NationStates Jolt Archive

Like millions of other people around the world, I watched in horror as the second airplane plunged into the WTC. I was in shock and could not bear to watch anymore. The condemnation of this horrible atrocity was soundly denounced from every corner of the world.

President George Bush, speaking from "ground zero" deplored the actions of the terrorists and defiantly claimed that America would "hunt down" those responsible. Before that speech, Bush stated:

"Make no mistake, the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts,"
Unfortunately, there was a "mistake", or should I say many mistakes.

Many people around the world supported the retaliatory attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was THE quarry.

Then the Bush administration took their eyes off of Afghanistan and made overtures about Iraq. The world balked and cried bullshit about Bush's plans.

Lies, deception and a "political problem". That in a nutshell is what Iraq has been for the past 26 plus years. I just listened to a speech by Scott Ritter and he details many facts that have been bandied about on these boards, and he even goes into the pending showdown with Iran.

You can listen to his speech here (http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3), or you can read the transcript here (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/).

The speech is just over an hour long, but is certainly worth the listen. I also read the transcript. He brings forward many facts and has an extensive background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Military_background) in the subject matter.

I think what it comes down to, is that the September 11 attacks were never the core agenda. For lack of a better expression, they were never that important. The US government had bigger fish to fry. Reshaping the post Cold War geopolitical order, for example.

I think what it comes down to, is that the September 11 attacks were never the core agenda. For lack of a better expression, they were never that important. The US government had bigger fish to fry. Reshaping the post Cold War geopolitical order, for example.
Absolutely. Iraq was on the agenda before those buildings came tumbling down. Some have stated that the first item on Bush's agenda after he took office was Iraq.

Some have stated that the first item on Bush's agenda after he took office was Iraq.
Don't credit him with too much. Look at the actual neocons, from Cheney over Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol to Wolfowitz.

Don't credit him with too much. Look at the actual neocons, from Cheney over Rumsfeld, Perle, Kristol to Wolfowitz.
Yup, the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/)does spring to mind.

Ritter does talk about a solution that challenges Americans to throw this horribly US policy (pending showdown with Iran) off course.

Scott Ritter was on Saddam Hussein's payroll. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2605&R=EBFA4C9

Scott Ritter was on Saddam Hussein's payroll. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2605&R=EBFA4C9
Yeah, okay.....whatever you say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard

The Weekly Standard is an American neoconservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995 and is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are founder William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes.
Now, if you care to debate the facts regarding Ritter's speech, then bring it on. This hogwash that you bring forward is irrelevant.

Hell, Speak it Canuck heaven. Baghdad bob and Saddam were chock full of lies and deception.

Hell, Speak it Canuck heaven. Baghdad bob and Saddam were chock full of lies and deception.
This is about lies and deception on this side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Now, if you care to debate the facts regarding the article, then bring it on. This hogwash that you bring forward is irrelevant.


The only lies on this side of the Atlantic are the ones you and the the kook left keep clinging to.

Now, if you care to debate the facts regarding the article, then bring it on. This hogwash that you bring forward is irrelevant.

The only lies on this side of the Atlantic are the ones you and the the kook left keep clinging to.
Again more irrelevance on your part. If you can't debate the issues, then you attack the poster. Knock off the flamebaiting.

Do yourself a favour and take an hour and listen to the speech. Please try to keep an open mind.

Again more irrelevance on your part. If you can't debate the issues, then you attack the poster. Knock off the flamebaiting.

Do yourself a favour and take an hour and listen to the speech. Please try to keep an open mind.


I am downloading it right now. I will keep an open mind - please do the same.

I was not pleased with the level of discourse from either of us last time. I hope to raise it in this one. - Fair enough???

( I admit I did not start it off too well. )

I am downloading it right now. I will keep an open mind - please do the same.

I was not pleased with the level of discourse from either of us last time. I hope to raise it in this one. - Fair enough???

( I admit I did not start it off too well. )
Fair enough. :)

Like millions of other people around the world, I watched in horror as the second airplane plunged into the WTC. I was in shock and could not bear to watch anymore. The condemnation of this horrible atrocity was soundly denounced from every corner of the world.

President George Bush, speaking from "ground zero" deplored the actions of the terrorists and defiantly claimed that America would "hunt down" those responsible. Before that speech, Bush stated:


Unfortunately, there was a "mistake", or should I say many mistakes.

Many people around the world supported the retaliatory attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was THE quarry.

Then the Bush administration took their eyes off of Afghanistan and made overtures about Iraq. The world balked and cried bullshit about Bush's plans.

Lies, deception and a "political problem". That in a nutshell is what Iraq has been for the past 26 plus years. I just listened to a speech by Scott Ritter and he details many facts that have been bandied about on these boards, and he even goes into the pending showdown with Iran.

You can listen to his speech here (http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3), or you can read the transcript here (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/).

The speech is just over an hour long, but is certainly worth the listen. I also read the transcript. He brings forward many facts and has an extensive background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Military_background) in the subject matter.
Obviously, there are different opinons on Mr. Ritter: http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm

You know? I have been thinking about this myself and do have to say upfront that I do support the Iraq War in general and it had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction though I do believe he had them at one point.

Were lies told? It depends on what side of the spectrum and who you want to believe. Me personally, and this is solely my opinion, that the intellegience used to go into Iraq was most definitely faulty since it was never updated from the last time the intelligence was used to bomb Iraq.

Did Bush plan on attacking Iraq prior to September 11? I do not know and I am not going to trust PNAC to prove that he did. I do not believe that we would be in Iraq right now if it were not for 9/11.

Obviously, there are different opinons on Mr. Ritter: http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm

Let's start with the basics first: In order to believe Scott Ritter is telling the truth that Iraq has been disarmed and no longer contains the capacity or capability to produce WMD's (whether they are nuclear, chemical or biological) you the reader absolutely must believe that every other UNSCOM, and IAEA inspector is wrong or lying, and that Scott Ritter is the ONLY person in UNSCOM, IAEA and in fact the entire US Intelligence Services who knows the truth. This statement is irrefutable, as Scott Ritter is the ONLY former UNSCOM or US Based Intelligence "source" on record as saying that Iraq has been sufficiently disarmed, and no longer poses a threat to its neighbors, or the United States of America.

For obvious reasons, I stopped reading after that paragraph.

Check the date.

Obviously, there are different opinons on Mr. Ritter: http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm
Come on Eut....you can do better than this!!

I am not going to put much stock into the web site that you selected to defame Mr. Ritter. Just look at the title? Religion Of Peace My Ass or ROPMA for short. :(

Please stick to the issues raised by Mr. Ritter. Thanks.

The condemnation of this horrible atrocity was soundly denounced from every corner of the world.
Except in quite a few areas of the middle east and indonesia, where people danced.

Come on Eut....you can do better than this!!

I am not going to put much stock into the web site that you selected to defame Mr. Ritter. Just look at the title? Religion Of Peace My Ass or ROPMA for short. :(

Please stick to the issues raised by Mr. Ritter. Thanks.
Some people, when finding something that pisses them off, couldn't give a rat's shit about being PC and balanced.

Some people, when finding something that pisses them off, couldn't give a rat's shit about being PC and balanced.
Perhaps those people should first understand why they are pissed off in the first place? Then they should carefully weigh what has been brought forward, why it has been brought forward, and then hopefully they will respond with reasoned argument rather than knee jerk, unsubstantiated rhetoric, dis-information and lies?

You know? I have been thinking about this myself and do have to say upfront that I do support the Iraq War in general and it had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction though I do believe he had them at one point.

Were lies told? It depends on what side of the spectrum and who you want to believe. Me personally, and this is solely my opinion, that the intellegience used to go into Iraq was most definitely faulty since it was never updated from the last time the intelligence was used to bomb Iraq.

Did Bush plan on attacking Iraq prior to September 11? I do not know and I am not going to trust PNAC to prove that he did. I do not believe that we would be in Iraq right now if it were not for 9/11.


He absolutely had them at one point. He used them. That is an absolute fact. No credible group/person disagrees with that point.


The disagreement is on whether or not he had them after Gulf War I and up until we went in in 2003.

Look at the speeches we made before congress, the UN and various other groups. We constantly referred to Saddam's not destroying the weapons we know he had and indeed he admitted having. (Even Scott Ritter is on record as saying he had them)

SOOOO - we invaded Iraq partly because (only partly) he refused to prove that he destroyed those old weapons and he was constantly disrupting the inspections.

After the opening weeks of the war, we began searching for WMD's and we found some old mustard gas, and some active binary sarin. No huge stockpiles of WMD's were found and at the time of the Iraq Survey Report (the guys looking for WMD's) we had just 53 instances of WMD's found. - Note we FOUND WMD's and it is detailed in the EXACT same report that the news media trumpeted as saying NO WMD's. There is a very big difference between "NO WMD's" and 53 instances of WMD's. In fact, we found enough binary sarin (which is VERY stable and had not degraded) to make 9-11 look like a Sunday picnic. (See Duelfer report Chemical Weapons annex F)

Did we find warehouses full of WMD's??? No. But, let's look at what David Kay - head of the Iraq Survey Group, and his successor, Charles Duelfer said about what happened. They both made statements that say that WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria. We also have satellite photos of long lines of trucks leaving suspected WMD sites and heading for Syria. We have on record the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force saying he supervised 56 jumbo jet flights full of WMD's from Iraq to Damascus. In the opening days of the war, we fired on and killed everyone in a Soviet convoy - leaving WMD facilities. That convoy was filled with Chemical weapons experts. Experts at cleaning up WMD sites. The part in italics, is fact, but I will have to find new links, the old ones have been removed, - expired. I will see what I can do - so ignore that part if you wish - until I can find new links, the rest is absolutely true and sourceable.

Since the ISG report, we have found and declassified, 500 more Chemical weapons,
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

1,500 Gallons of Chemical agents and nuclear material that is ideal for "dirty bombs".
http://qandablog.typepad.com/questions_and_answers/2005/11/disinformation_.html

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_bc.pdf

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp (http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1


Here is proof that the weapons found were the EXACT ones that we said he had and what we went into Iraq for. This is from the 2003 State of the Union Address

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Like millions of other people around the world, I watched in horror as the second airplane plunged into the WTC. I was in shock and could not bear to watch anymore. The condemnation of this horrible atrocity was soundly denounced from every corner of the world.

President George Bush, speaking from "ground zero" deplored the actions of the terrorists and defiantly claimed that America would "hunt down" those responsible. Before that speech, Bush stated:


Unfortunately, there was a "mistake", or should I say many mistakes.

Many people around the world supported the retaliatory attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden was THE quarry.

Then the Bush administration took their eyes off of Afghanistan and made overtures about Iraq. The world balked and cried bullshit about Bush's plans.

Lies, deception and a "political problem". That in a nutshell is what Iraq has been for the past 26 plus years. I just listened to a speech by Scott Ritter and he details many facts that have been bandied about on these boards, and he even goes into the pending showdown with Iran.

You can listen to his speech here (http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3), or you can read the transcript here (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/).

The speech is just over an hour long, but is certainly worth the listen. I also read the transcript. He brings forward many facts and has an extensive background (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter#Military_background) in the subject matter.
I think Saddam was removed for two main reasons. One, he was the chief symbol of this type of basket-case thug dictator who could piss off America with impunity, and two, the hope was that Iraq would be a successful, prosperous democracy, and encourage reformers in the mid east.

At any rate, I don't think we can leave at this point because there is clearly much work to be done in Iraq, and now it's a matter of honor and national integrity. It is now our moral duty to help those people, it's not even about whether the war is making us safer or not. That's completely irrelevant. W

We Americans like to think that our actions abroad are based on morals. Staying in Iraq until the job is done would be the best demonstration of that.

As for WMDs, I think they were overhyped. The WMDs were a good excuse to go to war, but I don't think they were the real reason why this war occurred. I just wish President Bush would state the REAL reasons why so that Americans would know what they're getting into, and not feel cheated 3 years down the line when not a single nuke turns up.

Come on Eut....you can do better than this!!

I am not going to put much stock into the web site that you selected to defame Mr. Ritter. Just look at the title? Religion Of Peace My Ass or ROPMA for short. :(

Please stick to the issues raised by Mr. Ritter. Thanks.


CH, Ritter DOES contradict everything that the agencies listed in the ROPMA article. Is it only OUR side that has to examine YOUR issues or is this a two way street??? The issues brought up by ROPMA, are indeed valid - regardless of the credibility of the site. If you disagree, then the very basis of your topic here Scott Ritter, should be dismissed also. He absolutely took money from Iraq when he made his anti-war film and therefore cannot be credible either.


I read the transcript and listened to your link. All I can say is what is new there?? I also have some factual disputes and complaints on his tone and terminology - that will come probably tomorrow.

As for WMDs, I think they were overhyped. The WMDs were a good excuse to go to war, but I don't think they were the real reason why this war occurred. I just wish President Bush would state the REAL reasons why so that Americans would know what they're getting into, and not feel cheated 3 years down the line when not a single nuke turns up.


I agree with the whole of your post, but wish to comment on this part.

The WMD's WERE a good excuse to go to war. They were the ONLY reason that the press picked up on - despite many assertions that there were others - including the humanitarian ones and his support for terrorists. He also had known links to Al-Qaeda itself although there is no proof that he had anything to do with 9-11.

The main reason we went into Iraq is exactly what you stated - we wanted a stablizing presence in the middle east. Iraq was the target specified because they have historically been a destablilizing force in the region,had an ABYSMAL record on human rights, were "locking on" to our planes on a near daily basis, were actively supporting terrorists and had WMD's.

Good night all. I will see you tomorrow.

He absolutely had them at one point. He used them. That is an absolute fact. No credible group/person disagrees with that point.


The disagreement is on whether or not he had them after Gulf War I and up until we went in in 2003.

Look at the speeches we made before congress, the UN and various other groups. We constantly referred to Saddam's not destroying the weapons we know he had and indeed he admitted having. (Even Scott Ritter is on record as saying he had them)

SOOOO - we invaded Iraq partly because (only partly) he refused to prove that he destroyed those old weapons and he was constantly disrupting the inspections.

After the opening weeks of the war, we began searching for WMD's and we found some old mustard gas, and some active binary sarin. No huge stockpiles of WMD's were found and at the time of the Iraq Survey Report (the guys looking for WMD's) we had just 53 instances of WMD's found. - Note we FOUND WMD's and it is detailed in the EXACT same report that the news media trumpeted as saying NO WMD's. There is a very big difference between "NO WMD's" and 53 instances of WMD's. In fact, we found enough binary sarin (which is VERY stable and had not degraded) to make 9-11 look like a Sunday picnic. (See Duelfer report Chemical Weapons annex F)

Did we find warehouses full of WMD's??? No. But, let's look at what David Kay - head of the Iraq Survey Group, and his successor, Charles Duelfer said about what happened. They both made statements that say that WMD's were moved from Iraq to Syria. We also have satellite photos of long lines of trucks leaving suspected WMD sites and heading for Syria. We have on record the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force saying he supervised 56 jumbo jet flights full of WMD's from Iraq to Damascus. In the opening days of the war, we fired on and killed everyone in a Soviet convoy - leaving WMD facilities. That convoy was filled with Chemical weapons experts. Experts at cleaning up WMD sites. The part in italics, is fact, but I will have to find new links, the old ones have been removed, - expired. I will see what I can do - so ignore that part if you wish - until I can find new links, the rest is absolutely true and sourceable.

Since the ISG report, we have found and declassified, 500 more Chemical weapons,
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

1,500 Gallons of Chemical agents and nuclear material that is ideal for "dirty bombs".
http://qandablog.typepad.com/questions_and_answers/2005/11/disinformation_.html

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_bc.pdf

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

http://www.ropma.net/ritter.htm

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp (http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp)

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1


Here is proof that the weapons found were the EXACT ones that we said he had and what we went into Iraq for. This is from the 2003 State of the Union Address

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
Did you listen to the Ritter speech?

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm)

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe

Does Iraq truly threaten the existence of our nation? If one takes at face value the rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration, it would seem so. According to President Bush and his advisers, Iraq is known to possess weapons of mass destruction and is actively seeking to reconstitute the weapons production capabilities that had been eliminated by UN weapons inspectors from 1991 to 1998, while at the same time barring the resumption of such inspections.

I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them.

While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. This figure takes into account the destruction or dismantling of every major factory associated with prohibited weapons manufacture, all significant items of production equipment, and the majority of the weapons and agent produced by Iraq.

With the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within five years (the jury is still out regarding Iraq's VX nerve agent program - while inspectors have accounted for the laboratories, production equipment and most of the agent produced from 1990-91, major discrepancies in the Iraqi accounting preclude any final disposition at this time.)

The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture. Effective monitoring inspections, fully implemented from 1994-1998 without any significant obstruction from Iraq, never once detected any evidence of retained proscribed activity or effort by Iraq to reconstitute that capability which had been eliminated through inspections.
Bear in mind, this is also BEFORE the UN Resolution 1441 was drafted or implimented.

Why did the US prevent Hans Blix and the UN inspectors from finishing their job, especially since the UN was not finding any WMD.

Bringing up the circumstantial evidence is not only irrelevant, it doesn't fit the policy that was formed in regards to WMD?

One OUTRIGHT lie about Iraq:
"The next Smoking Gun would be an Atom bomb"

Sure he had the Biological and Chemical weapons, but where are the NUKES that Bush claimed he had, if Syria had them wouldn't they be insuating that they did, if Iran did why would they bother trying to make more. There were no Nukes, that was complete and utter bull from the so called Commander in Chief.

CH, Ritter DOES contradict everything that the agencies listed in the ROPMA article. Is it only OUR side that has to examine YOUR issues or is this a two way street??? The issues brought up by ROPMA, are indeed valid - regardless of the credibility of the site. If you disagree, then the very basis of your topic here Scott Ritter, should be dismissed also. He absolutely took money from Iraq when he made his anti-war film and therefore cannot be credible either.
I am sorry but first off, the credibility of the site is a major concern. Secondly, whether he made any money off of Iraq (which I doubt) is irrelevant to whether Iraq had WMD. Later in 2002 and early 2003, Blix and the UN inspectors were confirming everything that Ritter claimed. Yet Bush still pulled the plug.

I read the transcript and listened to your link. All I can say is what is new there?? I also have some factual disputes and complaints on his tone and terminology - that will come probably tomorrow.
Did you hear the part where Bob Dole claimed that Saddam was a true friend of America in March of 1990 and by August of the same year, George Herbert Bush was comparing Saddam to Hitler. Hence the creation of a "political problem". That is HUGE!!

How about his comments concerning any proposed "limited" nuclear strike on Iran? What do you think about his analogy of letting the "genie" out of the bottle, and not being able to get it back in?

What about the possibility of nuclear retaliation?

When does the nonsense stop and the gravity of the future kick in?

In fact, we found enough binary sarin (which is VERY stable and had not degraded) to make 9-11 look like a Sunday picnic. (See Duelfer report Chemical Weapons annex F)
They WERE degraded (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf), and it did not mention in the report that it was very stable.

Nice analogy about picnics in New York and all, but I do believe that you have embellished just a tad?

And all of this still is irrelevant:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
It would appear that you are trying to make this news bigger than what it was at the time?

There were no nukes, no long range rockets, and no facilities dedicated to the manufacturing of WMD. Certainly no smoking gun and certainly no threat to the US.

One OUTRIGHT lie about Iraq:
"The next Smoking Gun would be an Atom bomb"

Sure he had the Biological and Chemical weapons, but where are the NUKES that Bush claimed he had, if Syria had them wouldn't they be insuating that they did, if Iran did why would they bother trying to make more. There were no Nukes, that was complete and utter bull from the so called Commander in Chief.
Exactly. This I feel was all part of the massive deception:

Search for the 'smoking gun' (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/)

Friday, January 10, 2003

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."

Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

I thought of those comments this week following the statement from the chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, acknowledging that no "smoking gun" has been found yet since the resumption of the weapons inspections. Still, Blix did not offer Iraq a clean bill of health.

"The absence of smoking guns and the prompt access which we have had so far, and which is most welcome, is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units" Blix said, insisting they need more time to continue their inspections.

Dr. Rice conjures up the "mushroom cloud", and the fear of nuclear weapons.

However, Blix made several astute observations and stressed the need for more time to look for WMD.

They WERE degraded (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf), and it did not mention in the report that it was very stable.

Nice analogy about picnics in New York and all, but I do believe that you have embellished just a tad?

And all of this still is irrelevant:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html


It would appear that you are trying to make this news bigger than what it was at the time?

There were no nukes, no long range rockets, and no facilities dedicated to the manufacturing of WMD. Certainly no smoking gun and certainly no threat to the US.

Oooooh, and you used Fox. Nice touch.

Some people, when finding something that pisses them off, couldn't give a rat's shit about being...balanced.

Giving into emotional responses and forsaking the ability to view things from a rational, logical, objective perspective is the ultimate hallmark of a weak mind.

As for WMDs, I think they were overhyped. The WMDs were a good excuse to go to war, but I don't think they were the real reason why this war occurred. I just wish President Bush would state the REAL reasons why so that Americans would know what they're getting into, and not feel cheated 3 years down the line when not a single nuke turns up.
Definitely WMD was "overhyped". However, I do disagree that they were a good excuse for war because the reality that there were none has come back to haunt the Bush administration.

The goal from the outset IMHO, was solely about regime change. If Bush had publicly stated that as the goal, then the US would not have invaded Iraq.

Oooooh, and you used Fox. Nice touch.
Well, I do try to be "fair and balanced". :D

They WERE degraded (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf), and it did not mention in the report that it was very stable.

Many (most) WERE degraded - but I fail to see why that is relevent. We did not ask how Saddam was storing the munitions, we asked that he prove they were DESTROYED. If they were properly stored, they would be fully active today.

Binary Sarin does not degrade - it CAN'T!! That is the whole purpose of it being BINARY - the two components of the chemical are not mixed until launched from a proper firing device. There is nothing to degrade until it is mixed.

Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Nice analogy about picnics in New York and all, but I do believe that you have embellished just a tad?

No I did not embellish. Look up the properties of Sarin and Cyclosarin. It does not take much to do MAJOR damage. If released in a heavily populated area on a day with just a slight breeze, there would be FAR more deaths than 3,000.

Please read up on Sarin and Cyclosarin (which is 100 times more deadly than Sarin)

And all of this still is irrelevant:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

How so??? They were the weapons Bush referred to in 1993 - he specifically mentioned that the weapons Saddam used on Iraqi citizens were not destroyed. What do you think Colin Powell was talking about before the UN in his famous address??? Those weapons were part of the UN mandate, the Cease-fire agreement and were one of the reasons we went into Iraq.




It would appear that you are trying to make this news bigger than what it was at the time?

Just because left wingers say so does not make it accurate. Anyone can find someone to say "naw - those weren't the ones we wanted" but that simply does not jibe with the record. I provided links to Powell's Speech and Bush's address, They were indeed the ones they were talking about. I have seen ONE person who MIGHT know (the one in the fox report) who has said they are not anything to get excited about. But unfortunately for the left, his statement directly contradicts the record of events before the War - as I have already linked to.

There were no nukes, no long range rockets, and no facilities dedicated to the manufacturing of WMD. Certainly no smoking gun and certainly no threat to the US.

Nukes??? no weapons, but 1.77 TONS of enriched uranium. There are two uses for that. One is for generating Nuclear power. Saddam had no Nuclear power plants. The other is for a weapon. The Duelfer report, the Kay report and the Butler report ALL said that Saddam intended to reconstitute this program when the sanctions were lifted. He was almost successful in getting them lifted. People like your dear Scott Ritter were on Saddam's payroll making movies to undermine the sanctions. The French, russians and much of the press beat the drum of how the Iraqi citizens were suffering terribly because of the sanctions. Of course they never reported that Saddam was using the money from oil - for - food for his own purposes. There was plenty of resources for the humanitarian efforts, but instead of giving it to his people, Saddam used it to enrich himself and to bribe officials of the UN, foriegn companies and foriegn governments. The purpose of the bribes??? - to get around the sanctions and to undermine them to the point they would eventually be lifted.


Did you EVER read the reports I posted. In case you hadn't noticed, those were the OFFICIAL ones the UN deemed credible. I wasted over an hour of my time listening to and reading Scott Ritters unsubstantiated (and indeed discredited) accusations and cheap smears. There was nothing new in that speech at all.


Butler found evidence of a VX program, and the Duelfer and Kay reports listed literally hundreds of violations of the UN mandates. Those mandates were related to the production and disclosure of WMD operations.


There was plenty of smoke in the gun, it is just that the press wants to bring down Bush and it got scant coverage. In another example of gross bias in the press, his ties to terrorists and Al-Qaeda got no coverage either. The 9-11 report (even though it was not within it's scope of investigation) thought that it was important enough to point to several instances of cooperation between the two. They stated they could not PROVE a collaberation on 9-11 but they absolutely knew that there was a relationship and Saddam actually offered sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. Look it up. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
Page 66 as labled in the report. ( your browser will say differently)

Did you listen to the Ritter speech?

Is Iraq a True Threat to the US? (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm)

Published on Saturday, July 20, 2002 in the Boston Globe


Bear in mind, this is also BEFORE the UN Resolution 1441 was drafted or implimented.


Yes I listened to it. Completely. I took notes and copied the text. There is nothing new there at all. Much of what he said flies in the face of every single one of the official reports. Hans Blix himself (certainly no supporter of the war) found evidence of VX production among other prohibited chemical weapons.

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 tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. 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. ----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 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm


That 1000 TONS of VX (one of the deadliest agents known to man) IS STILL MISSING - What happened to it????

I have been answering your questions, now how about returning the favor?

Why did the US prevent Hans Blix and the UN inspectors from finishing their job, especially since the UN was not finding any WMD.

Because they were being mislead, delayed and prohibited access to WMD sites. It is IN the Duelfer reports if you really care to see that. Saddam was biding his time until the sanctions had been undermined sufficiently. By misleading the inspectors and preventing them any meaningful inspections, he was succeeding in his efforts of getting them lifted.


Cooperating With UNSCOM While Preserving WMD

Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction. Iraqi behavior under sanctions reflects the interplay between Saddam’s perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in the Regime’s ability to ride out inspections without full compliance, and the perceived costs and longevity of sanctions.



http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer1_b.pdf
However, at the end of 1998, Iraq's persistent obstruction of the work of the UN inspectors finally forced them to leave. The inspectors were still unable to account for:

* up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals (approximately 300 tonnes of which, in the Iraqi CW programme, were unique to the production of VX nerve agent);
* up to 360 tonnes of bulk CW agent (including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent);
* over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents;
* large quantities of growth media acquired for use in the production of biological weapons - enough to produce over three times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits to having manufactured.


http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front/TextOnly?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1068717339672&to=true

Giving into emotional responses and forsaking the ability to view things from a rational, logical, objective perspective is the ultimate hallmark of a weak mind.

That is indeed true. Another truth is not looking at things from the other side and actually looking at things instead of saying it is not credible as it belongs to this group makes one foolish.

Both sides here are being foolish for not listening to one another and only believing what they want to believe. Both sides of this debate are right in what they are saying but it is apparent that neither side wants to say it because they feel that their side is the correct side and will stop at nothing to prove that their side is the correct side and will use whatever sources that proves their point.

As I said before, I believe Saddam had them in the past but wether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is up for grabs as there are to many inconsistencies here to say one way or the other.

CanuckHeaven, you're wasting your time.

True believers such as USalpenstock would believe the sky is made out of cheese if George Bush said so, because they seem to have some kind of psychological investment in the idea of war. His posts here read like a catalogue of rightwing war justifications, with all the intervening disproofs simply omitted, as if they never happened. There were NO WMDs in Iraq. There was NO nuclear program in Iraq. Iraq DID NOT pose a threat to the US. Yet, USalpenstock and others like him are strident in their claims that there were too such things, proof, facts, and truth notwithstanding. The more disastrous the situation the US created over there becomes, the more strident their insistences get, and the weaker the points they insist upon get as well. Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the UN (which the US rightwing hates to the point of wanting to see it disbanded anyway) is a justification for lauching a war of choice, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of soldiers and civilians, destabilizing a dangerous region of the world, creating a breeding ground for new terrorism, and giving political legitimacy and strength to our avowed enemies such as al qaeda and Iran - all results of this wrong-headed Iraq policy? Please. Where is the reason in such a position?

The bottom line is that any action the requires this much effort to justify it, is not justifiable.

Actually Muravyets,

Everyone here has brought up good points. Unfortunately, in a debate like this, neither side will win because neither side is 100% right nor are they 100% wrong. It will all boil down to what one wants to believe to be fact and what is not.

That is why there is alot of tension in this thread because both sides are challenging one another and denouncing what the other side responds with.

Both sides are right and both sides are wrong at the sametime.

Well, I do try to be "fair and balanced". :D
Ha! Oops! Sorry about that. My halo slipped. :D

That is indeed true. Another truth is not looking at things from the other side and actually looking at things instead of saying it is not credible as it belongs to this group makes one foolish.
Sir/Madame, I do believe we discussed credibility on another thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11462191&postcount=357) and I do believe that I explained why credible news sources are so important to a debate. If you believe that "Religion Of Peace My Ass" is a credible site, then I suggest that you will not do well in debates here if you link to similar sites to "prove" your point. Suggesting that I am somehow "foolish" for asking for credible sources is a ridiculous statement to make.

As for suggesting that I do not look at the other side, please consider that I would have supported the invasion IF Saddam had said no to weapons inspectors. The other point to remember and this is very significant is that the UN inspectors were in Iraq and they were not finding any WMD. IMHO opinion, Bush did not want the inspectors to finish the inspection because he KNEW that Iraq didn't have any. Period.

From the Scott Ritter transcript (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/):

The CIA knew in 1992 that there were no missiles left in Iraq. The CIA knew in 1992 that there was no nuclear weapons capability in Iraq. The CIA knew in 1995 that all chemical weapons and all biological weapons were accounted for. And, yet, here we are today, and it’s amazing. Turn on the television, and listen to the President, and listen to the Democrats. The President will say,’ we got it wrong on the weapons. We thought they were there, and they weren’t. Oops.’ And then the Democrats said, ‘we were misled. The President said that there were weapons there, so we voted for the war, but now it turns out there weren’t. We went to war on the basis of a lie. We were misled. Don’t blame us.’ Blame everyone, ladies and gentlemen, because I’m here to tell you they knew there were no weapons. They knew it. The CIA knew it. The U.S. intelligence community knew it. Congress knew it. The Senate knew it, especially those who sat on the oversight committees and were cognizant of the intelligence information. They knew that the policy was regime change. They supported the policy of regime change. They were part of the implementation of the policy of regime change and the formulation of the policy of regime change.

Both sides here are being foolish for not listening to one another and only believing what they want to believe.
There is that word "foolish" again. In a couple of other threads (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11455114&postcount=108), you stated that you "normally do not judge (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11454665&postcount=88)". Well it appears that you do make judgements. I am so honoured that you could find the time to bless me with your judgement. :eek:

Both sides of this debate are right in what they are saying but it is apparent that neither side wants to say it because they feel that their side is the correct side and will stop at nothing to prove that their side is the correct side and will use whatever sources that proves their point.
How could both sides possibly be right? Your government, Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, David Kay, and Charlie Deulfer, are all saying the same thing. There were no WMD to be found, at least enough to go to war over. Even the Butler report was critical of the "flawed intelligence". Imagine if you will that both the US and the UK were suffering from an "intelligence" breakdown at the same time? The game was afoot. The scenery had been painted and the actors were all in place. Once Blix was removed, it was time for the "Shock and Awe" show.

On the other hand, we have USalpenstock saying that they are all wrong.

As I said before, I believe Saddam had them in the past but wether or not he had them when we invaded in 2003 is up for grabs as there are to many inconsistencies here to say one way or the other.
Although you wish to appear vague on some of the issues, I am getting a better understanding of the intent of your posts over the various threads. You are definitely establishing a pattern.

Ha! Oops! Sorry about that. My halo slipped. :D
*CH tosses Eut a couple of lag bolts to help keep the halo in place. We wouldn't want the devil to get any false impressions about your angelic ways now would we? :D

Scott Ritter was on Saddam Hussein's payroll. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2605&R=EBFA4C9
what a 2-timer!!

when he quit as a UN weapons inspector in the clinton administration, they said he was a spy for israel.

y'all should listen to mr ritter's lecture. he will give you a whole new perspective on the US relationship with iraq and why we had to go to war and how it was impossible for iraq to comply with the UN resolutions.

scott ritter gave a speech at my local college last year. what he had to say was so depressing that it made my sister cry.

Canuckheaven, I do not want to be a pain here but I am going to be this once and ask you a serious question.

Why is it that when I give credence to both sides of a debate that you immediately start to talk down to me? I do not deserve to be talked down to just as I am sure you do not deserve the same treatment.

Yes I said I do not like passing judgments but if you also notice, I did not mention a single person but said that BOTH SIDES are foolish in this debate for denouncing one another as wrong and proclaim there side to be right all the time.

Scott Ritter does indeed have many facts at his disposal but if I remember right, this was the same person who proclaimed that Iraq still had them when he left Iraq. I could be wrong on this and I appologize in advance if I am.

Blix himself said he could not be sure that they were totally disarmed or not. I know I heard him say that. I also remember during those Security Council Debates after 1441 was passed that he was giving ammunition to both sides of the debate. He could not come right out and say for sure what was what and both sides used what was said as ammunition both for attacking Iraq and against attacking Iraq.

As to not having WMD, I know they found some that weren't destroyed but could not do much in the state that they were in. I am not going to get into a debate on wether or not they constitute WMD or not. That's for a different thread and one I probably will not get involved in anyway.

As to my comments that both sides are right and wrong, I have read the reports listed here and both sides have facts in regards to said reports. To say that one side is right over the another in regards to Iraq is really disingenious as again, neither side is right nor wrong. In reality, its a wash.

It all boils down to what one wants to believe.

Before you bash this post, keep in mind that I am a peaceful person. I want peace to prevail anywhere and was hoping for a peaceful solution upto the very last minute before the bombs started to fall in Baghdad. Since then, I am in full support of the troops and the hope that they accomplish their mission over there and come home safely to their families. I really hope Sir, that we can come to an understanding where we do not like one another for I do like how you post and what you come up with in a debate. Keep up the good work in that regard but remember, you will not always be right and you do have to listen to what your opposition is saying with a clear and open mind as I have kept an open mind with what you have been saying.

CanuckHeaven, you're wasting your time.

True believers such as USalpenstock would believe the sky is made out of cheese if George Bush said so, because they seem to have some kind of psychological investment in the idea of war. His posts here read like a catalogue of rightwing war justifications, with all the intervening disproofs simply omitted, as if they never happened. There were NO WMDs in Iraq. There was NO nuclear program in Iraq. Iraq DID NOT pose a threat to the US. Yet, USalpenstock and others like him are strident in their claims that there were too such things, proof, facts, and truth notwithstanding. The more disastrous the situation the US created over there becomes, the more strident their insistences get, and the weaker the points they insist upon get as well. Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the UN (which the US rightwing hates to the point of wanting to see it disbanded anyway) is a justification for lauching a war of choice, killing and maiming uncounted thousands of soldiers and civilians, destabilizing a dangerous region of the world, creating a breeding ground for new terrorism, and giving political legitimacy and strength to our avowed enemies such as al qaeda and Iran - all results of this wrong-headed Iraq policy? Please. Where is the reason in such a position?

The bottom line is that any action the requires this much effort to justify it, is not justifiable.
I agree with everything that you wrote, except that I do not think I am wasting my time. :)

I agree with everything that you wrote, except that I do not think I am wasting my time. :)
did this link give the story of when mr ritter demonstrated that there were no missiles in any of the spots the CIA told him held iraqi missiles, (having sent divers to the bottom of lakes to search for non-existant missiles) the CIA man said to him that there are between 12 and 20 missiles in iraq and that number would NEVER CHANGE?

its very hard to comply with UN resolutions to remove weapons that dont exist but are stated to exist no matter how thoroughly its show that they dont.

*CH tosses Eut a couple of lag bolts to help keep the halo in place. We wouldn't want the devil to get any false impressions about your angelic ways now would we? :D
LMAO! Hell no! :D

Call me insane for asking this question: why were two aeroplanes flown into the World Trade Centre?

Call me insane for asking this question: why were two aeroplanes flown into the World Trade Centre?

Because 50,000 people worked there and it was a symbol of America's prosperity much like the Pentagon is a symbol of America's military power.

Yes, yes, yes, but why did it happen? What provoked two dozen men to actually do this? What is the cause?

Yes, yes, yes, but why did it happen? What provoked two dozen men to actually do this? What is the cause?

To disrupt America's way of life. To cause as much mayhem as possibile. To split the people of this fair nation.

Yes, but why do they wish to cause such conditions?

Yes, but why do they wish to cause such conditions?

Because they want to establish a world wide calaphate, totally under their rule, with shria law. If that happens, there will be no more freedom of speech, no more freedom of religion, etc etc. You will be executed if you disagreed with what they are saying.

Scott Ritter does indeed have many facts at his disposal but if I remember right, this was the same person who proclaimed that Iraq still had them when he left Iraq. I could be wrong on this and I appologize in advance if I am.



No, you are right. He did indeed say that.


But you are missing the point that we have found them. The exact ones we spoke of before the UN and in numerous addresses to the public.

That fact alone discredits Ritter altogether - along with most of what the anti-Bush factions do.


I want to make clear that I am only a luke-warm supporter of President Bush, but on this issue he was absolutely right.

Because they want to establish a world wide calaphate, totally under their rule, with shria law. If that happens, there will be no more freedom of speech, no more freedom of religion, etc etc. You will be executed if you disagreed with what they are saying.


What has prompted this desire?

No, you are right. He did indeed say that.


But you are missing the point that we have found them. The exact ones we spoke of before the UN and in numerous addresses to the public.

That fact alone discredits Ritter altogether - along with most of what the anti-Bush factions do.


I want to make clear that I am only a luke-warm supporter of President Bush, but on this issue he was absolutely right.
Nah. They weren't the ones we were looking for. There was also no imminent threat posed to the US to make us go to war.

Yes, yes, yes, but why did it happen? What provoked two dozen men to actually do this? What is the cause?

Several reasons. The religious tenets of radical Islam demand the killing of infidels. (note I said RADICAL Islam). Bin Laden was particularly steamed that infidels were present in the middle east. He vehemently objects to any non - Islamic presence in the Holy Land.

In the era of Soviet expansion, we supported some people we probably would have been better off trying to persuade to be more benevolent leaders instead of giving them a free pass to do whatever they wished. At that time though, the Soviet Union was a HUGE threat and was literally taking over the world. So it was VITAL that we had allies in the region to counteract the Russian influence. Even so, the grievences that they may have with us are WAY overblown. Our left makes sure that they fan these flames with gross exagerations of US misconduct and is largely responsible for the animosity much of the middle east feels.

Our left makes sure that they fan these flames with gross exagerations of US misconduct and is largely responsible for the animosity much of the middle east feels.
You're saying the words of the left is outweighing the firepower of the right when it comes to animosity towards us from the Middle East?

Nah. They weren't the ones we were looking for. There was also no imminent threat posed to the US to make us go to war.


I disagree. They are exactly the ones we sought - as out lined in Colin Powells speech before the UN and in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

We were not looking for WMD's we were not aware of, we were looking for the ones we KNEW existed and that Saddam refused to destroy. Look at EVERY SINGLE United Nations resolution on the topic.


There was absolutely a threat, and the whole purpose of going in was to avoid the imminent part. I have read transcripts of tapes that show that Saddam wanted to give WMD's to terrorist groups. He figured that by doing such, he would avoid the blame.

Several reasons. The religious tenets of radical Islam demand the killing of infidels. (note I said RADICAL Islam). Bin Laden was particularly steamed that infidels were present in the middle east. He vehemently objects to any non - Islamic presence in the Holy Land.

In the era of Soviet expansion, we supported some people we probably would have been better off trying to persuade to be more benevolent leaders instead of giving them a free pass to do whatever they wished. At that time though, the Soviet Union was a HUGE threat and was literally taking over the world. So it was VITAL that we had allies in the region to counteract the Russian influence. Even so, the grievences that they may have with us are WAY overblown. Our left makes sure that they fan these flames with gross exagerations of US misconduct and is largely responsible for the animosity much of the middle east feels.


Oh, so does the Old Testament. Anyway, isn't that quite a common Arab niggle about other people owning/occupying Palestine?

Anyway, how did dear Osama go from bed partner to the 'Enemy'?

I disagree. They are exactly the ones we sought - as out lined in Colin Powells speech before the UN and in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

We were not looking for WMD's we were not aware of, we were looking for the ones we KNEW existed and that Saddam refused to destroy. Look at EVERY SINGLE United Nations resolution on the topic.


There was absolutely a threat, and the whole purpose of going in was to avoid the imminent part. I have read transcripts of tapes that show that Saddam wanted to give WMD's to terrorist groups. He figured that by doing such, he would avoid the blame.


Whatever Saddam Hussein may have wanted to do is immaterial. The fact is that he didn't give any weapons to anyone and that his regime was crumbling more than the edifice of the New Labour Project.

Didn't the Weapons Inspector say that there weren't any weapons? That's what I heard or was the BBC lying?

Many (most) WERE degraded - but I fail to see why that is relevent. We did not ask how Saddam was storing the munitions, we asked that he prove they were DESTROYED. If they were properly stored, they would be fully active today.

Binary Sarin does not degrade - it CAN'T!! That is the whole purpose of it being BINARY - the two components of the chemical are not mixed until launched from a proper firing device. There is nothing to degrade until it is mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Ahh, you seem to trust Wikipedia enough to use it as a source. Well, what about this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)

Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq illegally possessed weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and had to be disarmed by force.[3] Though such weapons of mass destruction were never found, President George W. Bush stated that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction needed to be disarmed, and that the Iraqi people were to have control of their own country restored to them.[4][5]

I disagree. They are exactly the ones we sought - as out lined in Colin Powells speech before the UN and in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

We were not looking for WMD's we were not aware of, we were looking for the ones we KNEW existed and that Saddam refused to destroy. Look at EVERY SINGLE United Nations resolution on the topic.


There was absolutely a threat, and the whole purpose of going in was to avoid the imminent part. I have read transcripts of tapes that show that Saddam wanted to give WMD's to terrorist groups. He figured that by doing such, he would avoid the blame.
You mean the ones located right here:
http://www.thinkandask.com/images/iraqweapon.gif

I mean... we had a photograph of the place and everything.

Or maybe they were the ones found in all of those mobile production facilities:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/20-350h.jpg

You mean the ones located right here:
http://www.thinkandask.com/images/iraqweapon.gif

I mean... we had a photograph of the place and everything.

Or maybe they were the ones found in all of those mobile production facilities:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/20-350h.jpg


Those pictures are absolutely ludicrous!

You're saying the words of the left is outweighing the firepower of the right when it comes to animosity towards us from the Middle East?


The firepower has been used for Pro-Arab/Islamic purposes as well. The "words" of the left have been designed to create animosity towards the west and especially against Israel and the U.S.

The left has looked for everything and indeed ANYTHING to create hatred of this administration. When it finds any instance of wrongdoing, it blows it WAY out of proportion. But that was not enough, they have resorted to outright lies in trying to attribute those misdeeds to "orders" from the highest levels of the administration. They ignore the facts that we were already prosecuting those who did wrong - LONG before any press got a hold of the stories. They have also actively worked to hide any evidence that might support the U.S. position, tried to minimize what they could not hide, and have worked tirelessly to make the bad guys look like good guys.

The firepower has been used for Pro-Arab/Islamic purposes as well. The "words" of the left have been designed to create animosity towards the west and especially against Israel and the U.S.

The left has looked for everything and indeed ANYTHING to create hatred of this administration. When it finds any instance of wrongdoing, it blows it WAY out of proportion. But that was not enough, they have resorted to outright lies in trying to attribute those misdeeds to "orders" from the highest levels of the administration. They ignore the facts that we were already prosecuting those who did wrong - LONG before any press got a hold of the stories. They have also actively worked to hide any evidence that might support the U.S. position, tried to minimize what they could not hide, and have worked tirelessly to make the bad guys look like good guys.Of course, when Clinton was in power, the right behaved completely differently. What's more, when Kerry ran for present, the right was the role-model for courteous and appropriate behavior towards him. :)

The firepower has been used for Pro-Arab/Islamic purposes as well. The "words" of the left have been designed to create animosity towards the west and especially against Israel and the U.S.

The left has looked for everything and indeed ANYTHING to create hatred of this administration. When it finds any instance of wrongdoing, it blows it WAY out of proportion. But that was not enough, they have resorted to outright lies in trying to attribute those misdeeds to "orders" from the highest levels of the administration. They ignore the facts that we were already prosecuting those who did wrong - LONG before any press got a hold of the stories. They have also actively worked to hide any evidence that might support the U.S. position, tried to minimize what they could not hide, and have worked tirelessly to make the bad guys look like good guys.
I wouldn't have thought you'd give the left that much credit for being such a solid organization able to achieve such feats. Maybe we can get it together in the upcoming elections.

Oh, so does the Old Testament. Anyway, isn't that quite a common Arab niggle about other people owning/occupying Palestine?

Anyway, how did dear Osama go from bed partner to the 'Enemy'?

Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia coming to the United States instead of to his forces for protection.

Of course, when Clinton was in power, the right behaved completely differently. What's more, when Kerry ran for present, the right was the role-model for courteous and appropriate behavior towards him. :)


This was not about Clinton in any way. This is about inciting our enemies and creating animosity toward our country.

I am not as critical of Clinton as you might think.

I think what it comes down to, is that the September 11 attacks were never the core agenda. For lack of a better expression, they were never that important. The US government had bigger fish to fry. Reshaping the post Cold War geopolitical order, for example.


I think it would be more accurate to say that 9/11 played directly into Bushes hand.
It allowed him, even the meagerest of exscuses, or precedents to invade a country that posed little, or no threat to the US.

We were given scant, and ultimately incorrect information to support the allegations that Iraq had a stockpile of chemical and biological munitions, and could use them at any moment.

When the truth was discovered, that little or no such weapons now exist, the focus became a humanitarian one.."Liberating" the people of Iraq.

Bad exscuses, and worse lies are all this administration has offered for its actions.

Whatever Saddam Hussein may have wanted to do is immaterial. The fact is that he didn't give any weapons to anyone and that his regime was crumbling more than the edifice of the New Labour Project.

Didn't the Weapons Inspector say that there weren't any weapons? That's what I heard or was the BBC lying?


They were either incredibly lazy in their reporting or they were lying. PERIOD.



That is why I posted the Duelfer report. That is the very same report that the media claimed to "prove" there was no WMD's. Yet if they had bothered to look, it actually listed 53 separate instances of WMD's. SInce then we have uncovered 500 more WMD's, 1500 Gallons of chemical agents and 1.77 Tons of enriched Uranium.


If you care to either look back to my links, you can find it there or google "duelfer report" and look to the section named "Chemical Weapons" and then annex "F".


Richard Butler's group found evidence of VX gas production (acknowledged by Hans Blix) and Blix himself has stated that there are between 1000 and 1500 tons of VX unaccounted for.

It is all on record, the press and the left has just been supressing THOSE parts of the reports.

You mean the ones located right here:
http://www.thinkandask.com/images/iraqweapon.gif

I mean... we had a photograph of the place and everything.

Or maybe they were the ones found in all of those mobile production facilities:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/powell-slides/images/20-350h.jpg


Nope, I am talking about the ones that Iraq Survey Group chief weapons inspectors David Kay and his successor Charles Duelfer referred to.

Thank GOD someone decided to talk about Iraq on NS!

[/sarcasm]

Thank GOD someone decided to talk about Iraq on NS!

[/sarcasm]


Thank GOD another schmoe decided to complain about it!

/no im serious.

/sarcasm

Thank GOD another schmoe decided to complain about it!

/no im serious.

/sarcasm

God says you're welcome. You can expect the 747 to land on your house in the next 12 hours. :D

Iraq:
less casualties than almost any other American war
low civilian casualties
an end to Hussein's rule
destruction of Iraq's ability to threaten neighbors
a democratic government elected with high voter turn out
rapid return of control to the native people
a future of hope

If the left had its way the U.N. would still be begging at Saddam's knees to this day. They view Bush as more of a threat than Hussein ( after all who did they want to remove) and view protecting the new Iraq democracy from the same people that attacked us on 911 is more of a threat than surrender. MADNESS. 2000 AMERICAN CASUALTIES AND THE LEFT WANTS US TO PULL OUT , EVEN AS THEY DEFAME THE FALLEN HEROES BY SAYING THAT THEY DIED FOR A MISTAKE.....IMAGINE IF WE HAD STOPPED FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM IN 1777, OR AFTER 2,000 CASUALTIES IN WWII.

Iraq:
less casualties than almost any other American war
low civilian casualties
an end to Hussein's rule
destruction of Iraq's ability to threaten neighbors
a democratic government elected with high voter turn out
rapid return of control to the native people
a future of hope

If the left had its way the U.N. would still be begging at Saddam's knees to this day. They view Bush as more of a threat than Hussein ( after all who did they want to remove) and view protecting the new Iraq democracy from the same people that attacked us on 911 is more of a threat than surrender. MADNESS. 2000 AMERICAN CASUALTIES AND THE LEFT WANTS US TO PULL OUT , EVEN AS THEY DEFAME THE FALLEN HEROES BY SAYING THAT THEY DIED FOR A MISTAKE.....IMAGINE IF WE HAD STOPPED FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM IN 1777, OR AFTER 2,000 CASUALTIES IN WWII.

Mr. BarryGoldwater, you really need to calm down and stop accusing the left of everything that is wrong in our fair country.

Ahh, you seem to trust Wikipedia enough to use it as a source. Well, what about this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq)


I used wikipedia because it said the same thing as every single authority on binary sarin says - it is just pretty well laid out there.

Here are some other links on binary sarin:

IN A BINARY MUNITION,
THE TWO PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ARE STORED
SEPARATELY AND ONLY MIXED TO FORM THE
CHEMICAL AGENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR
WHEN THE ROUND IS IN FLIGHT. THUS, THE
SHELF LIFE OF THE AGENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT;

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/gulflink/cia/960715/72569.htm



Developing binary chemical weapons, where the two precursor chemicals are stored separately in the same shell, and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of making the issue of shelf life irrelevant and greatly increasing the safety of sarin munitions

http://www.answers.com/topic/sarin


SECOND, IT BEGAN TO DEVELOP BINARY

CHEMICAL WEAPONS. IN A BINARY MUNITION,

THE TWO PRECURSOR CHEMICALS ARE STORED

SEPARATELY AND ONLY MIXED TO FORM THE

CHEMICAL AGENT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE OR

WHEN THE ROUND IS IN FLIGHT. THUS, THE

SHELF LIFE OF THE AGENT BECOMES IRRELEVANT;

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960715/72569.htm




What Is So Scary About 500 WMDs?

Well, if one understands that only 3 Sarin gas shells is all it took for Saddam to obliterate a Kurdish village of 5,000 people (many women and children), then finding over 100 times that many shells gives credence to the lable Weapon of Mass Destruction. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2033

Mr. BarryGoldwater, you really need to calm down and stop accusing the left of everything that is wrong in our fair country.
when did I accuse them of everything that is wrong in our fair country?

when did I accuse them of everything that is wrong in our fair country?

For one, you were yelling at the top of your lungs and stating that if they left had their way, Saddam would still be in power.

Yep, not accusing them there.

Canuckheaven, I do not want to be a pain here but I am going to be this once and ask you a serious question.

Why is it that when I give credence to both sides of a debate that you immediately start to talk down to me? I do not deserve to be talked down to just as I am sure you do not deserve the same treatment.
Well it is difficult to give credence to both sides of an argument when one party clings to the mantra that the US found THE WMD, especially when your government stated the exact opposite.

As far as the "talking down" aspect, I do believe that it was you who called me "foolish". I don't see how that has any relevance to the debate and I don't see how that is conducive to building bridges. But that is just me.

Yes I said I do not like passing judgments but if you also notice, I did not mention a single person but said that BOTH SIDES are foolish in this debate for denouncing one another as wrong and proclaim there side to be right all the time.
That is what debate is all about. Each side has to make their point, and produce their evidence. Your judgment of me is irrelevant to the facts presented.

Scott Ritter does indeed have many facts at his disposal but if I remember right, this was the same person who proclaimed that Iraq still had them when he left Iraq. I could be wrong on this and I appologize in advance if I am.
Let him answer in his own words taken from an interview (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html):

In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Blix himself said he could not be sure that they were totally disarmed or not. I know I heard him say that. I also remember during those Security Council Debates after 1441 was passed that he was giving ammunition to both sides of the debate. He could not come right out and say for sure what was what and both sides used what was said as ammunition both for attacking Iraq and against attacking Iraq.
How could Blix make the final determination about the disarmament of Iraq when the inspection process was not completed? This is a re-current challenge by the those living in denial. I cannot stress enough that the inspections were not complete and the US deemed that they would not be completed. The US decided to invade Iraq NO MATTER WHAT!!

THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:

AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm)

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.
The latest Blix report (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/08/1046826548383.html)
March 8 2003

Inspection process

Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

American U-2 and French Mirage surveillance aircraft already give us valuable imagery, supplementing satellite pictures and we would expect soon to be able to add night vision capability through an aircraft offered to us by the Russian Federation. We also expect to add low-level, close area surveillance through drones provided by Germany. We are grateful not only to the countries which place these valuable tools at our disposal, but also to the States, most recently Cyprus, which has agreed to the stationing of aircraft on their territory.
Conclusion:

Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, for instance, for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programme.
The French, Russians and Chinese all wanted the inspection process to continue. Even the UK was concerned that the process should continue but in the end, sided with the US and the war was on.

As to not having WMD, I know they found some that weren't destroyed but could not do much in the state that they were in. I am not going to get into a debate on wether or not they constitute WMD or not. That's for a different thread and one I probably will not get involved in anyway.
Actually, the discovery of chemical elements is relevant to this thread but the fact that the defense department declared the discovery irrelevant is very significant.

As to my comments that both sides are right and wrong, I have read the reports listed here and both sides have facts in regards to said reports. To say that one side is right over the another in regards to Iraq is really disingenious as again, neither side is right nor wrong. In reality, its a wash.
That is where I respectfully disagree. I don't see it as a "wash". I do see an attempt at a whitewash by the other poster. Suggesting that I am somehow "disengenuous", is yet another example of your desire to judge me, even though you abhor making judgements of others. Yeah right.

It all boils down to what one wants to believe.
True enough, but I think there is enough to make a determination one way or the other.

Before you bash this post, keep in mind that I am a peaceful person. I want peace to prevail anywhere and was hoping for a peaceful solution upto the very last minute before the bombs started to fall in Baghdad. Since then, I am in full support of the troops and the hope that they accomplish their mission over there and come home safely to their families.
I too am a peaceful person and it is unfortunate that the world has to witness the travesty beset upon the Iraqi people by an impatient administration, who I believe lied to the people of America. I too support your troops....I hope they come home tomorrow, without having to kill one more Iraqi.

I really hope Sir, that we can come to an understanding where we do not like one another for I do like how you post and what you come up with in a debate. Keep up the good work in that regard but remember, you will not always be right and you do have to listen to what your opposition is saying with a clear and open mind as I have kept an open mind with what you have been saying.
I know that I will not always be right, but I have a clear conscience when it comes to doing the right thing. I don't think I can err by supporting peace and love, rather than the plethora of hate and anger that I see on these boards. People are dying needlessly and someone has to ask the questions and someone has to be held accountable. I love your country and I love your people, but I do see the current administration as being a huge liability in the matters of humanity.

Mr. BarryGoldwater, you really need to calm down and stop accusing the left of everything that is wrong in our fair country.
I have to agree with you here.

I also have strong suspicions that BarryGoldwater = USalpenstock. Just a hunch, but I find very strong similarities. My apologies if that is not the case.

Well it is difficult to give credence to both sides of an argument when one party clings to the mantra that the US found THE WMD, especially when your government stated the exact opposite.

Hate to say this but sometimes the government does not always know what is right and what is wrong. And that is for any administration. Not just this one.

As far as the "talking down" aspect, I do believe that it was you who called me "foolish". I don't see how that has any relevance to the debate and I don't see how that is conducive to building bridges. But that is just me.

Show me where I actually stated that you yourself was foolish. I never mentioned you by name. In fact, I seem to recall calling both sides foolish for saying that their side was 100% right.

That is what debate is all about. Each side has to make their point, and produce their evidence. Your judgment of me is irrelevant to the facts presented.[//quote]

That is the purpose of debate yes. To present the evidence of BOTH SIDES. A purpose of a debate is not to determine who is right or who is wrong but for both sides to show what they got. Again, you think I am singling you out when in fact I did not.

Let him answer in his own words taken from an interview (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html):

You mean with I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never!?

How could Blix make the final determination about the disarmament of Iraq when the inspection process was not completed? This is a re-current challenge by the those living in denial. I cannot stress enough that the inspections were not complete and the US deemed that they would not be completed. The US decided to invade Iraq NO MATTER WHAT!!

Now there is no need to yell. Its a sign that anger. There is no need to get angry. I do respect your opinion but it is one that I do not subscribe to. It is rather difficult for a legit inspection to take place when you have a psychotic dictator who did try to stall the process.

The French, Russians and Chinese all wanted the inspection process to continue. Even the UK was concerned that the process should continue but in the end, sided with the US and the war was on.

We also have to remember that the French and the Russians were in Saddam's back pocket due to Oil for Food.

Actually, the discovery of chemical elements is relevant to this thread but the fact that the defense department declared the discovery irrelevant is very significant.

As I said, I am not going to get hip deep with this for I have debated it to no end at the university.

That is where I respectfully disagree. I don't see it as a "wash". I do see an attempt at a whitewash by the other poster. Suggesting that I am somehow "disengenuous", is yet another example of your desire to judge me, even though you abhor making judgements of others. Yeah right.

You have this infatuation thinking that I am out to get you personally. Why is that when I have never mentioned you by name? I am quite confused on it.

True enough, but I think there is enough to make a determination one way or the other.

Well I will say that is your opinion but as you said earlier, a debate is where both sides present their views but what a debate does not decide who is right or who is wrong. It falls to the individual person to weigh the evidence and to make his or her opinion. That is all a debate is, a presentation of evidence. Nothing more and nothing less.

I too am a peaceful person and it is unfortunate that the world has to witness the travesty beset upon the Iraqi people by an impatient administration, who I believe lied to the people of America. I too support your troops....I hope they come home tomorrow, without having to kill one more Iraqi.

I wish they would come home myself. I have a couple of friends who went over there not to mention family. I would love for them to come home and I pray for their safety every day. However, it is not practicle for them to leave right now for if we do, the country will fall into civil war.

I know that I will not always be right, but I have a clear conscience when it comes to doing the right thing. I don't think I can err by supporting peace and love, rather than the plethora of hate and anger that I see on these boards.

And there is enough of that to go around on these boards as I am learning quite fast.

People are dying needlessly and someone has to ask the questions and someone has to be held accountable. I love your country and I love your people, but I do see the current administration as being a huge liability in the matters of humanity.

There are times when I wonder about the administration but yet I am reminded what Romans 13:1-5 says about government Everyone must submit to governning authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2)So anyone wo rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3)For the authrities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4)The authorities are God's servents, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5)So you must submit to them, not oly to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.

Using Scott Ritter to advance an argument and as asource is actually worse than using Michael Moore ...at least more will occasionally admit he " embelishes " facts to suit his agenda that he believes in .

Ritters been more savagely discredited and show to be a liar and a manipulator than even Micahel Moore.

Its shows how desperate the left is getting .

Perhaps the most telling part of Scott Ritter's "dark side" comes from a Time Magizine interview of last year:

Q. You've spoke about having seen the children's prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?

Ritter: The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace.

So while Scott Ritter was filming a documentary showing the "affects of the U.N. Sanctions" on Iraq - a film he was paid $400,000 to film, he was covering up the horrific deaths of young children suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein. Children who's only crime it was to be born to Iraqi Dissidents. Children, who undoubtedly, are no longer alive. Scott Ritter could've spoken up for these children - but didn't. Why? Could it be their deaths didn't suite his agenda?

Apparently there are a few Hadj/Insurgents/AQ that don't buy that"Lies, deception, and political problems" line.

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

USMC designated marksman metes out swift death in Iraq

By ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Associated Press Writer
37 minutes ago



RAMADI, Iraq - He was 5 when he first fired an M-16, his father holding him to brace against the recoil. At 17 he enlisted in the Marine Corps, spurred by the memory of 9/11. Now, 21-year-old Galen Wilson has 20 confirmed kills in four months in Iraq — and another 40 shots that probably killed insurgents. One afternoon the lance corporal downed a man hauling a grenade launcher five-and-a-half football fields away.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Usmc_kabul_DMR_sighting.jpg

Wilson is the designated marksman in a company of Marines based in downtown Ramadi, watching over what Marines call the most dangerous neighborhood in the most dangerous city in the world.

Here, Sunni Arab insurgents are intent on toppling the local government protected by Marines.

Wilson, 5-foot-6 with a soft face, is married and has two children and speaks in a deep, steady monotone.

After two tours in Iraq, his commanders in the 3rd Battalion, 8th Regiment call him a particularly mature Marine, always collected and given to an occasional wry grin.

His composure is regularly tested. Swaths of central and southern Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, are dominated by insurgents who regularly attack the provincial government headquarters that Marines protect.

During a large-scale attack on Easter Sunday, Wilson says, he spotted six gunmen on a rooftop about 400 yards away. In about 8 seconds he squeezed off five rounds — hitting five gunmen in the head. The sixth man dived off a 3-story building just as Wilson got him in his sights, and counts as a probable death.

"You could tell he didn't know where it was coming from. He just wanted to get away," Wilson said. Later that day, he said, he killed another insurgent.

Wilson says his skill helps save American troops and Iraqi civilians.

"It doesn't bother me. Obviously, me being a devout Catholic, it's a conflict of interest. Then again, God supported David when he killed Goliath," Wilson said. "I believe God supports what we do and I've never killed anyone who wasn't carrying a weapon."

He was raised in a desolate part of the Rocky Mountains outside Colorado Springs, "surrounded by national parks on three sides," he says. He regularly hunted before moving to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., as a teenager. His brother also serves in the military.

Guns have long been part of Wilson's life. His father was a sniper in the Navy SEALS. He remembers first firing a M-16 rifle at age 6. By the time he enlisted he had already fired a .50-caliber machine gun.

"My father owned a weapons dealership, so I've been around exotic firearms all my life," said Wilson, who remembers practicing on pine cones and cans. "My dad would help me hold (an M-16), with the butt on his shoulder, and walk me through the steps of shooting."

Technically, Wilson is not a sniper — he's an infantryman who also patrols through the span of destroyed buildings that make up downtown Ramadi. But as his unit's designated marksman, he has a designated marksman rifle. In the heat of day or after midnight, he spends hours on rooftop posts, peering out onto rows of abandoned houses from behind piles of sandbags and bulletproof glass cracked by gunfire.

Sometimes individual gunmen attack, other times dozens. Once Wilson shot an insurgent who was "turkey peeking" — Marine slang for stealing glances at U.S. positions from behind a corner. Later, the distance was measured at 514 meters — 557 yards.

"I didn't doubt myself, if I was going to hit him. Maybe if I would have I would have missed," Wilson said.

The key to accuracy is composure and experience, Wilson says. "The hardest part is looking, quickly adjusting the distance (on a scope), and then getting a steady position for a shot before he gets a shot off. For me, it's toning everything out in my head. It's like hearing classical music playing in my head."

Though Wilson firmly supports the war, he used to wonder how his actions would be received back home.

"At first you definitely double-guess telling your wife, mom, and your friends that you've killed 20 people," Wilson said. "But over time you realize that if they support you ... maybe it'll make them feel that much safer at home."

He acknowledges that brutal acts of war linger in the mind.

"Some people, before they're about to kill someone, they think that — 'Hey, I'm about to kill someone.' That thought doesn't occur to me. It may sound cold, but they're just a target. Afterward, it's real. You think, 'Hey, I just killed someone,'" says Wilson.

Insurgents "have killed good Marines I've served with. That's how I sleep at night," he says. "Though I've killed over 20 people, how many lives would those 20 people have taken?"

Wilson plans to leave the Marines after his contract expires next year, and is thinking of joining a SWAT Team in Florida — possibly as a sniper.

Using Scott Ritter to advance an argument and as asource is actually worse than using Michael Moore ...at least more will occasionally admit he " embelishes " facts to suit his agenda that he believes in .

Ritters been more savagely discredited and show to be a liar and a manipulator than even Micahel Moore.

Its shows how desperate the left is getting .

It does? And how is using Scott Ritter worse than using Michael Moore? I do not have use for Mr. Moore but his comedy Canadian Bacon was a good one.

I disagree. They are exactly the ones we sought - as out lined in Colin Powells speech before the UN and in the 2003 State of the Union Address.

We were not looking for WMD's we were not aware of, we were looking for the ones we KNEW existed and that Saddam refused to destroy. Look at EVERY SINGLE United Nations resolution on the topic.

There was absolutely a threat, and the whole purpose of going in was to avoid the imminent part. I have read transcripts of tapes that show that Saddam wanted to give WMD's to terrorist groups. He figured that by doing such, he would avoid the blame.
I think that Mr. Powell and others would disagree with youir statements:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50

IF the UN had been allowed to conclude their inspections, then you might have a leg to stand on, but that did not happen.

More from the Scott Ritter transcript (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/):

We were disarming Iraq. We were succeeding, and the United States could never allow the inspectors to succeed, so the United States put the break on the inspectors, started undermining the inspectors even more than they did, and, in December, 1998, popular mythology may hold Saddam Hussein kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, but this is wrong, ladies and gentlemen. They were ordered out by Bill Clinton. He ordered them out and then said that Iraq is not cooperating with the inspectors, and that’s why we need to bomb.

The purpose of the bombing wasn’t to get rid of weapons of mass destruction because there were none and they knew it. The purpose of the bombing was two-fold. To target Saddam Hussein using intelligence information gathered by weapons inspectors. The first four cruise missiles that went into Iraq tried to knock out Saddam Hussein because U.N. intelligence said he might be sleeping either in Baghdad or in Tekrit. Of the 120 targets hit, 111 dealt with the security of Saddam Hussein. The others hit factories that we knew not to have any relation to weapons of mass destruction.

Now they didn’t get Saddam, but what they did do is kill inspections because, when the Iraqis woke up after three days and walked through all the targets that were bombed, they realized that these targets were the exact same places inspected by United Nations weapons inspectors. They realized that the only way the United States could have received precise coordinates of where to strike was through the intelligence gathered by UN weapons inspectors. The Iraqis said the inspectors are not welcome back in, which is a victory for the United States because, without weapons inspectors, we can’t disarm Iraq. If you can’t disarm Iraq, economic sanctions will not be lifted, and they’ll continue.

If anyone is interested in listening to Scott Ritter tell it in his own words, here is the link:

http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3

It does? And how is using Scott Ritter worse than using Michael Moore? I do not have use for Mr. Moore but his comedy Canadian Bacon was a good one.

My whole point...at least moore is good for a laugh...whats Ritter good for ?

My whole point...at least moore is good for a laugh...whats Ritter good for ?

Decent information that have actually have facts behind them.

Using Scott Ritter to advance an argument and as asource is actually worse than using Michael Moore ...at least more will occasionally admit he " embelishes " facts to suit his agenda that he believes in .

Ritters been more savagely discredited and show to be a liar and a manipulator than even Micahel Moore.

Its shows how desperate the left is getting .
I really don't see how that article "savagely" discredits Ritter in the least. First of all he did answer the question that would eventually be published but he also made a determination that his goal was peace. How many innocent Iraqis have died in the current war?

Where has Ritter lied?

Nope, I am talking about the ones that Iraq Survey Group chief weapons inspectors David Kay and his successor Charles Duelfer referred to.
Yeah, I'm listening.

"There are huge problems with the claim that the intelligence community was sitting on a gold mine of information that would exonerate the president.

For one, there's Bush himself. As chief executive, he had full access to this classified dynamite and would surely have exploded it under the noses of his critics by now if it was any way the smoking gun of proof.

Almost certainly, Bush would not have mocked himself at a 2004 black-tie dinner for journalists by narrating a slide show poking fun at the then-ongoing search for WMDs. One slide, which proved extremely embarrassing, was described by the BBC as showing Bush "scouring the corner of a room," telling the audience to peals of laughter, "No, no weapons over there." The dinner took place a year after the finding of the decrepit weaponry Hoekstra and Santorum paraded before the nation last week.

For another, there is the WMD report itself by the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer. Duelfer, appointed to lead the group by the Central Intelligence Agency and aided by an international team of 1,200 arms experts, was tasked to find Saddam's arsenal. After an exhaustive 2005 search they reported finding neither stockpiles of chemical nor biological weapons "nor evidence of any recent production." It is also worth noting that the alleged heads of Saddam's WMD production, dubbed "Chemical Ali" and "Dr. Germ," are no longer even held by authorities."
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1151693115121430.xml&coll=8

From 2004:

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer

David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004, said the munitions would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

The White House was circumspect about Santorum's assertion, with national security adviser Stephen Hadley saying only that the existence of such chemical weapons posed a threat to American troops currently serving in Iraq.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/states/pennsylvania/14881228.htm

As Media Matters for America documented, nearly every June 21 Fox News program between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET touted Santorum and Hoekstra's disclosure. Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, however, had been quickly dismissed by Pentagon officials and the intelligence community. As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008


This is bullshit from Rick Santorum that the President would rally behind if he felt it would do him any good.

Iraq:
less casualties than almost any other American war
low civilian casualties

Okay for you to say as it is not your family that is getting blown away.

an end to Hussein's rule

Yeah, that is good and all, but to be replaced by what and whom? As I recall, the US sucks in the regime changing game.

destruction of Iraq's ability to threaten neighbors

For now. They will have a greater hatred for Americans? Will they love Israel now?

a democratic government elected with high voter turn out

Yeah, Sistanti wanted the Shiites to get out and vote so that they could take over power from the Sunnis, and speed up the eviction of US forces. Also a government based on Islamic values. Not exactly what Bush had in mind?

rapid return of control to the native people

The US is or has built 14 enduring bases in Iraq. Now, how rapid will that exchange of power be?

a future of hope

Totally debatable. Right now, things are not looking too good. I would imagine that Iraq will now have closer ties with your friends in Iran?
Note my response in red.

If the left had its way the U.N. would still be begging at Saddam's knees to this day. They view Bush as more of a threat than Hussein ( after all who did they want to remove) and view protecting the new Iraq democracy from the same people that attacked us on 911 is more of a threat than surrender. MADNESS. 2000 AMERICAN CASUALTIES AND THE LEFT WANTS US TO PULL OUT , EVEN AS THEY DEFAME THE FALLEN HEROES BY SAYING THAT THEY DIED FOR A MISTAKE.....IMAGINE IF WE HAD STOPPED FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM IN 1777, OR AFTER 2,000 CASUALTIES IN WWII.
Nice rant. :rolleyes:

Still trying to blame Iraq for 9/11 huh?

IF the UN inspectors had completed their job, Iraq would have a clean bill of health, and the sanctions would have been lifted. The UN would continue monitoring any weapons developments. Saddam would no longer be able to get away with murder. Certainly a better option than killing 2500 US troops and 100,000 Iraqis? Not to mention that US citizens (every man, woman, and child) have paid $1,000 each to destroy Iraq.

And is the war on terrorism being won?

Today, the State Department issued its annual report on global terrorism (http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf).
Country Reports on Terrorism 2005. In conjunction with this release, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) also issued its own Report on Incidents of Terrorism 2005. This Flash Report provides an assessment of the data on which these reports are based.

The new data from 2005 shows that the number of reported terrorism incidents has increased exponentially in the three years since the United States invaded Iraq. There were 11,111 terrorist attacks that caused 14,602 deaths in 2005, compared to 208 terrorist attacks that caused 625 deaths in 2003. This is an increase of over 5,000% in the number of terrorist attacks and over 2,000% in the number of deaths in three years.
Next stop.....Iran.

Iraq:
less casualties than almost any other American war
low civilian casualties
an end to Hussein's rule
destruction of Iraq's ability to threaten neighbors
a democratic government elected with high voter turn out
rapid return of control to the native people
a future of hope

If the left had its way the U.N. would still be begging at Saddam's knees to this day. They view Bush as more of a threat than Hussein ( after all who did they want to remove) and view protecting the new Iraq democracy from the same people that attacked us on 911 is more of a threat than surrender. MADNESS. 2000 AMERICAN CASUALTIES AND THE LEFT WANTS US TO PULL OUT , EVEN AS THEY DEFAME THE FALLEN HEROES BY SAYING THAT THEY DIED FOR A MISTAKE.....IMAGINE IF WE HAD STOPPED FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM IN 1777, OR AFTER 2,000 CASUALTIES IN WWII.
Please stop invoking 9-11. Not even the President does this anymore in relation to our current Occupation.

Hate to say this but sometimes the government does not always know what is right and what is wrong. And that is for any administration. Not just this one.
Does that mean that one should become complacent and shrug their shoulders?

Show me where I actually stated that you yourself was foolish. I never mentioned you by name. In fact, I seem to recall calling both sides foolish for saying that their side was 100% right.
Your implication is fairly defined. At any rate, I am not going to lose sleep over it.

Now there is no need to yell. Its a sign that anger. There is no need to get angry. I do respect your opinion but it is one that I do not subscribe to. It is rather difficult for a legit inspection to take place when you have a psychotic dictator who did try to stall the process.
Sorry but your judgement is slightly flawed. I certainly wasn't angry, just emphasising a point. BTW, in an earlier post you used capitals...does that mean that you were angry?

We also have to remember that the French and the Russians were in Saddam's back pocket due to Oil for Food.
Even if your allegation was true, that doesn't mean that they were not acting in the best interests of all parties concerned. War should always be a last resort.

As I said, I am not going to get hip deep with this for I have debated it to no end at the university.
You seem to have a subtle way of actually choosing which way you are leaning.

You have this infatuation thinking that I am out to get you personally. Why is that when I have never mentioned you by name? I am quite confused on it.
It really doesn't matter what you think of me, and I certainly don't feel persecuted. What I am pointing out to you is that you state that you don't like to make judgements, but in fact you do. If you can't see it, I will recap for you. So far you have stated that I am foolish, disengenuous, angry, and now infatuated.

Well I will say that is your opinion but as you said earlier, a debate is where both sides present their views but what a debate does not decide who is right or who is wrong. It falls to the individual person to weigh the evidence and to make his or her opinion. That is all a debate is, a presentation of evidence. Nothing more and nothing less.
I understand the rules of engagement and I call them as I see them. If someone presents unsubstantiated evidence then I will call them on it, and I have done so on this thread.

I wish they would come home myself. I have a couple of friends who went over there not to mention family. I would love for them to come home and I pray for their safety every day. However, it is not practicle for them to leave right now for if we do, the country will fall into civil war.
I do home your troops come home soon too. I pray for them everyday when I pray for peace. As far as the civil war thing is concerned, they already are in a mini civil war and I blame the US for that. This total war effort has been badly mishandled.

And there is enough of that to go around on these boards as I am learning quite fast.
Certainly is for sure.

There are times when I wonder about the administration but yet I am reminded what Romans 13:1-5 says about government Everyone must submit to governning authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. 2)So anyone wo rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3)For the authrities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4)The authorities are God's servents, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God's servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5)So you must submit to them, not oly to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
IF you truly believe that, then the US was violating God's rules by removing Saddam from power? Bolding is mine.

You must have a different version of the Bible? Either that or you are interpreting the passage incorrectly?

1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3: For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5: Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Also, since you brought up Romans 13 how about the following:

9: For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10: Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And Thy will not mine be done this day!!

Yeah, I'm listening.



For another, there is the WMD report itself by the Iraq Survey Group headed by Charles Duelfer. Duelfer, appointed to lead the group by the Central Intelligence Agency and aided by an international team of 1,200 arms experts, was tasked to find Saddam's arsenal. After an exhaustive 2005 search they reported finding neither stockpiles of chemical nor biological weapons "nor evidence of any recent production." It is also worth noting that the alleged heads of Saddam's WMD production, dubbed "Chemical Ali" and "Dr. Germ," are no longer even held by authorities."
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1151693115121430.xml&coll=8

I notice you went to a NEWSPAPER for this information instead of the report itself.

This is my point entirely. The newspapers are not reporting the full content of the report. I will say again. Look at the Duelfer report itself. Annex F of the Chemical weapons section.

I have found many articles that Chemical Ali is standing trial. I have found none that say we released him. I think your article is in error.

From 2004:

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14897-2004Oct7?language=printer

David Kay, who headed the U.S. weapons-hunting team in Iraq from 2003 until early 2004, said the munitions would have been intended for chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war.

He said experts on Iraq's chemical weapons are in "almost 100 percent agreement" that sarin nerve agent from the 1980s would no longer be dangerous.

You are forgetting that we have since found binary. That is an entirely different story. Unitary sarin is indeed highly volitile and its shelf life is quite short. In binary form the shelf life is not relevent at all. Of course you ignored my posts on that part of the equation.



As Media Matters for America documented, nearly every June 21 Fox News program between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET touted Santorum and Hoekstra's disclosure. Santorum and Hoekstra's claims, however, had been quickly dismissed by Pentagon officials and the intelligence community. As CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on CNN's The Situation Room shortly after the announcement, "Charles Duelfer, the CIA's weapons inspector, tells us the weapons are all pre-Gulf War vintage shells, no longer effective weapons. Not evidence, he says, of an ongoing WMD program under Saddam Hussein." The Washington Post also reported June 22 that "[n]either the military nor the White House nor the CIA considered the shells to be evidence of what was alleged by the Bush administration to be a current Iraqi program to make chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008


Media matters again is using the "no stockpiles" phrase to claim there were no WMD's at all. AGAIN the very same report they cite actually lists multiple instances of WMD's.

ONE individual in the penatagon said that they were not the ones we were looking for. WHich is kind of like saying Cynthia Mckinney speaks for all of the Democrats.

David Ensor did not interview Charles Duelfer at the release of this document. He simply regurgitated the "no stockpiles" bit in order to pooh pooh the significance.

If I may introduce a new aspect to this debate: a number of participants have made certain comments about Saddam Hussein. As his trial has not yet returned a verdict, should it not be assumed that he did not actually kill anybody or order any such killing and that he is in fact innocent for the time being? I was under the impression that he was under no obligation to prove anything with regard to the charges.

Does that mean that one should become complacent and shrug their shoulders?

Now I did not say that. All I said was that sometimes the government does not do what we thinkk is right. But what is not right for one person, could be right for another.

Sorry but your judgement is slightly flawed. I certainly wasn't angry, just emphasising a point. BTW, in an earlier post you used capitals...does that mean that you were angry?

Maybe then maybe not. I apologize for the statement. *bows head*

Even if your allegation was true, that doesn't mean that they were not acting in the best interests of all parties concerned. War should always be a last resort.

No argument.

You seem to have a subtle way of actually choosing which way you are leaning.

I do not lean one way or the other. The purpose of debate is to show both sides. We both could go back and forth on this intelligently and I could support either side in such a case. If such a debate were to occur, do you think that you could support the other side of such a debate?

It really doesn't matter what you think of me, and I certainly don't feel persecuted. What I am pointing out to you is that you state that you don't like to make judgements, but in fact you do. If you can't see it, I will recap for you. So far you have stated that I am foolish, disengenuous, angry, and now infatuated.

Except for one minor thing. That is I include myself when I said the word foolish. So how is it judgmental when I include myself? I support both sides of this debate.

I do home your troops come home soon too. I pray for them everyday when I pray for peace. As far as the civil war thing is concerned, they already are in a mini civil war and I blame the US for that. This total war effort has been badly mishandled.

I do not believe that there is one but then, that is my opinion. I do respect your opinion. As for total war...if this were a total war, there wouldn't be anything left of Iraq as everything would have been destroyed and there will be more casualties than there is right now.

IF you truly believe that, then the US was violating God's rules by removing Saddam from power? Bolding is mine.

One could make that argument but since Saddam was not my ruler nor set in authority over me then I am going to have to say no.

You must have a different version of the Bible? Either that or you are interpreting the passage incorrectly?

Mine came from the New Living Translation. I believe yours comes from the King James Version?

Also, since you brought up Romans 13 how about the following:



And Thy will not mine be done this day!!

I see we have different interpretations of thou shall not kill. To me, I take it to mean murder as killing happens in war. As to false witness, yes I believe in that but in this case, it boils down to did Bush actually lie or was the intelligence he used very bad. All I am going to say is I will leave it up to the Lord to decide that. I suggest you do the same for it is not our place to judge if he lied or not. As to coveting, what is he coveting? I am confused on why you highlighted that for I do not believe that he is coveting anything. As to the last two highlighted Items....Amen.

it occurse to me thusly:

America's political system sucks.

those on the left... fools.
those on the right... idiots.
those in the center... weaklingso r cowards, i lost track seeing as how you never see them do anything effecitve.


it holds true in a lot of other places too, but america more so than others.

and only in the USA does it seem to translate into a direct judgement of someone's worth to society.

the left lies about and slanders the right, and iwth that broad brush, most religions, corperations, and other entitys and the individuals there in.

the right lies aobut and slanders the left, and with that broad brush, most social, racial, and economic groups and the individuals there in.

then, when one side or the other gets it right, either their own extreamist elements, or the other side, pervert the entire view point, philosophy, fact, opinion, plan, or idea into a corrupted monstrosity that does nothing to advance the system, the nation, the people, or the world or humanity as a whole.

the political system has become an almost religious entity....

again, this happens in other places too, but no where does it crop up as badly, and no where is it so all pervadeing in society.

heck, in New Zealand, standard practice when one's opponant's come up witha good idea is to steal it and tweak it to your own goals, not rip it appart and deprive yourselves of the advantage.

on iraq:

well, the whole things a mess. i'm actually of the impression that bush is one of those rare rulers who listens to his advisors... and, unfortunatly, has crap arse advisors.

whatever else is going on, the USA is suffering from a profound lack of apropriate doctrin, apropriat attitude, effective disiplin, and many other things.

Actually Muravyets,

Everyone here has brought up good points. Unfortunately, in a debate like this, neither side will win because neither side is 100% right nor are they 100% wrong. It will all boil down to what one wants to believe to be fact and what is not.

That is why there is alot of tension in this thread because both sides are challenging one another and denouncing what the other side responds with.

Both sides are right and both sides are wrong at the sametime.
I disagree. Although neither side has ALL the facts, I believe the rightwing side -- the side which first promoted the idea of attacking Iraq -- deliberate chose to use false statements in place of facts. I am firmly of the opinion that a small group of neocons -- including Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and others in the administration -- deliberately promulgated a set of stories about WMDs and terrorism that had been created by them a long time before 9/11 (probably some time after the first Bush's Gulf War ended in a manner that was unsatisfactory to them). And I believe the majority of rightwingers and some leftwingers outside of the administration believed their stories (nobody I knew, though; go figure). As the stories were disproved one by one, support for the Iraq war has disintegrated, but there is a hardcore base that simply refuses to accept that the stories used to justify attacking Iraq were bogus.

My side may be either right or wrong, or a little of both. But I am certain that USalpenstock's side is definitely wrong, because it is based on such obvious falsehoods.

I agree with everything that you wrote, except that I do not think I am wasting my time. :)
You're right. It's no waste of time if you intend to use USalpenstock, and his ilk, to show up the neocon argument so that the kids coming up won't get taken in by it. I was just worried that you might be hoping to reason with the neocon believers themselves. :)

<snip]
It all boils down to what one wants to believe.
<snip>
So, in a criminal trial, say, we should just let the prosecution state their opinion and let the defense state their opinion, and hand that over to the jury. We shouldn't waste our time with things like evidence, or witnesses, or forensics, or any other form of proof whatsoever. The truth should just be whatever people want to believe. So if a prosecutor says someone killed someone, they shouldn't be required to prove that. And if the defense says, no, space aliens came and ate the guy the defendant was supposed to have killed, they shouldn't have to prove that, either.

But you're right -- it is a matter of what one wants to believe. We can choose to believe the truth, or we can choose to believe lies. Personally, I prefer the truth.

This was not about Clinton in any way. This is about inciting our enemies and creating animosity toward our country.

I am not as critical of Clinton as you might think.
Wow. I had no idea that George Bush is a leftist.

So, in a criminal trial, say, we should just let the prosecution state their opinion and let the defense state their opinion, and hand that over to the jury. We shouldn't waste our time with things like evidence, or witnesses, or forensics, or any other form of proof whatsoever. The truth should just be whatever people want to believe. So if a prosecutor says someone killed someone, they shouldn't be required to prove that. And if the defense says, no, space aliens came and ate the guy the defendant was supposed to have killed, they shouldn't have to prove that, either.

You are comparing this debate to a criminal proceeding? You do realize that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to come up with the evidence to convict. If there is any hint of doubt, then the jury has to come back with a not guilty verdict. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Heck, they do not even have to call witnesses if they want. All they have to do is cast doubt on the Prosecution's case and, if successful, the jury will come back with a not guilty verdict.

This is not a criminal trial at all. This is a debate where neither side will be totally right and neither side is going to be totally wrong. Reading this thread, I see that both sides have facts to support their case. The problem here is that both sides think they are 100% right when both sides are neither right nor wrong. I know you disagree with that supposition but that is your opinion.

Now if this was a criminal trial, and Mr. Ritter was the Prosecution witness, Mr. Ritter would probably get nailed on cross-examination. If this happens, then there is doubt for the jury to come back and announce the administration not guilty.

As I have said here many times, both sides have enough facts. Those who are against the Iraq War have enough facts to prosecute their case but on the flip side, those for the Iraq War have enough facts to cast doubt on those who are against the war.

What this thread has turned into is a no-win situation for either side.

But you're right -- it is a matter of what one wants to believe. We can choose to believe the truth, or we can choose to believe lies. Personally, I prefer the truth.

But what is the truth?

.... snip....

But what is the truth?

the absolute reality which all too many are too blinde, foolish, and or stupid to see or accept.

the absolute fact which no one individual human will ever truely have access to in it's entirity untill after their death, if that.

... for a start, at any rate.

You are comparing this debate to a criminal proceeding? You do realize that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to come up with the evidence to convict. If there is any hint of doubt, then the jury has to come back with a not guilty verdict. The defense doesn't have to prove anything. Heck, they do not even have to call witnesses if they want. All they have to do is cast doubt on the Prosecution's case and, if successful, the jury will come back with a not guilty verdict.

This is not a criminal trial at all. This is a debate where neither side will be totally right and neither side is going to be totally wrong. Reading this thread, I see that both sides have facts to support their case. The problem here is that both sides think they are 100% right when both sides are neither right nor wrong. I know you disagree with that supposition but that is your opinion.

Now if this was a criminal trial, and Mr. Ritter was the Prosecution witness, Mr. Ritter would probably get nailed on cross-examination. If this happens, then there is doubt for the jury to come back and announce the administration not guilty.

As I have said here many times, both sides have enough facts. Those who are against the Iraq War have enough facts to prosecute their case but on the flip side, those for the Iraq War have enough facts to cast doubt on those who are against the war.

What this thread has turned into is a no-win situation for either side.
Bush acted as prosecutor when he accused Iraq of having WMDs, of building a nuclear weapons program, of conspiring with al qaeda about 9/11, and of threatening the US. Where was his proof? Every single thing he presented as evidence as been debunked, either at the time it was presented, or since then.

Now, people like me -- and the 9/11 Commission and experts such as current and former politicians, diplomats, generals, CIA officials, UN officials, national security experts and officials, etc -- act as prosecutors when we accuse Bush, Cheney, and members of their administration of presenting false information to drum up support for an elective war of aggression. Where is our proof? It is in Bush, Cheney, et als. own documents, memos, letters, and it is in the disproofs of their original claims.

We have something to show to back up our arguments. They have nothing to back up their arguments. If this were a criminal court case, our side would prevail.

But what is the truth?
The truth is that Bush lied.

Regardless of what Iraq may or may not have done, been doing, or wanted to do, what we do know -- what we can prove and have proved -- is that the arguments laid out by Bush and his administration in support of attacking Iraq were false. Regardless of what we may learn in the future about what Iraq was really doing, nothing will change the fact that Bush lied in order to start an unprovoked war that was desired by him and Cheney.

That is the truth. It's the truth about Bush and the US, not the truth about Iraq, but I've been on record since the start of Iraq as saying that I am not interested in what Iraq did/do. I am only interested in what my own country does, and I don't want my country led by lying warmongers.

Bush acted as prosecutor when he accused Iraq of having WMDs, of building a nuclear weapons program, of conspiring with al qaeda about 9/11, and of threatening the US. Where was his proof? Every single thing he presented as evidence as been debunked, either at the time it was presented, or since then.

Now, people like me -- and the 9/11 Commission and experts such as current and former politicians, diplomats, generals, CIA officials, UN officials, national security experts and officials, etc -- act as prosecutors when we accuse Bush, Cheney, and members of their administration of presenting false information to drum up support for an elective war of aggression. Where is our proof? It is in Bush, Cheney, et als. own documents, memos, letters, and it is in the disproofs of their original claims.

Evidence I hate to say could be destroyed on cross-examination. As I said, this is not a criminal investigation but at least we are having an intelligent debate which is what is needed. All that is required is doubt and I hate to say this, though the evidence of falsification is strong, it can be said that the Intelligence was indeed false and that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the falsifying evidence as this evidence was collected during the Clinton Administration on back including Bush's father. You cannot convict on false intelligence collected by the CIA and the NSA.

We have something to show to back up our arguments. They have nothing to back up their arguments. If this were a criminal court case, our side would prevail.

Are you 100% sure of that?

The truth is that Bush lied.

Are you 100% sure that he lied or was the intelligence collected by the CIA and other intel groups that bad? Bad intelligence does happen my friend.

Regardless of what Iraq may or may not have done, been doing, or wanted to do, what we do know -- what we can prove and have proved -- is that the arguments laid out by Bush and his administration in support of attacking Iraq were false.

All you declared false was the intelligence used for going into Iraq. That is all that has been proven.

Regardless of what we may learn in the future about what Iraq was really doing, nothing will change the fact that Bush lied in order to start an unprovoked war that was desired by him and Cheney.

Even if the evidence points to the fact that Iraq was indeed working on WMD? What if we learn about that later on?

That is the truth. It's the truth about Bush and the US, not the truth about Iraq, but I've been on record since the start of Iraq as saying that I am not interested in what Iraq did/do. I am only interested in what my own country does, and I don't want my country led by lying warmongers.

Prove that Bush did indeed lie. I will tell you now that the evidence is not there for a conviction.

Evidence I hate to say could be destroyed on cross-examination. As I said, this is not a criminal investigation but at least we are having an intelligent debate which is what is needed. All that is required is doubt and I hate to say this, though the evidence of falsification is strong, it can be said that the Intelligence was indeed false and that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the falsifying evidence as this evidence was collected during the Clinton Administration on back including Bush's father. You cannot convict on false intelligence collected by the CIA and the NSA.
I cannot disagree with you more. All the evidence points to Bush and a veil of lies and deception. Clinton was certainly implicated as was Bush the Elder.

Again, from the Scott Ritter transcript (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/):

The President said that there were weapons there, so we voted for the war, but now it turns out there weren’t. We went to war on the basis of a lie. We were misled. Don’t blame us.’ Blame everyone, ladies and gentlemen, because I’m here to tell you they knew there were no weapons. They knew it. The CIA knew it. The U.S. intelligence community knew it. Congress knew it. The Senate knew it, especially those who sat on the oversight committees and were cognizant of the intelligence information. They knew that the policy was regime change. They supported the policy of regime change. They were part of the implementation of the policy of regime change and the formulation of the policy of regime change.
Although the others were implicated, it was Bush the Lesser that pulled the trigger. There is lots of evidence:

Paul O'Neill (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml)

Woodward Shares War Secrets (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml)

Downing Street Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo)

Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,463779,00.html)

Aluminium tubes for centrifuges (http://webexhibits.org/bush/9.html)

Again, from the Scott Ritter transcript (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/):

most Americans didn’t have a clue what a weapon of mass destruction was. They didn’t know what chemical weapons were, biological weapons were, long-range ballistic missiles. They might have a vague understanding of what a nuclear weapon is, but not really, not what it takes to build a nuclear weapon. They were so ignorant about nuclear weapons that they bought into the argument that Iraq, a nation that is sitting on many tons of yellow-cake uranium ore, would have to go to an African country to buy new stockpiles. They were so ignorant about nuclear weapons that they bought at face value Dick Cheney’s proclamation that Iraq was acquiring aluminum tubes to build a new family of centrifuges to enrich uranium when everybody who deals with the enrichment of uranium using the centrifuge method knows that aluminum tubes will never work. We don’t build them with aluminum tubes. It doesn’t happen. But, no, the American people, informed as always about the complexities of these very difficult issues, said ‘my gosh, the President has said yellow cake, and Dick Cheney has said aluminum tubes, and there must be a nuclear threat because Condoleezza Rice has told us ‘we don’t want to wait for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud.’ So like the compliant little sheep that we are, we *bah, bah* get led down the path towards a war that has been a disaster, an unmitigated disaster, a war based on a lie, a war based on not just the ignorance of the American public but the moral indifference of those whom we elect to hire office to represent us in our name, namely the congress of the United States of America.

Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense? (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)

Note: read Bush's quotes from the above article concerning WMD.

This once again begs this question to be asked:

WHY didn't Bush allow the UN inspectors to finish their inspections? We all know the answer. Iraq didn't have what George Bush said they had, and without the WMD, the invasion of Iraq does not happen.

Prove that Bush did indeed lie.
Oh, I think there is plenty of evidence, but who is going to make the formal charges?

I will tell you now that the evidence is not there for a conviction.
And you know this how?

A sidebar to Alleghany County:

Judgement is permissible:

Judge Not? (http://www.holiness.com/Judge.htm)

St. John 7:24 reads: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement." Here, we have Jesus commanding us not to judge on appearance, as in the case where people look at someone who is dressed in old worn clothes and thereby judges (prejudicially) that person to be untrustworthy or a thief. But, in the same breath, Jesus does tell us to judge righteously - to assess or evaluate based on the relevant evidence.

I like this as well, but there are other examples:

The love of God in a Christian’s heart does not make one accommodating to false doctrines. On the contrary, the love of God constrains us to help people out of the darkness of false belief systems.

*snip*

Why is it that you can never let things go and that you always have to be right? You think I am stupid or something because I am taking up with your opposition? I will tell you that I am not for this war, nor am I against this war.

I know what the evidence is Mr. CanuckHeaven. I have seen it, read it, and studied it. Yes there is convincing evidence to say that Bush lied. However, you do not know for sure what can or cannot be believed. Some of it is politically motivated and others are genuine. I do not trust politically motivated evidence.

I do not care if you disagree with me but if you are going to go after President Bush then you have absolutely no choice but to go after the following:

The State Department
The CIA
The NSA
Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr
The Defense Department
And a whole slew of other people

The evidence is convincing. I did not say that it was not but you also have to look at the evidence from the other side and ask yourself the following question! What did they see? It is nice that you are convinced that Bush lied however, its going to take more convincing evidence for me to say the same. Faulty Intelligence is no excuse to proclaim that Bush lied. That is all that this case is based upon just like Bush's case was based on the intelligence of WMD which turned out not to be the case. Now the Burden of proof is on those against the Iraq War to prove that Bush literally lied to get us into a war. The evidence is not there for an overwhelming conviction but a very strong case can be made that he did. The question is, is it enough to convict? I do not believe so.

Oh, I think there is plenty of evidence, but who is going to make the formal charges?

The only body that can make that case is Congress and nothing is going to happen due to one thing, politics. Most of this is politically motivated and that is never good if you are bringing a case against the President of the United States.

And you know this how?

Because some of it is politically motivated and mixed in with geniune evidence. I would not convict using politically motivated evidence. Not to mention, that the other side will be able to cast doubt on some of this. Its what they are paid to do. Once doubt enters into the equation, no jury in this country can convict.

snip
Why isn't Bush using this to his advantage and why are people distancing themselves from Sanatorum?

A sidebar to Alleghany County:

Judgement is permissible:

Judge Not? (http://www.holiness.com/Judge.htm)

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement I do like John 7:24. It is an accurate verse. Now the question you have to ask yourself is, Righteous according to whom? Some here believe going into Iraq was the righteous thing to do while others state that it wasn't righteous at all.

We are right back to square one all over again in that debate.

Why is it that you can never let things go and that you always have to be right?
I guess I must of hit a nerve? I suppose that I could ask you the same questions? As long as there is a challenge, I will bring forth the argument. That is what debate is all about.

You think I am stupid or something because I am taking up with your opposition?
I certainly don't think you are stupid, and I certainly can understand why you have taken up the opposition. You certainly have a more subtle approach to the debate but I do honestly believe that your goal is to curb the debate, as evidenced by the following quote from another post:

What this thread has turned into is a no-win situation for either side.
I disagree. It is through debating the issues that we can arrive at some conclusions, and gain some knowledge. I have learned much over the past two plus years here at NS

I will tell you that I am not for this war, nor am I against this war.
This is what I mean by your subtleness. Earlier in this thread you stated:

You know? I have been thinking about this myself and do have to say upfront that I do support the Iraq War in general and it had nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction though I do believe he had them at one point.
Bolding mine. What you have done is contradicted yourself, and since your support "had nothing to do with WMD", then it must have been support for regime change? That is exactly what Mr. Ritter's contention is and that is exactly what this thread is about. You were striving for neutrality on this topic to grind the debate to a halt? at least I know where you are coming from now.

I know what the evidence is Mr. CanuckHeaven. I have seen it, read it, and studied it. Yes there is convincing evidence to say that Bush lied. However, you do not know for sure what can or cannot be believed. Some of it is politically motivated and others are genuine. I do not trust politically motivated evidence.
If you don't trust "politically motivated evidence" then why do you support the war in Iraq?

I do not care if you disagree with me but if you are going to go after President Bush then you have absolutely no choice but to go after the following:

The State Department
The CIA
The NSA
Presidents Clinton and Bush Sr
The Defense Department
And a whole slew of other people
I am not going after those people. Whats done is done. IF they can be presented with the cheque after all is said and done, that would be great, but I am not holding my breath.

However, there are other more important reasons to pursue this debate though. Perhaps you haven't figured that out?

Mr. Ritter spells it out clearly in his speech (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/).

Ladies and gentlemen, the same man that got us involved in this war in Iraq (I should say men, Clinton and Bush), got us involved with a future war with Iran. The die has already been cast. The decision has been made, and, as much as Bill Clinton facilitated war with Iraq, he facilitated war with Iran by embarking on a policy of dual containment in the 1990’s, putting unilateral U.S. economic sanctions against Iran, creating the politics of demonization where the American public on a daily basis has been bombarded with nothing but negative visuals, negative information about Iran, nothing positive.
This stuff reverberates through these boards on a daily basis. There is tons of warmongering happening right here. Are you ready for another war?

Iran is a nation about 2.5 times the size of Iraq. Iran has a population of almost 50 million people, and we’re talking about putting 60-80,000 troops on the ground. We can’t control a nation of 25 million people with 161,000 troops. What makes us think we’re going to control 50 million with 80,000? It’s not going to happen. Now is where it gets really frightening, because the Bush administration, if they go down this course of action, will have no choice at that point in time but to use nuclear weapons, and they have already developed the weapons — they call them usable nukes. It’s funny that term, usable. This is not about mutually assured destruction anymore. This is not about deterrence. The Bush administration has radically departed from past doctrine to say that we will have a family of nuclear weapons that are usable nuclear weapons, meaning that we can conceive of using them, and then they’ll say we could use them preemptively in a non-nuclear environment, meaning that it’s not about opposing somebody with nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, it’s we can use them any time we want to if it’s in the strategic national interest of the United States.
Are you ready for a "limited" nuclear war?

What is next after that?

We will unleash forces that will devastate this country, not just economically, not just politically, not just militarily, not just morally. Physically, because, if we drop nuclear weapons on Iran, we will have uncorked the genie, and that genie will not allow itself to be recorked until an American city has been vaporized in a radioactive cloud in a terrorist counterstrike to the American initiation of nuclear holocaust, and that is the statement of fact.

Bush: 'All options are on the table' regarding Iran's nuclear aspirations (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-13-bush-iran-nuclear_x.htm)

What does that mean to you? Do we just shrug our shoulders?

Peace groups mobilize against usable nukes (http://www.pww.org/article/view/3496/1/164/)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate voted 51 to 43 to lift a ban on research on so-called “low yield” nuclear weapons, caving in to Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of “usable” nuclear warheads as part of George W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine.
Is this where we are headed? Sad.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgement I do like John 7:24. It is an accurate verse. Now the question you have to ask yourself is, Righteous according to whom? Some here believe going into Iraq was the righteous thing to do while others state that it wasn't righteous at all.

We are right back to square one all over again in that debate.
I believe that the war on Iraq is morally wrong. I have believed that from day one. When looking back over the history of Iraq, Saddam and the US, one cannot help but see the "political problem". A political problem that was manufactured by the US. There was a peaceful solution and it was rejected. Sad but true.

I guess I must of hit a nerve? I suppose that I could ask you the same questions? As long as there is a challenge, I will bring forth the argument. That is what debate is all about.

You are indeed right. That is what debate is all about. However, in a formal debate, neither side is right and neither side is wrong. I am not here to prove one side wrong over another. That is not what debate is all about.

I certainly don't think you are stupid, and I certainly can understand why you have taken up the opposition. You certainly have a more subtle approach to the debate but I do honestly believe that your goal is to curb the debate, as evidenced by the following quote from another post:

I do not want to curb debate however, neither side is going to win this debate because there is nothing to win. Both sides have stated their facts. Point to counter point. Their opinions are to be respected just like I am sure that you want your own opinions to be respected.

I disagree. It is through debating the issues that we can arrive at some conclusions, and gain some knowledge. I have learned much over the past two plus years here at NS

I am glad that you have learned much. Debate is a wonderful tool to gain knowledge. I myself have learned alot through debates at school and among my friends and family.

This is what I mean by your subtleness. Earlier in this thread you stated:

Bolding mine. What you have done is contradicted yourself, and since your support "had nothing to do with WMD", then it must have been support for regime change? That is exactly what Mr. Ritter's contention is and that is exactly what this thread is about. You were striving for neutrality on this topic to grind the debate to a halt? at least I know where you are coming from now.

I wasn't for this war nor against it before it started. I told you before that I wanted peace to be given a chance and opposed it. Once the war did begin, that was when I supported it. So what I said is true, from a certain point of view. I was not for nor against it at first but once it started, I support it. Thus, it wasn't about WMD at all so there's another truth. You may say it was for regime change but I did not support this war for that either.

If you don't trust "politically motivated evidence" then why do you support the war in Iraq?

The troops.

I am not going after those people. Whats done is done. IF they can be presented with the cheque after all is said and done, that would be great, but I am not holding my breath.

Well then, if you do not go after those people then your entire case falls apart.

However, there are other more important reasons to pursue this debate though. Perhaps you haven't figured that out?

Talking back down to me again? There are plenty of reasons to pursue this debate but no one should be out to win this debate. Debates are not about winning or losing CanuckHeaven. They are about presenting your side of the case. Neither side is 100% right and neither side is 100% wrong. Debates are not about who is right or wrong. It is about what each side believes.

*snip*

As this thread deals with Iraq, I will settle my debate with that and not get into hypothetical wars with other nations.

canuckHeaven lives in the left wing conspiracy theory heaven ...and has all the tin foil hat sites in the favorites to prove it !:D


OMG...what a large pile of crap and all the links in one place ! :p

canuckHeaven lives in the left wing conspiracy theory heaven ...and has all the tin foil hat sites in the favorites to prove it !:D


OMG...what a large pile of crap and all the links in one place ! :p

Now this I am not going to believe so I would advise that you stop labeling people for it also does not help in debates. In fact, he who uses a name first, loses.

Just about every single bit of evidence that Bush quoted was gathered during previous administrations. The CIA director, appointed by Bill Clinton told Bush that the case for WMD's was a "Slam Dunk".

As Scott Ritter pointed out, The Democrats were saying the EXACT same thing that Bush said.

NO ONE lied. There absolutely was bad intelligence, but the fact of the matter still remains that when we invaded Iraq, Saddam STILL had WMD's. There is absolutely NO question of that. Now, were they all still active and viable as WMD's - that is not clear - but some of them ABSOLUTELY were.

There is also no question that even without WMD's Saddam needed to go. He was responsible for genocide unequaled since Pol Pot, and he twice invaded his neighbors without provocation.


He violated numerous terms of the cease fire agreement - any SINGLE such violation is a justifiable reason to re-commence the war.

He undertook a plan to conceal WMD activities.


Those things are not even arguable if you have read any of the major reports.

If you have read them, and you argue differently you are flat out lying.

You can argue that up is down, but that still does not make it true.

I believe that the war on Iraq is morally wrong. I have believed that from day one. When looking back over the history of Iraq, Saddam and the US, one cannot help but see the "political problem". A political problem that was manufactured by the US. There was a peaceful solution and it was rejected. Sad but true.


If this was your point, I support your right to shout this from the rooftops.

What I object to is the fact that you refuse to acknowlege what the Duelfer report says, what the Butler report says and what the Kay report says in regards to the weapons we found, the laboratories we found and where the unaccounted for weapons likely are.

A moral position against the war is fine, I think you are incorrect in that judgement, but I don't really have a problem with it. The line is crossed when you ignore the whole reports with the intent to mislead.

Now this I am not going to believe so I would advise that you stop labeling people for it also does not help in debates. In fact, he who uses a name first, loses.


* NOTE :D denotes a smily face and when used it shows that the intent was HUMOR and maybe a little teasing .

*:p NOTE :p the sybol of the razzing...never to take the words before the :p SERIOUSLY .

In fact if you look ..Bob Woodward..award winning...not a tinfoil hatter ..etc. along with some others. All in all some good links some that come to errors in conlusions some taken out of context ..BUT mostly all good info ..of course its been out there and debated for years but hey...the only new stuff is comming from Saddams archives and is proving Bush right on alot of things....and BTW you dont expect them to release the stuff until elections get closer do you ?;)

*NOTE;) Usually means " think about that why dont ya " .

Mr Canuck may be extremely to the left ....extremely extremely...but he comes up with good arguments from a left wing point of view.

You can disagree without being disagreable .


We now return you to your previouse station .

You know what irritates me most about these types of threads?

When someone's come-back is "Yeah well, under the Democrats.../The Democrats did this too.../Blame Clinton if you want to assign...."

Who...gives....a fuck...

They're all politicians folks. Because you criticise one side doesn't mean you suddenly become this rabid staunch supporter of the other.

I mean, fuck- get perspective.

You know what irritates me most about these types of threads?

When someone's come-back is "Yeah well, under the Democrats.../The Democrats did this too.../Blame Clinton if you want to assign...."

Who...gives....a fuck...

They're all politicians folks. Because you criticise one side doesn't mean you suddenly become this rabid staunch supporter of the other.

I mean, fuck- get perspective.

Here, I agree with you 100%.

Evidence I hate to say could be destroyed on cross-examination. As I said, this is not a criminal investigation but at least we are having an intelligent debate which is what is needed. All that is required is doubt and I hate to say this, though the evidence of falsification is strong, it can be said that the Intelligence was indeed false and that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the falsifying evidence as this evidence was collected during the Clinton Administration on back including Bush's father. You cannot convict on false intelligence collected by the CIA and the NSA.



Are you 100% sure of that?



Are you 100% sure that he lied or was the intelligence collected by the CIA and other intel groups that bad? Bad intelligence does happen my friend.



All you declared false was the intelligence used for going into Iraq. That is all that has been proven.



Even if the evidence points to the fact that Iraq was indeed working on WMD? What if we learn about that later on?



Prove that Bush did indeed lie. I will tell you now that the evidence is not there for a conviction.


When the evidence that Bush so strongly stood next to is false then Bush should be impeached not because of lies but of negligence. Bush gave the message that the information regarding Iraq was 100 % so the blame falls on him. Sorry, but it's the same as someone giving you a stolen car. Sure, you can plead and beg the police that you didn't know and that they gave it to you. But you're considered just as guilty. The same can be applied to Bush. The information was wrong and outdated, regardless if he knew or not, tens of thousands of casualties are on his hands.

Only an idiot would use information gathering during the Clinton and Bush the first administration. Things change, and this only proves the case for negligence.

When the evidence that Bush so strongly stood next to is false then Bush should be impeached not because of lies but of negligence. Bush gave the message that the information regarding Iraq was 100 % so the blame falls on him.

Actually, it was George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) that said it was a slam dunk before Bush used it. Therefor, the blame should fall on George Tenet for stating that it was 100%.

Sorry, but it's the same as someone giving you a stolen car. Sure, you can plead and beg the police that you didn't know and that they gave it to you. But you're considered just as guilty. The same can be applied to Bush. The information was wrong and outdated, regardless if he knew or not, tens of thousands of casualties are on his hands.

Sometimes its not so clear cut in the case of using stolen property. Some people who are caught using stolen goods just do not know that it is stolen whereas some of them do know that it was stolen. As to applying what you said in regards to the Bush Administration, how would they know that the information was wrong and outdated if there was no intelligence on the ground? This exposed a massive flaw in our intelligence gathering in that we do not have the human resources to do effective espionage.

Only an idiot would use information gathering during the Clinton and Bush the first administration. Things change, and this only proves the case for negligence.

You are right that things change but negligence is not an impeachable offense.

If this was your point, I support your right to shout this from the rooftops.

What I object to is the fact that you refuse to acknowlege what the Duelfer report says

Apparently, the Duelfer report says he has had no WMDs since 1991 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)

what the Butler report says

The conclusions of the Butler report. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review#Conclusions_of_the_Review)

It says that information from another country's intelligence service on Iraqi production of chemical and biological weapons was "seriously flawed", without naming the country. It says that there was no recent intelligence to demonstrate that Iraq was a greater threat than other countries, and that the lack of any success in the UNMOVIC finding WMDs should have prompted a re-think. It states that Tony Blair's policy towards Iraq shifted because of the attacks of September 11, 2001, not because of Iraq's weapons programme, and that the government's language left the impression that there was "fuller and firmer intelligence" than was the case.


and what the Kay report says

It seems Kay has changed his mind. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/)

in regards to the weapons we found, the laboratories we found and where the unaccounted for weapons likely are.

A moral position against the war is fine, I think you are incorrect in that judgement, but I don't really have a problem with it. The line is crossed when you ignore the whole reports with the intent to mislead.

Quoted just for anyone who doesn't want to go back a page and read the last part of your post.

Just about every single bit of evidence that Bush quoted was gathered during previous administrations. The CIA director, appointed by Bill Clinton told Bush that the case for WMD's was a "Slam Dunk".

As Scott Ritter pointed out, The Democrats were saying the EXACT same thing that Bush said.

NO ONE lied. There absolutely was bad intelligence, but the fact of the matter still remains that when we invaded Iraq, Saddam STILL had WMD's. There is absolutely NO question of that. Now, were they all still active and viable as WMD's - that is not clear - but some of them ABSOLUTELY were.

There is also no question that even without WMD's Saddam needed to go. He was responsible for genocide unequaled since Pol Pot, and he twice invaded his neighbors without provocation.


He violated numerous terms of the cease fire agreement - any SINGLE such violation is a justifiable reason to re-commence the war.

He undertook a plan to conceal WMD activities.


Those things are not even arguable if you have read any of the major reports.

If you have read them, and you argue differently you are flat out lying.

You can argue that up is down, but that still does not make it true.
Let me ask you this:
Would we have gone to war if Bush had used exactly what has been found as evidence in the days when Bush was trying to sell this war? Meaning that there would be no implied threat to the US and the WMD's were the exact type and number that were found.

If this was your point, I support your right to shout this from the rooftops.

What I object to is the fact that you refuse to acknowlege what the Duelfer report says, what the Butler report says and what the Kay report says in regards to the weapons we found, the laboratories we found and where the unaccounted for weapons likely are.

A moral position against the war is fine, I think you are incorrect in that judgement, but I don't really have a problem with it. The line is crossed when you ignore the whole reports with the intent to mislead.
I think the main point that you are missing and that I have stressed many times in this discussion is that Bush elected to invade Iraq BEFORE the UN inspectors had completed their tasks.

The UN inspectors were not finding any WMD, because there was none to be found, certainly none that could be deemed an "imminent threat" to the US.

That is where Bush failed. He elected to go to war without the evidence to back up his claims, and that makes him guilty. The faulty intelligence was irrelevant once the bombs started dropping on Baghdad.

Whatever happened to those 500 or so random Mustard gas/Sarin/BI shells we found?

Whatever happened to those 500 or so random Mustard gas/Sarin/BI shells we found?



They just don't care. They are more interested in demonizing President Bush.

I think the main point that you are missing and that I have stressed many times in this discussion is that Bush elected to invade Iraq BEFORE the UN inspectors had completed their tasks.

They were NEVER going to complete their task. Saddam was keeping them from meaningful inspections. Every day that he was successful in hiding the WMD's, the sanctions were weakened.

The UN inspectors were not finding any WMD, because there was none to be found, certainly none that could be deemed an "imminent threat" to the US.

They did not find ANY actual weapons until we went in. He effectively hid them from the inspectors. Your statement is proof of the ineffectiveness of the inspectors.

That is where Bush failed. He elected to go to war without the evidence to back up his claims, and that makes him guilty. The faulty intelligence was irrelevant once the bombs started dropping on Baghdad.

Do you think Bush PERSONALLY collected the intelligence he acted on???

If not, WHO collected the evidence??? What was the consensus of ALL the worlds intelligence agencies at the time???
What did the Saudi's tell us?? What was Saddam hiding when he delayed inspectors?

There absolutely were mistakes made in terms of the intelligence, but they got more right than you are giving them credit for.

Either way: If you are the President, the CIA chief tells you that the case for WMD's is a 'SLAM DUNK" - Saddam is threatening you, has put out a "hit" on a former President, has shown no hesitency to use WMD's on his OWN CITIZENS, and was actively supporting terrorists AND indeed had ties with Al-Qaeda, - given that scenario (which is only part of what he was given as info) and given that we were just attacked on 9-11 by people that Saddam was working with, you would be negligent if you did not remove that threat.

You seem to forget the fact that the UN inspectors could not account for a WHOLE lot of WMD's that Saddam had declared. 1000 - 1,500 tons of VX in addition to all of the Mustard and Sarin gas.

What happened to all of that??? where did it go??? It STILL has not been found. (but Duelfer, Kay both said WMD's were likely to have been shipped to Syria)

Let me ask you this:
Would we have gone to war if Bush had used exactly what has been found as evidence in the days when Bush was trying to sell this war? Meaning that there would be no implied threat to the US and the WMD's were the exact type and number that were found.

I think the case for war is better NOW than it was before.

We have uncovered documents showing Saddam's intent to give WMD's to terrorists. We did not have proof of this before, just unsubstantiated witnesses to the fact. WE now have that proof.

But you don't care about that.

Apparently, the Duelfer report says he has had no WMDs since 1991 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/)

READ THE DAMNED REPORT ITSELF. I know what the papers/media have mis-reported. They depend on people like yourself to BLINDLY follow them. They know that most people are too LAZY to actually check out whether or not they are reporting the full story.

Here, from the report itself:

Beginning in May 2004, ISG recovered a series of chemical weapons from Coalition military units and other sources. A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components.

The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html


Now, since it specifically mentions 53 instances of WMD's how can the media say NO WMD's???

The two are mutually exclusive.





The conclusions of the Butler report. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butler_Review#Conclusions_of_the_Review)

This only says that intelligence was unreliable. No one disputes that. But here is also what Butler told the United Nations:

As indicated to the Council on 13 October, in addition to providing the report to members of the Council immediately, I propose to pass it, at the same time, to the Permanent Representative of Iraq for transmission to the authorities in Baghdad.

When passing the report to the Permanent Representative, I would propose to invite his particular attention, and through him that of the authorities in Baghdad, to three key aspects of the report: "all analytical data provided by the three laboratories were again considered conclusive and valid"; "the existence of VX degradation products conflicts with Iraq's declarations that the unilaterally destroyed special warheads had never been filled with chemical warfare agents"; and, the recommendations of the group of experts that the Special Commission invite Iraq "to explain first the origin and history of the fragments analysed by all three laboratories and then the presence of degradation products of nerve agents" and "to explain the presence of a compound known as VX stabilizer and its degradation product, and to provide more information on the Iraqi efforts during the period from mid-1988 to the end of 1990 to develop and produce VX by improved synthetic routes".

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98-995.htm

This is what he said in an interview with PBS:

AMBASSADOR BUTLER: We've been excavating in the desert northwest of Baghdad for the remnants of special missile warheads that Iraq said it destroyed there by explosion. Now these were special warheads to be carried on long range prohibited missiles, which they had filled with either biological or chemical agents. We took some pieces of those remnants that we dug up out to a laboratory for analysis. We did this for the Iraqi agreement. And what that analysis found was that some of the warheads had contained the chemical nerve agent VX. Now what's really interesting about this is that Iraq has always robustly denied that they ever put VX into weapons, in other words, weaponized it. Even as recently as a week ago, when we mentioned these lab findings to the Iraqis when I was in Baghdad, they still said they never did it. Now, that's a problem, because this lab analysis is utterly unambiguous. It couldn't have been anything else. The remains that we found in these remnants could only have come from VX, so there's a problem.

MARGARET WARNER: And very briefly, what is VX?

What is VX?

AMBASSADOR BUTLER: VX is a nerve agent, about the most toxic that there is. The one that guy used in the subway in Japan called sarin is a nerve agent. This one is ten times more powerful than that. It's a very serious substance.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_6-24.html

Now, this was the discovery that finally forced Saddam to admit he had weaponized VX gas. Later UN reports show that between 1,000 and 1,500 TONS of VX are still unaccounted for.


It seems Kay has changed his mind. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/)

No it hasn't he has always said no STOCKPILES. He also was out of the picture when we found the WMD's that we have now located. But he is still on record and has not refuted, that WMD's were likely to have been moved to Syria.

I think the case for war is better NOW than it was before.

We have uncovered documents showing Saddam's intent to give WMD's to terrorists. We did not have proof of this before, just unsubstantiated witnesses to the fact. WE now have that proof.

But you don't care about that.
Why is it that you think I wouldn't care about Saddam giving wmds to terrorists? Where is this proof? All I could find on Google was hardcore rightwing sites suggesting this. I found a Salon opinion piece saying that basically this was a planted document which does talk of terrorists but actually had nothing to do with Iraq. Certainly not enough to argue with. Are there links to the actual document or any site more centered than CNS news?

Come on Eut....you can do better than this!!

I am not going to put much stock into the web site that you selected to defame Mr. Ritter. Just look at the title? Religion Of Peace My Ass or ROPMA for short. :(

Please stick to the issues raised by Mr. Ritter. Thanks.

where were the lies again ? i dont think any evidence was ever produced explicitly showing anyone in the administraiton lied ...

Whatever happened to those 500 or so random Mustard gas/Sarin/BI shells we found?

You mean the Mustard and Sarin shells from the Iran-Iraq war that had degraded to where they really wouldn't be effective weapons?

Wikipedia: Iraq Survey Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelfer_Report#Duelfer_Report)

And didn't Dear Leader formally abandon the search for these mythical WMDs?

Maybe this is what is being referred to?

"Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/03/26/wsaddam26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/26/ixworld.html

Oh and found this:

"Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon.


"We played by the rules of the game," Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said at a session in the mid-1990s. "In 1991, our weapons were destroyed.""
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/21/international/i110439S02.DTL

"The first surprising thing we find in the documents, which are available here through the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office's Joint Reserve Intelligence Center, is that they are not necessarily from, or even about, Iraq. For example, document 2RAD-2004-601189 is described as "Abu-Zubaydah Statement on the Capability of al-Qaidah to Manufacture and Deliver Nuclear Weapons to the U.S." Sounds like smoking-gun material, but what exactly does it have to do with the case for war against Saddam? Zubaydah, a top bin Laden operative who was captured in Pakistan in 2002, told interrogators that al-Qaida could build a "dirty bomb," but he didn't say anything about getting Saddam's help to do it. Moreover, the "statement" itself is nothing more than an Arabic summary of a 2002 CBS News story on Zubaydah's claims. It has no identifiable link to Iraq, other than the odd fact that it appears on a U.S. government site billed as Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents.

The Zubaydah example has plenty of company among the declassified documents, many of which were examined by this Arabic speaker. Interspersed throughout the more than 1,300 documents apparently produced by Saddam's regime are approximately 40 files that are either completely unrelated to Iraq, or that are related only through jihadist elements of the insurgency that began after Saddam's fall.

Some of these are postings to jihadist Web forums about insurgent actions after the fall of Baghdad, including a thread from the Shabakat al-Hisbah forums discussing a precise attack on a "crusader" and National Guard position in Fallujah that was executed by the military wing of Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin. (Document NMEC-2006-617171.) Others are Web publications by al-Qaida's media wing, including a single page from an al-Markaz al-Islami al-I'lami training document discussing atomic explosion tests and types of bursts. (Document NMEC-2006-619612.) Still others are theoretical works by al-Qaida supporters, including a well-known booklet by the Saudi extremist Nasir al-Fahd, "A Response From Nasir al-Fahd to a Question Over the Use of WMD Against Infidels." (Document ISGZ-2004-602491.)

How did these highly suggestive materials end up in the Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents? The site's disclaimer warns that "the US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein," but it casts no doubt on their provenance or relevance."
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/salon013.html

Again, not enough to disprove your point but certainly enough to raise questions.

They were NEVER going to complete their task.
You are correct because Bush was NEVER going to let them continue to inspect. IMHO Bush knew that the inspectors were not going to find any WMD.

Saddam was keeping them from meaningful inspections.
Unless your name is Blix, then you are unqualified to make that assertion. Blix states quite clearly that the co-operation on process was excellent. Look it up.

Every day that he was successful in hiding the WMD's, the sanctions were weakened.
Your proof that he was hiding anything. That is the materials that George Bush claimed that Saddam had.

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/)

Yep, Bush made all kinds of claims about Saddam's WMD, but they were all false.

They did not find ANY actual weapons until we went in. He effectively hid them from the inspectors. Your statement is proof of the ineffectiveness of the inspectors.
Scott Ritter talks about the effectiveness of inspections and that sanctions were working.

What was found is not the WMD that the US was looking for. You have been told that way too many times. Even your own government Defense Dept. disagrees with you. Give it up.

Do you think Bush PERSONALLY collected the intelligence he acted on???
No he didn't but he PERSONALLY used all of it. When Blix was coming up empty handed, Bush knew he had to invade. IF the inspections had been completed, the US would not have been able to invade. Period.

What does Blix say about all this deception (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html#)?

Or you can listen and watch Blix by clicking on the video link.

If not, WHO collected the evidence??? What was the consensus of ALL the worlds intelligence agencies at the time???
It appears that UK and US intelligence isn't really?

I guess the Downing Street Memo (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/dsmemo.pdf)might answer some of your questions?

Or if you are lazy, you can listen (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/recreation2.mp3)to the re-created backroom discussion.

What did the Saudi's tell us?? What was Saddam hiding when he delayed inspectors?
And of course the Saudi's were best friends with Saddam? :rolleyes:

There absolutely were mistakes made in terms of the intelligence, but they got more right than you are giving them credit for.
No they didn't get more right. As David Kay said "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons".

Here is what all of the inspectors (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11222025&postcount=50)had to say:

Either way: If you are the President, the CIA chief tells you that the case for WMD's is a 'SLAM DUNK" - Saddam is threatening you, has put out a "hit" on a former President, has shown no hesitency to use WMD's on his OWN CITIZENS, and was actively supporting terrorists AND indeed had ties with Al-Qaeda, - given that scenario (which is only part of what he was given as info) and given that we were just attacked on 9-11 by people that Saddam was working with, you would be negligent if you did not remove that threat.
And the problem is that Bush was totally negligent for pursuing the invasion of Iraq.

You seem to forget the fact that the UN inspectors could not account for a WHOLE lot of WMD's that Saddam had declared. 1000 - 1,500 tons of VX in addition to all of the Mustard and Sarin gas.

What happened to all of that??? where did it go??? It STILL has not been found. (but Duelfer, Kay both said WMD's were likely to have been shipped to Syria)
I guess we will never know. Bush did not let Blix finish the investigation.

Just read what Bush claimed Saddam to have and then compare it with what was found. The speech accomplished exactly what it was meant to do, and that was to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, especially when he linked these WMD to what happened on 9/11.

Lies and deception plain and simple.

Why is it that you think I wouldn't care about Saddam giving wmds to terrorists? Where is this proof? All I could find on Google was hardcore rightwing sites suggesting this. I found a Salon opinion piece saying that basically this was a planted document which does talk of terrorists but actually had nothing to do with Iraq. Certainly not enough to argue with. Are there links to the actual document or any site more centered than CNS news?


It was not covered very much (suprise suprise) but I will try to find some you might accept. I assume Fox news is out.?!?:D

You mean the Mustard and Sarin shells from the Iran-Iraq war that had degraded to where they really wouldn't be effective weapons?

Wikipedia: Iraq Survey Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duelfer_Report#Duelfer_Report)

And didn't Dear Leader formally abandon the search for these mythical WMDs?

Please research the properties of BINARY Sarin. That is what was found (along with some regular Sarin) When you look it up, you will find that Binary Sarin does not degrade, it's Shelf-life is irrelevent.


The 500 weapons were AFTER the Duelfer report.

what war in Iraq ???

what war in Iraq ???

Please tell me you are joking with this post.

Please research the properties of BINARY Sarin. That is what was found (along with some regular Sarin) When you look it up, you will find that Binary Sarin does not degrade, it's Shelf-life is irrelevent.

The 500 weapons were AFTER the Duelfer report.
Irrelevant for two reasons:

One:

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Two:

Bush would not allow the UN inspectors finish their inspections, which according to Blix were going well.

The way Bush was talking before the invasion, Iraq was cranking out all kinds of WMD. In his speech in Cincinnati, Bush used the word "nuclear" 20 times, even though in reality, Iraq's nuclear program had been scrapped since 1991.

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/)

That is how Bush indoctrinated the American public. conjure up the image of September 11, (which he referred to 5 times), mention nuclear 20 times, weapons 32 times, threat 8 times, terror 34 times and scare the bejeebus out of the listeners. Bingo!!

*snip*

In retrospect, you are indeed right. However, in all honesty, I have to point out that President Bill Clinton also believed he had Chemical and Biological weapons and launched Operation Desert Fox because of it. Granted it was not an invasion but one can make a claim that he lied to us as well while our troops were pounding Iraq.

In retrospect, you are indeed right. However, in all honesty, I have to point out that President Bill Clinton also believed he had Chemical and Biological weapons and launched Operation Desert Fox because of it. Granted it was not an invasion but one can make a claim that he lied to us as well while our troops were pounding Iraq.
I agree, although I do not agree that it is in retrospection. However, Bush made the biggest blunder by refusing to allow the UN to finish the inspections. Blix was pleased with the "co-operation on process", and Iraq was allowing inspections in a timely manner and there were no limitations as to inspections of sites, including Presidential palaces. Heck the UN was even cutting up rockets that barely exceeded the limitations imposed by the UN.

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage' (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml)

Here is where the faulty US intelligence fails to become a valid excuse for a later US invasion.

It was not covered very much (suprise suprise) but I will try to find some you might accept. I assume Fox news is out.?!?:D
Um... yeah. Fox news is out. I'd really like to see something if you can find it.

I agree. However, Bush made the biggest blunder by refusing to allow the UN to finish the inspections.

Ok, I can partly agree with this but I also must point out that Saddam was also not cooperating through most of the inspection process. One could say that because of his interferences, that inspections could not procede as planned.

Blix was pleased with the "co-operation on process", and Iraq was allowing inspections in a timely manner and there were no limitations as to inspections of sites, including Presidential palaces. Heck the UN was even cutting up rockets that barely exceeded the limitations imposed by the UN.

I will agree with this but one thing that still alludes everyone, and I know I am going to regret saying this so please do not hammer me in stating this for it must be said, what about those trucks that were spotted leaving Iraq into Syria? I know we do not know what was there and I am not going to speculate much on it for I have hardly any information on it. I just felt compelled to inquire about it.

As to the rockets, they should not have had those in the first place but I was glad that they were ordered destroyed.

Here is where the faulty US intelligence fails to become an valid excuse for a later US invasion.

Well it still can be used as a valid excuse but not as big as it could be.

You are correct because Bush was NEVER going to let them continue to inspect. IMHO Bush knew that the inspectors were not going to find any WMD.

Nope, France, China and Russia and the press were actively undermining the sanctions - as were several UN officials (Kofi's own son among them). He was actively hiding them and playing Blix and the UN like a fine Stradivarius Violin. They were WORTHLESS - and worse. By continually keeping the weapons from the inspectors - he was undercutting the case for sactions and quickening his efforts to reconstitute his programs. But, I forgot, you DONT CARE about those parts of the ISG reports.


Hans Blix, UNMOVIC’s Executive Chairman, has taken the view that “cosmetic inspections are worse than none,”

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/030102einhorn.htm

Unless your name is Blix, then you are unqualified to make that assertion. Blix states quite clearly that the co-operation on process was excellent. Look it up.

That is not what he said during the investigations. Neither did Duelfer nor Kay.

Wanna read their quotes again????

Here are some from Blix:
PREVENTING THE FURTHER PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The importance of on-site inspection in Iraq

Lecture by Dr. Hans Blix,
Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC

In the case of Iraq, nearly ten years of inspection has seen cooperation and very significant results but also much obstruction.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-blix-2-19-01.htm

Blix before the United Nations in 2003

Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

From the Baltimore Sun:

Blix tells U.N. Iraq refuses to comply on disarmament

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil


What did Kay say about Iraqi Cooperation??

ACT: Prior to the invasion last March, U.S. officials claimed to have intelligence Iraq was defeating inspections efforts through various denial and deception tactics. What evidence has emerged regarding Iraqi cooperation with UN inspectors?

Kay: Actually, a fair amount of evidence. I think that’s one case in which the claim is largely supported. That is, we have a number of interviews and interrogations that we conducted of scientists and engineers who had been interviewed by UNMOVIC who said that they had not told UNMOVIC the truth, and they then proceeded to take us to documents and equipment and records that they had sequestered away and gave them to us. And they said it simply was that they didn’t believe that UNMOVIC could protect them from the secret police organization, intelligence organization of the Iraqi state, that they had been warned not to cooperate, they had been briefed, and they went into great detail about how they had been briefed prior to interviews. So, there was that. There also were major discoveries of equipment and facilities, and the interesting thing about that is not so much that UNMOVIC didn’t find—it’s very difficult without intelligence to find stuff in Iraq or anywhere, and that includes the ISG. The interesting thing is, we got access to the records and to the people involved in the discussions in which the Iraqis themselves had decided which facilities they would reveal—put into the full, final, complete declaration [in U.N. Resolution] 1441—and which ones they would not. So, it’s quite clear the Iraqis took some out, [took some facilities] off the table. And we were able, because the Iraqis were more free to talk, to find those. We also discovered that the Iraqis had hidden certain facilities in places that are typically difficult for inspectors to go—mosques is one facility—the best English translation is Chamber of Commerce. It really, it was the Union of Industrialists, which had equipment which should have been declared to the UN of a biological-chemical nature. So, there was a fairly robust D&D [Deception and Denial ] program, considering what they had to hide, which, I mean, they weren’t hiding large production facilities or large stockpiles.

How about Duelfer???

Even as procurement and finance cut across all of Iraq’s technical development efforts, denial and deception were infused in these efforts as well.

Much is known about Iraq’s various efforts to conceal WMD from UNSCOM after the Gulf War in 1991. The ISG, however, has uncovered more details about the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq against UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC. Moreover, these efforts at deception did not end with the departure of inspectors in 1998, and indeed deception continued right up until war in 2003.

The Iraqi Intelligence Service was tasked with monitoring and infiltrating UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. Iraqi officials tell us hundreds of officers from multiple directorates were tasked to monitor the UN officials, employing a spectrum of capabilities from human to electronic surveillance. Elaborate plans were developed and rehearsed to enable sensitive sites to be able to hide sensitive documents and equipment on as little as 15 minutes notice. Iraqi intelligence engaged in a worldwide effort to collect intelligence on the UN, including efforts to recruit sources inside the UN, UNSCOM and UNMOVIC.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/CIA/us-cia-duelfer-033004.htm
How about reading a transcript of a tape?:

Powell wasted no time in providing evidence. A few minutes into his presentation, he played a tape he said is a recording of a conversation between two senior Iraqi Republican Guard officers concerning imminent U.N. inspections.

"We evacuated everything," one officer reassured the other in the Nov. 26, 2002, recording, just one day before the U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq.

In another taped conversation Powell played, one Iraqi officer is telling another to make sure he has cleaned out all the ammunition and scrap storage areas and then to destroy his written instructions. "Because I don't want anyone to see this message," the officer said, according to a translation provided by U.S. government officials.



Scott Ritter talks about the effectiveness of inspections and that sanctions were working.

Scott Ritter was on Saddam's Payroll. But besides that point, he has been absolutely discredited.


No he didn't but he PERSONALLY used all of it. When Blix was coming up empty handed, Bush knew he had to invade. IF the inspections had been completed, the US would not have been able to invade. Period.

That's funny. Blix was one of the main people who bolstered the Bush position - or don't you recall????

WASHINGTON - The chief U.N. weapons inspector told the United Nations Security Council yesterday that Iraq has not accepted the need to disarm, even to avoid war, and could possess thousands of chemical weapons, thousands of gallons of a germ warfare agent and missiles that exceed the permitted range.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil



Blix has his panties all in a bunch NOW because he was so freaking incompetent that he could not even get Saddam to give him free access. When we went in and found the WMD's he could not, he started crying like a baby.



I guess the Downing Street Memo (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/dsmemo.pdf)might answer some of your questions?
Or if you are lazy, you can listen (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/recreation2.mp3)to the re-created backroom discussion.


Oh the fake but accurate line again?:rolleyes:




Why is everything "recreated"????? Why no ACTUAL tapes??? Perhaps they never existed???


No they didn't get more right. As David Kay said "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons".

David Kay was not around when we found WMD's, but still said that there was evidence that they went to Syria. He made that statement prior to Duelfer and the 500 WMD's.

And the problem is that Bush was totally negligent for pursuing the invasion of Iraq.

Seeing that Blix himself said - in an address to the UN on Jan 27th 2003 - that Saddam was not cooperating and was hiding his WMD's, Bush would have been negligent if he did not.


I guess we will never know. Bush did not let Blix finish the investigation.

Again, As Blix himself said:

“cosmetic inspections are worse than none,”

http://www.senate.gov/~govt-aff/030102einhorn.htm


Lies and deception plain and simple.

Yup. The press and the left have worked tirelessly to decieve the public and lLie about what we have found.

Why is it that you think I wouldn't care about Saddam giving wmds to terrorists? Where is this proof? All I could find on Google was hardcore rightwing sites suggesting this. I found a Salon opinion piece saying that basically this was a planted document which does talk of terrorists but actually had nothing to do with Iraq. Certainly not enough to argue with. Are there links to the actual document or any site more centered than CNS news?

Does the Baltimore Sun work for you??


"solid evidence" of an al-Qaida presence in Iraq and that there is "credible reporting" that al-Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction.



http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil

Does the Baltimore Sun work for you??


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.un28jan28,0,1342024.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil
But in the same article there is this:

"ElBaradei said his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq has resumed development of nuclear weapons, and contended that with "sustained, proactive" Iraqi cooperation, this could be confirmed in a few months. Continued inspections, he added, could serve as insurance against Iraqi weapons development.

"These few months would be a valuable investment in peace because it could help avoid a war," ElBaradei said."


It just seems how this has all been turning out is not what Bush had told us. The WMDs which were found were not the reason we went to war, as acknowledged by the Pentagon. And there were still more questions than "solid evidence" in the months leading up to the war. I'm just not seeing anything offered that was a threat to our country by Saddam, which is what we were all worked up about in the first place. I see things which lead you to believe what you believe and that this is enough for you. It's just not my opinion that it was enough for us to go to war and then to find ourselves in the unfortunate position of being occupiers. I am trying to be much more open to anything new that is learned, much more open than I've ever been about this in the past three years.

That is why I posted the Duelfer report. That is the very same report that the media claimed to "prove" there was no WMD's. Yet if they had bothered to look, it actually listed 53 separate instances of WMD's. SInce then we have uncovered 500 more WMD's, 1500 Gallons of chemical agents and 1.77 Tons of enriched Uranium.
'Uncovered' Uranium?
Are you talking about the ~2 tonnes of uranium that the UN always knew was at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex, or about some other ~2 tonnes of uranium?

In 1992, after the first Gulf War, all highly enriched uranium — which could be used to make nuclear weapons — was shipped from Iraq to Russia, the IAEA's Zlauvinen said.

After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seal and control.

So were radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes, which Iraq was allowed to keep under a 1991 U.N. Security Council resolution.

IAEA inspectors left Iraq just before last year's U.S.-led war. After it ended, Washington barred U.N. weapons inspectors from returning.

An exception was made in June 2003 when Washington allowed an IAEA team to go to Tuwaitha to secure uranium after reports of widespread looting when the fighting ended.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm




Incidently, the 'enriched' uranium you keep going on about was enriched to a staggering 2.6%.

The uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade.
Weapons-usable grade is 20%, though it'd be a very crude and inefficient weapon.
Neutron reactors contains at least 50% 235U, but typically exceeds 90%.

For use in commercial light water reactors, the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5 %. Research reactors use uranium enriched 12% to 19.75%.

In other words, what can you do with uranium enriched to 2.6%?
Nothing. Not even use it for a light water reactor.

But in the same article there is this:

"ElBaradei said his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq has resumed development of nuclear weapons, and contended that with "sustained, proactive" Iraqi cooperation, this could be confirmed in a few months. Continued inspections, he added, could serve as insurance against Iraqi weapons development.

I have not alleged he had nuclear Capability. The allegation on that subject is that he had plans to re-constititute it once he was successful in getting the sanctions listed.



It just seems how this has all been turning out is not what Bush had told us.

Again, there is no doubt that some of the intelligence was bad, but he told us nothing that he was not told by the CIA, other intelligence agencies and by Hans Blix himself. Some people want to make it seem that he lied in some bloodlust for war. That is simply not the case.


The WMDs which were found were not the reason we went to war, as acknowledged by the Pentagon.

ONE person in the Pentagon said that, the Senate intelligence committee seemed to think differently. If you look at the 2003 State of the Union speech, Colin Powells speech before the UN and other discussions at the time, you will quickly realize that they are exactly the ones we were looking for.

Why do you think we were asking for proof of them being destroyed??? Just exactly what were we asking to be destroyed if not these weapons??? When we talked about VX gax, Mustard gas, Sarin stockpiles that Saddam USED on his own people these were the ones and of this time period. Look at the UN resolutions, and Blix's, and Duelfer's reports of discrepencies between what he had, and what was used or destroyed. Again I ask that you go to the actual reports (I have linked to many of them) .

And there were still more questions than "solid evidence" in the months leading up to the war. I'm just not seeing anything offered that was a threat to our country by Saddam, which is what we were all worked up about in the first place. I see things which lead you to believe what you believe and that this is enough for you. It's just not my opinion that it was enough for us to go to war and then to find ourselves in the unfortunate position of being occupiers. I am trying to be much more open to anything new that is learned, much more open than I've ever been about this in the past three years.




I can respect that position.











My main objection is that many wish to paint the United States and President Bush as evil. According to all intelligence available at the time, Saddam was hiding the weapons he had, and the evidence was that he had a lot of them, and had designs of using terrorists to attack us. It turns out that he did not have as much as we thought - EVEN if you include what we suspect was shipped to Syria, but it was more than enough to constitute a serious threat.
Mustard gas is pretty stable if it is stored properly. - Read up on it. One of the reasons the weapons are now degraded is that we forced a situation that made it impossible to store them properly (by our invasion). We also found binary Sarin and Cyclo sarin - which DO NOT degrade and they were absolutely viable. We also found the unitary form of sarin and I will readily agree that that was not a threat. In 1998, Richard Butler found evidence of VX production and weaponization, This was WELL after everyone claims Saddam stopped making weapons. Eventually Saddam was forced to admit this, and he provided some documentation of destroying SOME. BUT, the numbers he destroyed and what we knew he had, were off by 6,500 shells - approximately 1,000 - 1,500 TONS of VX gas - just about the deadliest of the nerve agents. This is the one that Colin Powell held up a small test tube of and told us that even that one drop was enough to kill a man.

Please read Powells speech, much of it WAS based on bad intelligence, but this part was not.

OWELL: Let me pause and review some of the key elements of this conversation that you just heard between these two officers.

First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he's coming for, and they know he's coming the next day. He's coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things.
Colin Powell slide 4
Slide 4

But they're worried. ``We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?''

What is their concern? Their concern is that it's something they should not have, something that should not be seen.

The general is incredulous: ``You didn't get a modified. You don't have one of those, do you?''
Colin Powell slide 5
Slide 5

``I have one.''

``Which, from where?''

``From the workshop, from the Al Kendi (ph) Company?''

``What?''

``From Al Kendi (ph).''
Colin Powell slide 6
Slide 6

``I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left.''

``We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left.''

Note what he says: ``We evacuated everything.''

We didn't destroy it. We didn't line it up for inspection. We didn't turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up.

``I will come to you tomorrow.''

The Al Kendi (ph) Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.

POWELL: Let me play another tape for you. As you will recall, the inspectors found 12 empty chemical warheads on January 16. On January 20, four days later, Iraq promised the inspectors it would search for more. You will now hear an officer from Republican Guard headquarters issuing an instruction to an officer in the field. Their conversation took place just last week on January 30.

(BEGIN AUDIO TAPE)

1/8Speaking in Arabic. 3/8

(END AUDIO TAPE)

POWELL: Let me pause again and review the elements of this message.
Colin Powell slide 7
Slide 7

``They're inspecting the ammunition you have, yes.''

``Yes.''

``For the possibility there are forbidden ammo.''

``For the possibility there is by chance forbidden ammo?''
Colin Powell slide 8
Slide 8

``Yes.''

``And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.''

POWELL: Remember the first message, evacuated.

This is all part of a system of hiding things and moving things out of the way and making sure they have left nothing behind.
Colin Powell slide 9
Slide 9

If you go a little further into this message, and you see the specific instructions from headquarters: ``After you have carried out what is contained in this message, destroy the message because I don't want anyone to see this message.''

``OK, OK.''

Why? Why?

This message would have verified to the inspectors that they have been trying to turn over things. They were looking for things. But they don't want that message seen, because they were trying to clean up the area to leave no evidence behind of the presence of weapons of mass destruction. And they can claim that nothing was there. And the inspectors can look all they want, and they will find nothing.

Another tape Powell played:

POWELL: Let's review a few selected items of this conversation. Two officers talking to each other on the radio want to make sure that nothing is misunderstood:

``Remove. Remove.''

The expression, the expression, ``I got it.''
Colin Powell slide 28
Slide 28

``Nerve agents. Nerve agents. Wherever it comes up.''

``Got it.''

``Wherever it comes up.''

``In the wireless instructions, in the instructions.''

``Correction. No. In the wireless instructions.''

``Wireless. I got it.''

Why does he repeat it that way? Why is he so forceful in making sure this is understood? And why did he focus on wireless instructions? Because the senior officer is concerned that somebody might be listening.

Well, somebody was.

``Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents.''

Well, we know that they do. And this kind of conversation confirms it.


Now, given that we KNOW he had the WMD's at one time, that we found SOME of them, and KNOWING that Saddam was ACTIVELY and aggressively hiding those weapons, and having witnesses saying he was going to give them to terrorists in order to attack us, I believe that the President should have been impeached if he did NOT go to war with Saddam.


It is also my contention that in a couple of years, Iraq will be seen as a sucess story. We got rid of one of the worst mass murderers in the history of the world, established a fledgling democracy, and deprived the terrorists of monetary support and eliminated a training arena and stopped the creation of a safe haven for terrorists.

I've had a good read through these posts and the basic argument comes down to one side saying "there were no WMDs", and one side saying "yes there were, we found some of them, look".

My own comment would be that IF WMDs have been found, why isn't it splashed all over the press? Why arn't the pro war press (which is most of the newspaper press here in Britain) screaming "look we told you so, we were right all along"?

Right ..I look at it realistically ..since I lived through the period and am very active in politics .

The world was fooled by Saddam the bluffer..its as simple as I can make it. he made like he was more powerfull than he was for reasons only he knows.
Saddam CONVINCED us he had them and would USE them . ...period..the fact that his bluff was called ..well he was taken out of a hole and deloused for TV and is on trial...bad poker hand I guess .

Our combined intell was worthless. The world all seemed to think he had WMDS..he had some ...and capability to create more..but NOTHING like what was expected and harped on .

IF WMDS were the only reason to attack Iraq and remove Saddam I would be more upset..as it is I am still waiting for the inel agencys to weed out the fools that did such a wonderfull job of being assholes.

Right ..I look at it realistically ..since I lived through the period and am very active in politics .

The world was fooled by Saddam the bluffer..its as simple as I can make it. he made like he was more powerfull than he was for reasons only he knows.
Saddam CONVINCED us he had them and would USE them . ...period..the fact that his bluff was called ..well he was taken out of a hole and deloused for TV and is on trial...bad poker hand I guess .

Our combined intell was worthless. The world all seemed to think he had WMDS..he had some ...and capability to create more..but NOTHING like what was expected and harped on .

IF WMDS were the only reason to attack Iraq and remove Saddam I would be more upset..as it is I am still waiting for the inel agencys to weed out the fools that did such a wonderfull job of being assholes.

That was the reason we were given. I for one am certainly not sorry to see the back of such an evil dictator who basically ran Iraq as his own personal playground. I just don't like being lied to by politicians over such a hugely important issue.

Thats the basic fact. We were told we were going to war to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying the region and possibly us (the west) with WMDs. He didn't have the capability to do that. We were lied to.

I've had a good read through these posts and the basic argument comes down to one side saying "there were no WMDs", and one side saying "yes there were, we found some of them, look".

My own comment would be that IF WMDs have been found, why isn't it splashed all over the press? Why arn't the pro war press (which is most of the newspaper press here in Britain) screaming "look we told you so, we were right all along"?

Because the press is NOT Pro-War. Not even close. They are part of the cover-up.

Right ..I look at it realistically ..since I lived through the period and am very active in politics .

The world was fooled by Saddam the bluffer..its as simple as I can make it. he made like he was more powerfull than he was for reasons only he knows.
Saddam CONVINCED us he had them and would USE them . ...period..the fact that his bluff was called ..well he was taken out of a hole and deloused for TV and is on trial...bad poker hand I guess .

Our combined intell was worthless. The world all seemed to think he had WMDS..he had some ...and capability to create more..but NOTHING like what was expected and harped on .

IF WMDS were the only reason to attack Iraq and remove Saddam I would be more upset..as it is I am still waiting for the inel agencys to weed out the fools that did such a wonderfull job of being assholes.



I could not agree more.

That was the reason we were given. I for one am certainly not sorry to see the back of such an evil dictator who basically ran Iraq as his own personal playground. I just don't like being lied to by politicians over such a hugely important issue.

Thats the basic fact. We were told we were going to war to prevent Saddam Hussein from destroying the region and possibly us (the west) with WMDs. He didn't have the capability to do that. We were lied to.


Lying requires knowlege that you are telling an untruth. ALL of the real evidence pointed to the fact he had massive quantities of WMD's and was working very hard to hide that fact.

Because the press is NOT Pro-War. Not even close. They are part of the cover-up.
Fuck me. You should really look at some of the British tabloids.

Fuck me. You should really look at some of the British tabloids.


I have. The very fact they have made an issue on the non existant DSM, built up Abu-Grahib as akin to Hitler, ignored the WMD's and excuse (or at least minimize) the fact that it is the TERRORISTS who are killing nearly every single innocent in Iraq, and absolutely scream from the mountaintops every indescretion the coalition troops MIGHT have committed, proves the point.

I have. The very fact they have made an issue on the non existant DSM, built up Abu-Grahib as akin to Hitler, ignored the WMD's and excuse (or at least minimize) the fact that it is the TERRORISTS who are killing nearly every single innocent in Iraq, and absolutely scream from the mountaintops every indescretion the coalition troops MIGHT have committed, proves the point.

It seems highly unlikely that EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER is anti-war. And I'd like to know what "DSM" stands for.

It seems highly unlikely that EVERY SINGLE NEWSPAPER is anti-war. And I'd like to know what "DSM" stands for.


Not every single one is, but most are. There are several outlets who do not cover up the WMD's and apologize for the terrorists, but the lefties instanly attack their credibility. Any one who dares print both sides or air both sides (aka FOX) is instantly labled a right wing facist supporter.


DSM stands for Downing street memos.

Not every single one is, but most are. There are several outlets who do not cover up the WMD's and apologize for the terrorists, but the lefties instanly attack their credibility. Any one who dares print both sides or air both sides (aka FOX) is instantly labled a right wing facist supporter.


DSM stands for Downing street memos.
What proof do you have that the Downing Street Memo is nonexistant?

Right ..I look at it realistically ..since I lived through the period and am very active in politics .

The world was fooled by Saddam the bluffer..its as simple as I can make it. he made like he was more powerfull than he was for reasons only he knows.
Saddam CONVINCED us he had them and would USE them . ...period..the fact that his bluff was called ..well he was taken out of a hole and deloused for TV and is on trial...bad poker hand I guess .

Our combined intell was worthless. The world all seemed to think he had WMDS..he had some ...and capability to create more..but NOTHING like what was expected and harped on .

IF WMDS were the only reason to attack Iraq and remove Saddam I would be more upset..as it is I am still waiting for the inel agencys to weed out the fools that did such a wonderfull job of being assholes.

According to the Brits he posed no threat to his neigbours and that was in the build up to the war in 2002. Pull the other one, my lad.

It looks fairly fucken existent to me....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

The very fact they have made an issue on the non existant DSM,
And herein, we have the very roots of deception. The Downing Street Memos were apparently transcribed verbatim from the original document, and to you that means that they do not exist at all. Yet when it comes to WMD, you insist that they do exist, even though the ones that were being sought had in fact been destroyed, and/or have not been found.

You also insist that the chemical weapons that were discovered that date back to prior to the Gulf War are indeed the WMD that the US was looking for even though your own government refutes your claim.

The fact remains that your President used every descriptive word available to characterize Saddam as having weapons that were imminently dangerous to the US, suc as:

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Or this blatant lie:

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.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

Talk about deception!!

If only if you were close.....then jump in ...hey !..... If anyone thinks the way you do ..........you have something right ???????

Evidence I hate to say could be destroyed on cross-examination. As I said, this is not a criminal investigation but at least we are having an intelligent debate which is what is needed. All that is required is doubt and I hate to say this, though the evidence of falsification is strong, it can be said that the Intelligence was indeed false and that the Bush administration had nothing to do with the falsifying evidence as this evidence was collected during the Clinton Administration on back including Bush's father. You cannot convict on false intelligence collected by the CIA and the NSA.
Only the evidence has not been destroyed on cross-examination. The intelligence has been proven false. An argument could be made that it was all a big mistake, except for the existence of papers by Cheney, Wolfowitz, and other prominent policy wonks who happen to be neocons, written and published (i.e. not classified or secret) YEARS BEFORE 9/11, which outline exactly the war plan for Iraq that we are struggling with now, including the same list of justification talking points that we were treated to in reality. Also, the multiple testimonies of intelligence and military agents and officials who are not Joe Wilson stating that they were under direct pressure from the Vice President's office to "gin up" something to hang Saddam Hussein with. And if anyone thinks that Dick Cheney is not in direct control of what goes on in his own office, among his own staff (I'm looking at you, Scooter (*sharp look at Scooter*), then they are kidding themselves but not anyone else. Plus, there's the fact that Cheney himself is still trying to sell claims that have already been soundly debunked -- like that Saddam was partnering with al qaeda bullshit.

All that is required is for an independent prosecutor to be appointed and spend an appropriate amount of time conducting an proper investigation. I am confident that it would be revealed beyond reasonable doubt that Bush and Cheney knew the information was false when they promoted it. It is my (forlorn) hope that the next president will launch such an investigation.

Are you 100% sure of that?
Yes.

Are you 100% sure that he lied or was the intelligence collected by the CIA and other intel groups that bad? Bad intelligence does happen my friend.
Yes, I am sure it was deliberate lie. As I said, I am confident that a proper investigation would prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

All you declared false was the intelligence used for going into Iraq. That is all that has been proven.
No, it is not all that has been proven. We also have evidence of the Bush administration deliberately choosing to use information that they had already been told by the CIA was not reliable and most probably totally false. Remember the yellow cake? Remember those 16 words?

Even if the evidence points to the fact that Iraq was indeed working on WMD? What if we learn about that later on?
You only get to punish people for the crimes they have committed, not the crimes they might like to commit but haven't yet.

Let's say you are my enemy. Let's say you know that I am a shady character who runs with a bad crowd and have no visible means of support. Let's say you would really, really like to see me go to prison for bank robbery. I've robbed banks in the past, but I did my time for that, and now I'm out, and I show no sign of robbing any banks now. You spy and spy, but nope, no bank robberies happening or in progress. But what the hell, you hate me -- so you make up a story, cobble together some pencil drawings of floor plans that look a little like banks and so forth, and spin a good story for the cops. Result, I get arrested and done for bank robbery. Only I did not rob any banks. Guess what? I'm the victim of your attempt to frame me for a crime I did not commit.

Now, years later, it turns out that I was, in fact, planning to rob a bank, but I hadn't started yet. In fact, I was nowhere near ready to start; I was so far from being ready that there is serious doubt that I was ever going to get it going. No bank was in danger of being robbed by me at that time. Guess what? I'm still the victim of your attempt to frame me with false evidence BECAUSE I DID NOT DO WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF.

Prove that Bush did indeed lie. I will tell you now that the evidence is not there for a conviction.
I think you are wrong, but that is what special prosecutors are for.

Thank you for your reply. It was well thought out.

What proof do you have that the Downing Street Memo is nonexistant?

What proof do you have that it exists????? An anti-war "journalist" CLAIMS he saw it. Curiously, he cannot produce an original - or even a copy of it.

It is phony.

What proof do you have that it exists????? An anti-war "journalist" CLAIMS he saw it. Curiously, he cannot produce an original - or even a copy of it.

It is phony.

But its been verified. Plus they investigated the thing under the Offical Secrets act. Theres also other seperate documents which say much the same thing as that memo, and they've been verified. Now please go start a thread telling us the Ark was real and Jesus is alive.

But its been verified. Plus they investigated the thing under the Offical Secrets act. Theres also other seperate documents which say much the same thing as that memo, and they've been verified. Now please go start a thread telling us the Ark was real and Jesus is alive.


Baloney.

What proof do you have that it exists????? An anti-war "journalist" CLAIMS he saw it. Curiously, he cannot produce an original - or even a copy of it.

It is phony.
We have every reason to believe it exists. If it didn't but Blair and Bush would have come out about it. That hasn't happened.

You should really stop reading blogs and extremist news. Get a bit from everywhere and put the picture together yourself. I used to read extreme left news all the time and I was mostly angry all the time.

Baloney.

SALAMI!!

War Boner !

We have every reason to believe it exists. If it didn't but Blair and Bush would have come out about it. That hasn't happened.

You should really stop reading blogs and extremist news. Get a bit from everywhere and put the picture together yourself. I used to read extreme left news all the time and I was mostly angry all the time.


Sure we have! :rolleyes:


I bet I read at least triple what you read - and that is just the left wing stuff I read. The DSM is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill.

What proof do you have that it exists????? An anti-war "journalist" CLAIMS he saw it. Curiously, he cannot produce an original - or even a copy of it.

It is phony.
IF it is phony as you suggest, then why doesn't Bush come right out and admit the same?

US Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo#US_Congress)

On 5 May, Congressman John Conyers sent a letter to President Bush signed by 89 of his colleagues demanding an explanation of the revelations in the memo. No specific White House response to the letter has been made publicly. In response to the Bush Administration's refusal to answer the congressional delegation's questions, Conyers et. al have given serious consideration to sending a fact-finding mission to the UK.[7]

Conyers initially requested 100,000 signatures from citizens (a petition) to request that President Bush answer the questions in his letter.[8] The letter has been getting between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures a day, which was boosted by MoveOn.org joining the campaign on 9 June. By 13 June 2005, the letter had received over 540,000 signatures from citizens, and more congressmen had signed on, bringing the total to 94.[9] As of 16 June 2005, over 100 congressmen had signed the letter, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On June 16, 2005: U.S. Congressman John Conyers, Jr. presides over a hearing or forum on the Downing Street memo in a basement room in the Capitol where Joseph C. Wilson and Cindy Sheehan among others testify.[10][11][12] Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert(R-Ill) was responsible for assigning Rep. John Conyers into a basement room described as a large closet to hold hearings on the Downing Street Memos. During the time that Conyers conducted witness testimony, House Speaker Hastert scheduled 11 Floor Votes to keep members from attending Conyers Fact Finding Hearings on the Downing Street Memo.
Why would Bush stonewall if he has nothing to hide?

Your claim that it is "phony" cannot be substantiated, strictly by your saying that it is "phony". There is reason to believe that this memo does in fact exist.

Why would Bush stonewall if he has nothing to hide?

Executive Privilage comes to mind.

The DSM is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill.

http://www.somis.org/$3.JPG

XD

Executive Privilage comes to mind.
I believe that evoking Executive Privilege would lead others to believe that the Bush did indeed have something to hide, so it makes no sense that he would do that, especially if the memos are indeed not factual.

I believe that evoking Executive Privilege would lead others to believe that the Bush did indeed have something to hide, so it makes no sense that he would do that, especially if the memos are indeed not factual.

I will concede that point. Its a possibility but on the flip side, by doing so, he is saving resources in the area for later use. *shrugs*

IF it is phony as you suggest, then why doesn't Bush come right out and admit the same?

US Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo#US_Congress)


Why would Bush stonewall if he has nothing to hide?

Your claim that it is "phony" cannot be substantiated, strictly by your saying that it is "phony". There is reason to believe that this memo does in fact exist.


I haven't heard him confronting the UFO issue either. :rolleyes:

Because the press is NOT Pro-War. Not even close. They are part of the cover-up.
That sounds really familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh, right. Every conspiracy theorist ever.

and excuse (or at least minimize) the fact that it is the TERRORISTS who are killing nearly every single innocent in Iraq,
The war in Iraq isn't anywhere near over yet and already you are trying to re-write history. The fact is that US bombs and bullets have killed or injured tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq.

Indirectly, the US is responsible for ALL the deaths resulting from the invasion of Iraq.

So, if anyone is trying to make excuses or minimalize anything, that would be you.

I haven't heard him confronting the UFO issue either. :rolleyes:

Let me put it this way - there are no weapons. The fact is that they were fairly fucking sure he had none worth talking about before this all started, and invaded when they did for fear the inspections would show he had nothing they could even hype up. Lets not forget the minutes that reveal Bush planning to use US planes disguised as UN ones to get saddam to fire on them. I fail to see what is so hard about this for you to swallow. The US has done much worse in its time.

This is really boring . Its been yacked about and thrashed to DEATH....whats the point,,you are not changing anyones mind and you have nothing new...the Iraqis just plod along while you quiver and shake and cry over ..whatever... iraqs still there ...still a democracy in its infancy and still struggling to see what it will become .

The rest of its all bullshit , what happens next , and tomorrow and the next day is whats important .

Let me put it this way - there are no weapons. The fact is that they were fairly fucking sure he had none worth talking about before this all started, and invaded when they did for fear the inspections would show he had nothing they could even hype up. Lets not forget the minutes that reveal Bush planning to use US planes disguised as UN ones to get saddam to fire on them. I fail to see what is so hard about this for you to swallow. The US has done much worse in its time.


Baloney. The weapons we said existed have been found, just not in the quantity we said. And according to Duelfer and David Kay, they have evidence that at least some of those were shipped to Syria. You cannot pick and choose which parts of those reports you wish to believe. I accept them in their entirety, many here are denying the parts that justify our actions.

The truth is what I care about.

Baloney. The weapons we said existed have been found, just not in the quantity we said. And according to Duelfer and David Kay, they have evidence that at least some of those were shipped to Syria. You cannot pick and choose which parts of those reports you wish to believe. I accept them in their entirety, many here are denying the parts that justify our actions.

The truth is what I care about.

No they werent. They said they found evidence of "intent". There is no evidence of shipment to Syria. Whatsoever. You don't actually care about the truth, you care about preserving the myth of your countries integrity and that of its leaders, possibly because you voted for them or gave them cash. Time to bite the bullet, me oul flower.

Sure we have! :rolleyes:


I bet I read at least triple what you read - and that is just the left wing stuff I read. The DSM is about as genuine as a 3 dollar bill.
I bet I read quadrupleplex what you read!!

I haven't heard him confronting the UFO issue either. :rolleyes:
Because we all know that if UFO's exist, Bush will be in big trouble. What? What is your point?

Because we all know that if UFO's exist, Bush will be in big trouble. What? What is your point?

Because they are both about equal in credibility. Why should he waste his time on such drivel.

No they werent. They said they found evidence of "intent". There is no evidence of shipment to Syria. Whatsoever. You don't actually care about the truth, you care about preserving the myth of your countries integrity and that of its leaders, possibly because you voted for them or gave them cash. Time to bite the bullet, me oul flower.

Really????

chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm

Because they are both about equal in credibility. Why should he waste his time on such drivel.
So that you don't have to spend pointless hours of your time defending him against what is pretty apparent to the rest of us.

Baloney. The weapons we said existed have been found, just not in the quantity we said.
Your own government disagrees with you on this matter. Perhaps you should try and make them understand that you are right and they are wrong?

And according to Duelfer and David Kay, they have evidence that at least some of those were shipped to Syria.

Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.

March 2005 Report Addenda

Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, stating "ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place" but also acknowledging that "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."

Residual Pre-1991 CBW Stocks in Iraq, concluding "any remaining chemical munitions in Iraq do not pose a militarily significant threat ... ISG has not found evidence to indicate that Iraq did not destroy its BW weapons or bulk agents".

Residual Proliferation Risk: Equipment and Materials, concluding "Iraq’s remaining chemical and biological physical infrastructure does not pose a proliferation concern".


You cannot pick and choose which parts of those reports you wish to believe.
You seem to excel at doing exactly that. Unfortunately, the reports bottom line does not agree with the stance you have taken.

I accept them in their entirety, many here are denying the parts that justify our actions.
If you accept them in their "entirety" then accept this (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/):

After Duelfer delivered his Iraq Survey Group's report to the Senate, Bush acknowledged that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction at the time he ordered the invasion but said Saddam was "systematically gaming the system" and that the world is safer because he is no longer in power.

The preliminary report indicated that Saddam hoped to restart his weapons programs primarily for defense against Iran.

At the same time, the report said that "the former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after the sanctions."

The report found that Iraq's "ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed" after 1991 -- and a nuclear weapon would have been years away.

The truth is what I care about.
Apparently you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USalpenstock
Baloney. The weapons we said existed have been found, just not in the quantity we said.
Your own government disagrees with you on this matter. Perhaps you should try and make them understand that you are right and they are wrong?


Really????? Show me the official government position stating this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USalpenstock
And according to Duelfer and David Kay, they have evidence that at least some of those were shipped to Syria.

Quote:
Kay also believed some components of the former Iraqi regime's WMD program had been moved to Syria shortly before the 2003 invasion [2], though the Duelfer Report Addenda (see below) later reported there was no evidence of this.

You should read more closely (again the ACTUAL reports not the media misrepresentations).

But for the record, do you at least now admit that Kay believed they were moved to Syria???? You claimed I was lying when I said that, yet your own source agrees with me.

Quote:
Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq, stating "ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place" but also acknowledging that "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war."


The word "official" is relevent to the statement especially since he said there was sufficiently credible evidence that they were moved.

That is in conjunction with multiple witnesses and especially the 2nd in command of the Iraqi Air Force's statements that he did indeed supervise the movement of WMD's to Syria - and this was AFTER the Duelfer report came out.

If you accept them in their "entirety" then accept this:


I accept the report itself, I do NOT accept the characterization of the press.

They were VERY misleading - for cripes sake look at the report! The whole damn thing is FULL of violations that Iraq committed.

That sounds really familiar. Where have I heard that before? Oh, right. Every conspiracy theorist ever.


I realize that. But I base my opinions on the ENORMOUS difference between what has been reported and what is actually in the report. There is no other conclusion possible (unless you have not actually looked at the entire report).

I accept the report itself, I do NOT accept the characterization of the press.

They were VERY misleading - for cripes sake look at the report! The whole damn thing is FULL of violations that Iraq committed.

And they wouldnt amount to half the violations of Israel. No bombs from the US falling on Tel Aviv, but plenty arriving to be dropped. And no, there is no evidence that anything was moved to Syria. Nada. There is, however, due to the fact that programme was defunct from the late 90's, very good evidence that there wasnt, because none existed to move. Time to realise the truth, oul fruit.

And they wouldnt amount to half the violations of Israel. No bombs from the US falling on Tel Aviv, but plenty arriving to be dropped. And no, there is no evidence that anything was moved to Syria. Nada. There is, however, due to the fact that programme was defunct from the late 90's, very good evidence that there wasnt, because none existed to move. Time to realise the truth, oul fruit.

Take it up with the Iraqi Survey group and Chief Weapons inspector Duelfer.

I am simply quoting what they said.

What does Duelfer himself have to say about this?

"Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative weapons of mass destruction findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"Are Saddam Hussein's WMDs now in Hezbollah's hands?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes."
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/141060

Now, if you care to debate the facts regarding the article, then bring it on. This hogwash that you bring forward is irrelevant.


The only lies on this side of the Atlantic are the ones you and the the kook left keep clinging to.

Flinging generalizations at the left wing will get you no where in any debate. The Weekly Standard falls in lockstep with the entire neo-conservative movement's agenda, and they cannot be regarded to be a reliable source of information anymore than the State Media of the Soviet Union could be regarded as a reliable source for news.

Baloney. The weapons we said existed have been found, just not in the quantity we said. And according to Duelfer and David Kay, they have evidence that at least some of those were shipped to Syria. You cannot pick and choose which parts of those reports you wish to believe. I accept them in their entirety, many here are denying the parts that justify our actions.

The truth is what I care about.

Then listen to this. The "evidence" of WMD that the Bush Admin. used to justify the war in Iraq was extremely out of date. The intelligence came from the mid 1980s, when Saddam was still a US Cold War pawn. There were no WMD in Iraq leading up to the invasion except a number of useless chem warfare shells that were lost during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s.

Cynics say that the only way the US new that Saddam ever had WMD was that we had our copy of the receipts.

This argument is fascinatingly boring and has been going back and forth like ping pong balls for years and may even be relavent if thats was the ONLY reason stated for Iraq being invaded and Saddam removed.


But ....poor leetle left whigners...it was not and is not...:D


Its extremely and increasingly irrelevant....time has marched on ..:D :D

and passed you sooooooooooo bye .

get another gripe to hang your bitching on .:p

You should read more closely (again the ACTUAL reports not the media misrepresentations).

But for the record, do you at least now admit that Kay believed they were moved to Syria???? You claimed I was lying when I said that, yet your own source agrees with me.
Where did I claim that you were lying in this instance? You take many things out of context, so please point me to a post of mine that will back up your assertion.

This argument is fascinatingly boring and has been going back and forth like ping pong balls for years and may even be relavent if thats was the ONLY reason stated for Iraq being invaded and Saddam removed.


But ....poor leetle left whigners...it was not and is not...:D


Its extremely and increasingly irrelevant....time has marched on ..:D :D

and passed you sooooooooooo bye .

get another gripe to hang your bitching on .:p
Nice way to ignore the fact that the entire reason we went to war hinged on WMD and an implied threat to our nation. Will arguing about this bring the troops home and end the occupation. Nope. But it will show how the Bush administration failed the people of the United States and probably increased the amount of terrorists in the world.

Nice way to ignore the fact that the entire reason we went to war hinged on WMD and an implied threat to our nation. Will arguing about this bring the troops home and end the occupation. Nope. But it will show how the Bush administration failed the people of the United States and probably increased the amount of terrorists in the world.

Despite the fact that no one can absolutely confirmed he destroyed them all? Despite the fact that some are saying that Saddam moved them to Syria? Not saying that they were ever moved to begin with but it is worth checking out just the same.

Read post #202 or google it up. Or watch Why We Fight. There's your evidence.

Despite the fact that no one can absolutely confirmed he destroyed them all? Despite the fact that some are saying that Saddam moved them to Syria? Not saying that they were ever moved to begin with but it is worth checking out just the same.
I can agree with that. If something like that did happen, it would be nice to know.

I can agree with that. If something like that did happen, it would be nice to know.

Yea it would be nice to know. Glad we can agree.

What does Duelfer himself have to say about this?

"Charles Duelfer, the lead U.S. inspector who announced the negative weapons of mass destruction findings two years ago, has watched uncertainly as TV sound bites, bloggers and politicians try to chip away at "the best factual account," his group's densely detailed, 1,000-page final report.

"It is easy to see what is accepted as truth rapidly morph from one representation to another," he said in an e-mail. "It would be a shame if one effect of the power of the Internet was to undermine any commonly agreed set of facts."

The creative "morphing" goes on.

As Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerrillas battled in Lebanon on July 21, a Fox News segment suggested, with no evidence, yet another destination for the supposed doomsday arms.

"Are Saddam Hussein's WMDs now in Hezbollah's hands?" asked the headline, lingering for long minutes on TV screens in a million American homes."
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/141060
From the comments # 7 (http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/comments/index.php?id=141060)attached to that article:

Half of Americans still BRAIN DEAD. Why am I not surprised.
It is truly scary to think that the American dream has evolved into the American nightmare.

Let me say this just to get it out of the way; BUSH SUCKS AT HIS JOB, SUCKS AT PROTECTING THE US, AND HAS NO IDEA QHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. When you approval rating is far less then half there is something very wrong also. Sure the war in Afganistan was a smart idea, after all, the where the ones who screwed over our whole world for a month, but Iraq was nothing but BS. Bush used sept. 11 and the horrifying, great bombs of horror that will cause mass distruction to cover over the real target; finishing what his daddy didn't. But anyways it's not like we ever found any WOMD but yet we contined with this pointless war because we supposably did find terrible weapons hidden in schools. But no, all of the American's huge missels are grand and will soon have names like Johnny's freedom ringer rocket! Gee I hope that crashes into my house so I can have a taste of liberty too, mother.

Yea it would be nice to know. Glad we can agree.
When is the time frame by the way for when Saddam is thought to have moved the WMD's to Syria? Before the pre-emptive strike or during or after?

People of Iraqistan']Let me say this just to get it out of the way; BUSH SUCKS AT HIS JOB, SUCKS AT PROTECTING THE US, AND HAS NO IDEA QHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. When you approval rating is far less then half there is something very wrong also. Sure the war in Afganistan was a smart idea, after all, the where the ones who screwed over our whole world for a month, but Iraq was nothing but BS. Bush used sept. 11 and the horrifying, great bombs of horror that will cause mass distruction to cover over the real target; finishing what his daddy didn't. But anyways it's not like we ever found any WOMD but yet we contined with this pointless war because we supposably did find terrible weapons hidden in schools. But no, all of the American's huge missels are grand and will soon have names like Johnny's freedom ringer rocket! Gee I hope that crashes into my house so I can have a taste of liberty too, mother.

Ok now that you ranted, do you have anything constructive to say?

When is the time frame by the way for when Saddam is thought to have moved the WMD's to Syria? Before the pre-emptive strike or during or after?

Either way it's problematic to the Bush clan. If he did it before the pre-emptive strike, he technically got rid of his WMD. If he did it during or after, his forces would have been tied down by US air power and would have been overrun and the plot would have been revealed. It's unsupported by evidence.

When is the time frame by the way for when Saddam is thought to have moved the WMD's to Syria? Before the pre-emptive strike or during or after?

Those would be the questions to ask someone who is a heck of a lot smarter than me.

My opinion based on what I have been hearing (and this is my opinion so please do not hammer me to much) is that they were moved just before the Pre-emptive strike.

People of Iraqistan']Let me say this just to get it out of the way; BUSH SUCKS AT HIS JOB, SUCKS AT PROTECTING THE US, AND HAS NO IDEA QHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. When you approval rating is far less then half there is something very wrong also. Sure the war in Afganistan was a smart idea, after all, the where the ones who screwed over our whole world for a month, but Iraq was nothing but BS. Bush used sept. 11 and the horrifying, great bombs of horror that will cause mass distruction to cover over the real target; finishing what his daddy didn't. But anyways it's not like we ever found any WOMD but yet we contined with this pointless war because we supposably did find terrible weapons hidden in schools. But no, all of the American's huge missels are grand and will soon have names like Johnny's freedom ringer rocket! Gee I hope that crashes into my house so I can have a taste of liberty too, mother.



wow, your third post and your already are going all anti-bush. youre new here so im going to let you into a little secret. dont yell in NS general, you dont get anything done but have neo-con assholes like me come around and bash you. so tone down the rhetoric a little and have some fun.

Either way it's problematic to the Bush clan.

Actually it will not be problematic as it would prove his point.

If he did it before the pre-emptive strike, he technically got rid of his WMD.

UN Resolutions are clear that they were to be destroyed and that their destruction be documented.

If he did it during or after, his forces would have been tied down by US air power and would have been overrun and the plot would have been revealed. It's unsupported by evidence.

Actually, I believe there is a satellite phote of alot of trucks heading for the Syrian border. Also, there is an Iraqi Air General who stated that they were also airlifted out of Iraq. Just some of the things I heard about.

People of Iraqistan']Let me say this just to get it out of the way; BUSH SUCKS AT HIS JOB, SUCKS AT PROTECTING THE US, AND HAS NO IDEA QHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. When you approval rating is far less then half there is something very wrong also. Sure the war in Afganistan was a smart idea, after all, the where the ones who screwed over our whole world for a month, but Iraq was nothing but BS. Bush used sept. 11 and the horrifying, great bombs of horror that will cause mass distruction to cover over the real target; finishing what his daddy didn't. But anyways it's not like we ever found any WOMD but yet we contined with this pointless war because we supposably did find terrible weapons hidden in schools. But no, all of the American's huge missels are grand and will soon have names like Johnny's freedom ringer rocket! Gee I hope that crashes into my house so I can have a taste of liberty too, mother.


so now i rip apart your post.

"bush sucks at protecting the american people" i say, when was the last terrorist attack, i dont remember one since 9/11. maybe because bush is doing a good job at protecting the american people.

No president has a great approval rating, unless they do something great, your in america there are only 2 parties the president isnt going to have 75% approval rating, at best he's gonna have mid 50's. and no president has good approval ratings, even reagan was struggling there for a while with Iran-contra. so i wouldnt play that card.

Iraq, lemme ask you this question. Ok, ready, can you wrap your small mind around it...ok. good. If the most credible intelligence agency in the world puts a memo across your desk that says an unstable dictator has WMD's and is poised to use them, what would you do. Not to mention that every other world power believed that saddam had the weapons too. Look back at news articles from just before the war. Everybody believed that saddam had nukes, the war was significantly popular right before the invasion.

its not like the man lied, the CIA lied to him. Bush cant take his vacation in Iraq to personally inspect the country. and dont play the conspiracy card either, there was no father son competition there.

wow, your third post and your already are going all anti-bush. youre new here so im going to let you into a little secret. dont yell in NS general, you dont get anything done but have neo-con assholes like me come around and bash you. so tone down the rhetoric a little and have some fun.
Well then noob, perhaps you should pass this info onto some of your neo-con friends who have used capital letters in their posts on this very same thread, or did you not notice that? :rolleyes:

Then listen to this. The "evidence" of WMD that the Bush Admin. used to justify the war in Iraq was extremely out of date. The intelligence came from the mid 1980s, when Saddam was still a US Cold War pawn.

Tell that to Hans Blix:
THE SECURITY COUNCIL, 27 JANUARY 2003:
AN UPDATE ON INSPECTION


Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix


Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance – not even today – of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
-------


Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number.


--------------
Chemical weapons



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 tonnes and that the quality was poor and the product unstable. Consequently, it was said, that the agent was never weaponised. 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 weaponised. 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.



I would now like to turn to the so-called “Air Force document” that I have discussed with the Council before. This document was originally found by an UNSCOM inspector in a safe in Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in 1998 and taken from her by Iraqi minders. It gives an account of the expenditure of bombs, including chemical bombs, by Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War. I am encouraged by the fact that Iraq has now provided this document to UNMOVIC.



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 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.



The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

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


I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.

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


I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.



Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.



There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.


http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm

so now i rip apart your post.

"bush sucks at protecting the american people" i say, when was the last terrorist attack, i dont remember one since 9/11. maybe because bush is doing a good job at protecting the american people.

No president has a great approval rating, unless they do something great, your in america there are only 2 parties the president isnt going to have 75% approval rating, at best he's gonna have mid 50's. and no president has good approval ratings, even reagan was struggling there for a while with Iran-contra. so i wouldnt play that card.

Iraq, lemme ask you this question. Ok, ready, can you wrap your small mind around it...ok. good. If the most credible intelligence agency in the world puts a memo across your desk that says an unstable dictator has WMD's and is poised to use them, what would you do. Not to mention that every other world power believed that saddam had the weapons too. Look back at news articles from just before the war. Everybody believed that saddam had nukes, the war was significantly popular right before the invasion.

its not like the man lied, the CIA lied to him. Bush cant take his vacation in Iraq to personally inspect the country. and dont play the conspiracy card either, there was no father son competition there.
I will let you in on a "little secret" as well, the part I bolded is called "flamebait". Be nice.

Tell that to Hans Blix:

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
And you keep harping on these WMD that your government states are not the WMD that the US went to war for.

You stated earlier that Blix was not credible and yet here you are quoting him. Shit or get off the pot.

Also, and this is absolutely the most important point:

WHY did Bush invade Iraq even though Blix was not finding anything close to the WMD that Bush insisted were in Iraq?

WHY didn't the US allow the inspections to continue? The world wants to know.

so now i rip apart your post.
Look back at news articles from just before the war. Everybody believed that saddam had nukes, the war was significantly popular right before the invasion.



WEll I'd like to say that in general I agree with your statements, However I believe this one to be false. Everyone knows that Saddam was a certified nutbar and that he had to be disposed of is not to be argued. (I would have been in favor of straightforwards assasination, but then again I have an odd view of the world). That he had nukes or was in the process of aquiring them is still a subject some debate if not already outright disproven.
I think most countries may have indeed believed that Saddam had wmd's but that further proof was required befoe military action could be undertaken. The american government and it's supporters acted rashly in their invasion and in their diplomacy with the rest of the world. In the process alienating old allies (The French) and bogging themselves down in a war that isn't going to end any time soon. Iraq was in need of a drastic governmental change, however I believe the wrong steps were taken to alter it.

And you keep harping on these WMD that your government states are not the WMD that the US went to war for.


You have not produced any document that says that.


You stated earlier that Blix was not credible and yet here you are quoting him. Shit or get off the pot.

I said he was incompetent, yet even as incompetent as he is, he was still finding multiple violations of the cease-fire.


Also, and this is absolutely the most important point:

WHY did Bush invade Iraq even though Blix was not finding anything close to the WMD that Bush insisted were in Iraq?


Blix was one of the REASONS that Bush went in. Read the report to the UN above in my earlier post.

WHY didn't the US allow the inspections to continue? The world wants to know.


Because they were a sham, and as Blix himself said, (paraphrased) "sham inspections are worse than no inspections." Saddam was USING the inspection process to stall while he worked with the French and the Russians (among others) to undermine the sanctions.

I wonder what would have happened if Bush were president during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Boom?

WEll I'd like to say that in general I agree with your statements, However I believe this one to be false. Everyone knows that Saddam was a certified nutbar and that he had to be disposed of is not to be argued. (I would have been in favor of straightforwards assasination, but then again I have an odd view of the world). That he had nukes or was in the process of aquiring them is still a subject some debate if not already outright disproven.
I think most countries may have indeed believed that Saddam had wmd's but that further proof was required befoe military action could be undertaken. The american government and it's supporters acted rashly in their invasion and in their diplomacy with the rest of the world. In the process alienating old allies (The French) and bogging themselves down in a war that isn't going to end any time soon. Iraq was in need of a drastic governmental change, however I believe the wrong steps were taken to alter it.


Saddam absolutely did NOT have nukes and no one claimed otherwise. What they did claim was that he was pursuing them aggressively. That also was not quite accurate. He was maintaining his capabilities so that he could reconstitute the program after he got the sanctions lifted.


The issue became, as the inspections wore on, the chemical weapons. Butler had found incontrovertable evidence of VX gas production and weaponization. Iraq had been denying this. Finally when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, he admitted he had them, but had not weaponized it. That turned out to be a lie also. He then misreported how much he produced and how much had been destroyed. This discrepency was between 1000 and 1500 TONS of VX gas - a gas so deadly a single drop on the skin will kill a man in a matter of minutes.

I wonder what would have happened if Bush were president during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Boom?

The Russians would never have dared to press the issue. The reason they did with Kennedy is because they believed him to be weak.

You have not produced any document that says that.
FOX News quoted the government Defense Dept. and I have posted that several times and you refuse to accept that verdict. Your government via FOX News states that your claim of WMD is in fact false.

I said he was incompetent, yet even as incompetent as he is, he was still finding multiple violations of the cease-fire.
Where does Blix state that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire?

Blix was one of the REASONS that Bush went in. Read the report to the UN above in my earlier post.
I read both of his reports, and I also read about the determination of the UN Security Council to continue with the inspections. Despite what you have written and no matter how much you want to demonize Blix, the fact remains that the UN inspectors were not finding any WMD whatsoever, and his findings have been validated by both Kay and Duelfer.

Because they were a sham, and as Blix himself said, (paraphrased) "sham inspections are worse than no inspections."
Can you refer me to the article where Blix makes the above comment?

Saddam was USING the inspection process to stall while he worked with the French and the Russians (among others) to undermine the sanctions.
Your proof of this?

Saddam absolutely did NOT have nukes and no one claimed otherwise. What they did claim was that he was pursuing them aggressively. That also was not quite accurate. He was maintaining his capabilities so that he could reconstitute the program after he got the sanctions lifted.


The issue became, as the inspections wore on, the chemical weapons. Butler had found incontrovertable evidence of VX gas production and weaponization. Iraq had been denying this. Finally when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, he admitted he had them, but had not weaponized it. That turned out to be a lie also. He then misreported how much he produced and how much had been destroyed. This discrepency was between 1000 and 1500 TONS of VX gas - a gas so deadly a single drop on the skin will kill a man in a matter of minutes.

Hmmm, maybe I'm tired, so my writting is a little off kelter. Like I said, Saddam is bad news and should have been taken out ages ago. Saddam had a tendency to use any chemical weapons he had on the Kurds. If I remember correctly several thousand were killed last time he felt like playing around with his fancy (and deadly) toys. The republican government, however, wanted to portray Saddam as a direct threat to them as an excuse to invade. I honestly doubt Saddam would have attacked the States, even in his most power-crazed delusions.

My mind is going all over the place right now, so please forgive any statements that are unfounded. Most of these is being run from a clouded memory of the times.

The Russians would never have dared to press the issue. The reason they did with Kennedy is because they believed him to be weak.
I say that we would have gone, "BOOM" but opinions on hypothetical situations are just opinions.

And Kennedy was weak after deploying Nuclear missiles near Turkey in the run up to the Cuban Missile Crisis? Que?

Saddam absolutely did NOT have nukes and no one claimed otherwise.
From your own President's lips:

Bush: Don't wait for mushroom cloud (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/)

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

What they did claim was that he was pursuing them aggressively. That also was not quite accurate.
Actually it was a blatant lie.

He was maintaining his capabilities so that he could reconstitute the program after he got the sanctions lifted.
Also not true.

The issue became, as the inspections wore on, the chemical weapons. Butler had found incontrovertable evidence of VX gas production and weaponization. Iraq had been denying this. Finally when confronted with the overwhelming evidence, he admitted he had them, but had not weaponized it. That turned out to be a lie also. He then misreported how much he produced and how much had been destroyed. This discrepency was between 1000 and 1500 TONS of VX gas - a gas so deadly a single drop on the skin will kill a man in a matter of minutes.
Do you have the article that would support this claim?

I wonder what would have happened if Bush were president during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Boom?

Probably the samething that actually did happen.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-02-06.jpg

Probably the samething that actually did happen.
You think Bush is capable of showing restraint?

And Kennedy was weak after deploying Nuclear missiles near Turkey in the run up to the Cuban Missile Crisis? Que?

Talking about the Russians. They actually did think Kennedy was not going to press the issue. I guess that Blockade proved otherwise eh?

You think Bush is capable of showing restraint?

Actually yes I believe he would have.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW08-02-06.jpg
So sad, yet so true.

So sad, yet so true.
...not to mention prevalent. A cursory scan of these fora bears all three observations out.

...not to mention prevalent. A cursory scan of these fora bears all three observations out.
The scary part is that there is an election coming up and unless the people of America wake up, they will end up with a government still in the death grips of the Republicans.

Then we will hear the same story again with a different country as the prey....Iran WMD, Iran nuclear weapons, Iran despot dictator, Iran threat to the US, Iran must be destroyed!!

Then it is on to the usable nukes that Ritter was talking about in the speech that I linked to to start this thread:

Transcript (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/) and Audio (http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3) of Scott Ritter on war with Iraq and Iran - Amherst - November 17, 2005

The scary part is that there is an election coming up and unless the people of America wake up, they will end up with a government still in the death grips of the Republicans.

I will borrow a phrase from Charles Rangel who is saying he will retire if the Dems do not take the House. "If the Democrats do not win, that will be the end of the party."

Also, if the dems want to continue to run anti-war candidates, people are going to think that they are retreating. That is not good to be seen in that light. I do not think that the Democrats will regain the House or the Senate. If they do not change tactics, I do not think they will win Congress for awhile. The Presidency is a different matter and I do think they will win that but only if they do not run someone from Washington D.C.

I will borrow a phrase from Charles Rangel who is saying he will retire if the Dems do not take the House. "If the Democrats do not win, that will be the end of the party."
Hmmm that does not bode well for democracy then.

Also, if the dems want to continue to run anti-war candidates, people are going to think that they are retreating. That is not good to be seen in that light.
I think that it is sad that Americans continue to believe that war is the only answer. You would think that after what has happened with this whole Iraq fiasco that Americans would want to concentrate more on the defense of their country without having to go abroad to do so. The war on terror is a failed political exercise.

I do not think that the Democrats will regain the House or the Senate. If they do not change tactics, I do not think they will win Congress for awhile.
I really don't see how Americans can continue down the same path without something catastrophic happening. America is not invincible.

The Presidency is a different matter and I do think they will win that but only if they do not run someone from Washington D.C.
Hilary Clinton is probably the front runner but I don't think that Americans will elect a woman to the highest office for a long time to come.

Hmmm that does not bode well for democracy then.

I am a tad worried about that myself. Of course, we could also see the samething that happened to the Republican Party for 40 years before they retook Congress.

I think that it is sad that Americans continue to believe that war is the only answer. You would think that after what has happened with this whole Iraq fiasco that Americans would want to concentrate more on the defense of their country without having to go abroad to do so. The war on terror is a failed political exercise.

I guess I should have phrased it better for most of us do want peace all the time. I am one of those if you care to believe it. However, most of us also live in the real world where everything cannot be decided by diplomacy unfortunately. There are several people out there who think that diplomacy will always work regardless on who it is you are dealing with. It is these people that the democrats are running in many races. Just look at Lieberman. He has voted with the Democrats over 90% of the time but yet the Democrats are going after him because of his stance on National Security and Defense. Luckily he has vowed to run as an independent if he loses the primary. It is fine to be anti-war but to go after your own who is a die hard democrat because of his stance on National Security....I find that sad.

I really don't see how Americans can continue down the same path without something catastrophic happening. America is not invincible.

I could not agree with you more CanuckHeaven.

Hilary Clinton is probably the front runner but I don't think that Americans will elect a woman to the highest office for a long time to come.

You are probably right.

I say that we would have gone, "BOOM" but opinions on hypothetical situations are just opinions.

And Kennedy was weak after deploying Nuclear missiles near Turkey in the run up to the Cuban Missile Crisis? Que?

My opinion - based on things I cannot link to. If I looked into it, perhaps I could find a link but it is just my opinion anyway. Yours is as good as mine.

FOX News quoted the government Defense Dept. and I have posted that several times and you refuse to accept that verdict. Your government via FOX News states that your claim of WMD is in fact false.

I do not accept it because it is ONE person. SHow me the official document/position paper. I showed you the Senate committee on intelligence release, and until you show me the official position stating otherwise, that trumps an "unnamed official".


Where does Blix state that Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire?

Every one of the sections I listed from Blix's report to the UN was a violation.


I read both of his reports, and I also read about the determination of the UN Security Council to continue with the inspections. Despite what you have written and no matter how much you want to demonize Blix, the fact remains that the UN inspectors were not finding any WMD whatsoever, and his findings have been validated by both Kay and Duelfer.


Can you refer me to the article where Blix makes the above comment?


You mean again???

Here is an extended version (and a direct quote) not from an article but from the UN address itself.

Indeed, as I have already explained, cooperation between an inspected State and the inspecting organization is a crucial factor to achieve credible verification. Such cooperation has no room for harassment, humiliation or provocation from the inspecting party but also no room for laxity. Cosmetic inspections are worse than none. They may create impressions that do not correspond to the reality. Only firm, professionally competent and effective inspections serve the purpose for which they are undertaken, namely, to create justified confidence. Resolution 1284 (1999) envisages such inspection and explicitly makes ‘cooperation in all respects’ – including progress on ‘key remaining disarmament tasks’ the crucial condition for a suspension of sanctions.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:5TPHyxkgDoQJ:www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/BlixVienna.htm+Blix+%22cosmetic+inspections%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2


Saddam was engaged in a deception of historical proportions.


Your proof of this?

If you won't look at the links, why should I bother (again!!!!). If you will look at them, I will gladly post them again.

Sooooo - as a good faith effort, here it is again.

the prime objective of getting rid of sanctions. The goal was to do enough to be able to argue that they had complied with UN requirements. Some production capacity that Baghdad thought could be passed off as serving a civilian function was retained, and no admission of biological weapons was made at all. But the clear prime theme of Saddam was to defeat the UN constraints.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

Blither blather Blah blah ....


Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

###



There are ALL the reasons Saddam is gone . he didnt do what he had to to satisfy the US after ten years of bullshit by the UN ...

SO HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION .;)

bye bye ....see ya ...

he wanted to stay he had to play the game ...he lost his war...ten years to comply with the terms is total unmitagated BULLSHIT .

Now things are different in Iraq . Life without Saddam and a new struggling democracy .

Get with it .

Blither blather Blah blah ....




There are ALL the reasons Saddam is gone . he didnt do what he had to to satisfy the US after ten years of bullshit by the UN ...

SO HE WAS REMOVED FROM THE EQUATION .;)

bye bye ....see ya ...

he wanted to stay he had to play the game ...he lost his war...ten years to comply with the terms is total unmitagated BULLSHIT .

Now things are different in Iraq . Life without Saddam and a new struggling democracy .

Get with it .



Looking at the UN resolution, was there ANYTHING that Saddam complied with????

Yeah, okay.....whatever you say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard


Now, if you care to debate the facts regarding Ritter's speech, then bring it on. This hogwash that you bring forward is irrelevant.

no more irrelevant than the assertion that we were targeting Iraq before 9/11

so the F what? They needed to be targeted on account of Saddam's persecution of Shi'a and Kurds. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Looking at the UN resolution, was there ANYTHING that Saddam complied with????

no

Saddam was going to continue thumbing his nose at the UN, and the UN was going to continue writing scathing letters to Saddam, imploring him to act on the resolutions.

lol

I do not accept it because it is ONE person. SHow me the official document/position paper. I showed you the Senate committee on intelligence release, and until you show me the official position stating otherwise, that trumps an "unnamed official".
Since you don't like links to FOX News (which I find highly amusing coming from a staunch Bush apologist such as yourself), how about trying this on for size (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13504257/):

Moreover, “The Washington Post” reports that the munition shells, which Santorum and Hoekstra have clutched to their bosoms, were found buried near the Iranian border, forgotten by Iraqi troops in their war with Iran, which ended in 1988.

And the former chief U.N. weapons inspector, and President Bush‘s former Iraq Survey Group chief, Dr. David Kay, telling COUNTDOWN that Senator Santorum‘s comments are, quote, “wrong to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason as to the interpretation of the facts.”

He continued, “There is no surprise that very small numbers of chemical canisters from the Iran-Iraq war have been found. The ISG found them. And in my testimony in 2004, I said that I expected that we would continue to find them for a very long time. These are in very small numbers and are scattered. The nerve agents have long since degraded to the point that they no longer pose any substantial threat. In most cases, the mustard agent has substantially degraded but will burn your skin—burn you,” rather, “if skin comes in contact with it.”
"Wrong to the facts and exaggerated beyond all reason".

I think there is a message for you there somewhere????

Every one of the sections I listed from Blix's report to the UN was a violation.
I don't see them as a violation of the "cease-fire".

You mean again???

Here is an extended version (and a direct quote) not from an article but from the UN address itself.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:5TPHyxkgDoQJ:www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ExecChair/BlixVienna.htm+Blix+%22cosmetic+inspections%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
You do realize that quote was from an article dated 19 February 2001, over a year and a half before the next round on UN inspections, which started in November 2002?

He also made a similar statement in March of 2004:

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml)

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.

Blix tried hard to reassure the Iraqis about this concern. "Inspectors shouldn't be intertwined with intelligence," he emphasized. "There should be only one-way traffic: the intelligence groups give the inspectors tips on where to look, but they understand that there is no quid pro quo."

Amanpour brought up how Blix's credibility as an inspector had been attacked by Vice President Dick Cheney, among others, for his failure as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to detect Iraq's advanced nuclear weapons program, discovered only after the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Blix accepted responsibility for that failure, and said that the system of inspections had been vastly improved since then.

"Cosmetic inspection is worse than no inspection at all, because it can lull people into a false sense of security," he allowed. IAEA practiced a weak form of inspection until 1991, he explained, one that had been designed in the 1970s to check countries like Germany for compliance with nonproliferation laws, not for totalitarian regimes trying to build weapons in secrecy. As a result of the 1991 failure in Iraq, the IAEA had launched a systematic change in its protocols that were formally adopted in 1997.

Saddam was engaged in a deception of historical proportions.
Saddam was complying, wheras it appears that you are the one engaging in deception. You either live in complete denial or you are willing to do whatever it takes to make apologies for Bush.

If you won't look at the links, why should I bother (again!!!!). If you will look at them, I will gladly post them again.

Sooooo - as a good faith effort, here it is again.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Where in that report does it support your contention that:

Saddam was USING the inspection process to stall while he worked with the French and the Russians (among others) to undermine the sanctions.

You are spinning so fast that you are burying yourself.

no more irrelevant than the assertion that we were targeting Iraq before 9/11

so the F what? They needed to be targeted on account of Saddam's persecution of Shi'a and Kurds. Same with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
That was not Bush's reason for going to war with Iraq, at least not the official reason. Besides that, the US still supported Saddam, even after he dealt with the rebellions by the Shiites and the Kurds. The US supported Iraq up until the invasion of Kuwait.