cant be found but also no verification of their destruction. Then I guess only a couple people in the world would say they dont exist.
Well since Columbus didnt rely on that premise and he made an assumption we are here on this continent today.
And lets say Truman didnt assume that little boy would work and he envaded Japan and we lost a half million troops and a million japanese, then would that have been right?
Or maybe the Japanese should have assumed we had developed the weapon and surrendered. So assumption arent always bad.

Assumptions aren't always bad, but they can be wrong, and backed up by poor information.

I still stick to my stance, in saying Saddam was no threat. And it has been proven, because all of the things that were "missing" and things that had no verification of destruction have not been found...and we had no evidence that he "had" weapons. Bush said he "HAD" weapons and he knew “exactly where they were”. He never said we could not "account" for some weapons.

But then again Chalabi said he did and was providing all the “real” intelligence for this war in Iraq, which is just spectacular.