BOTH parties were totally convinced about Saddams links to WMD, and had been
for years.

WMD was the best angle to try to sell it to the UN - personally I disagreed
even then - just in case it turned out like this.

If you tell me there's an asshole Arab with a gun, that needs killing -
that's good enough for me.

-W



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20031230102807.19126.00001768@mb-

He was a *******. No doubt. You guys should have said all along "Let's go
to
Iraq to oust a *******," not spin a cover story that it was "never about
WMD"
only after the weapons are nowhere to be found.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:i3hIb.172656$8y1.519584@attbi_s52...
BOTH parties were totally convinced about Saddams links to WMD, and had
been
for years.


You mean...the Democrats were saying things like this:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


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


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


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


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


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


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by (FORMER) Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and
others,
December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has
also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

NOYB wrote:

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:i3hIb.172656$8y1.519584@attbi_s52...
BOTH parties were totally convinced about Saddams links to WMD, and had
been
for years.


You mean...the Democrats were saying things like this:



It doesn't matter what they were saying. What matters is, when push came
to shove, Dubya DumFoch invaded on lies, misconceptions, bad staff work
and bad intelligence.

While my little world doesn't compare to that of the chief of state, I
sometimes put together multi-million dollar marketing programs. I sure
as hell do not commit client dollars without have solid research and
real facts at hand, and I'm bright enough to know the difference between
good research and war-mongering bullship.

Bush lied, he's too stupid to be president, and he's sending us down the
drain. You make like that future for this country, but I don't.




--
Email sent to is never read.

You mean...the Democrats were saying things like this:

When the government lies to the people, it doesn't matter which party is moving
its lips at any given moment.

BOTH parties were totally convinced about Saddams links to WMD, and had been
for years.

The chemical and biological weapons had known, predictable shelf lives. When
both parties were concerned about WMD in the late 80's, most of the weapons we
sold Iraq and those we knew they had developed in the early 1980's were still
potentially active.

Scott Ritter has made an excellent case that unless SH made new weapons that we
didn't know about, by the time GWB began thumping the WMD drum we knew darn
well the old weapons were no longer
effective.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
BOTH parties were totally convinced about Saddams links to WMD, and had
been
for years.

The chemical and biological weapons had known, predictable shelf lives.
When
both parties were concerned about WMD in the late 80's, most of the
weapons we
sold Iraq and those we knew they had developed in the early 1980's were
still
potentially active.

Scott Ritter has made an excellent case that unless SH made new weapons
that we
didn't know about, by the time GWB began thumping the WMD drum we knew
darn
well the old weapons were no longer
effective.

I fear that because Ritter's name was in the news during the same year the
U.N. was involved in inspections, the Borg will never consider him credible,
especially since they are more knowledgable on these issues than Ritter.
This is why the government asked people like JohnH, NOYB and Bill to handle
the inspections. Unfortunately, they had other committments.

:-)

On 30 Dec 2003 15:28:07 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Check out the mass graves at:

http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/

You guys are a riot.

"OK. So we lied about Iraq having WMD. Don't you stupid arses realize that we
lied to you for your own good? Since we should all be happy that Saddam is out
of power, we should all be happy about the lie that was used to generate public
support for the expedition. Saddam did this long list of terrible things! I
mean, really......his own people couldn't trust him!"

He was a *******. No doubt. You guys should have said all along "Let's go to
Iraq to oust a *******," not spin a cover story that it was "never about WMD"
only after the weapons are nowhere to be found.

You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

It may have been a mistake. It may have been a grievous mistake. It
may have bordered on negligence. It may have been somewhat negligent.
It may have been grossly negligent. None of those make it a lie. Not
even your imitation of the bunny makes it a lie.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002, (multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So far, it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where they were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual* clue why
we're going about it.

On 31 Dec 2003 03:06:00 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002, (multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So far, it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where they were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual* clue why
we're going about it.

I guess that's just a major difference in our attitudes, Chuck. It
sounds like you'd rather give Saddam the benefit of any doubt. I
wouldn't.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
You and the Energizer bunny! A lie is a lie if told knowingly. You, et
al, have no proof that Bush, et al, KNEW that WMD did not exist in
Iraq. We still don't know that it did not exist there. You totally
disregard any evidence that it did exist, just so you can call someone
a liar.

Scott Ritter.
The UN inspectors.

Neither could find any evidence of WMD.

The Bush Administration said "We know they're there. We know exactly
where, but
we're not going to tell the UN inspectors where they are at because we
want to
show that Saddam Hussein is not cooperating with the inspectors."

Turned out not to be so.

When Iraq submitted the accounting for its weapons in December 2002,
(multiple
volumes and 17,000 or so pages IIRC), it was dismissed in a matter of
hours as
"all lies" by Bush. (Not bad for a guy who admits he doesn't read) So far,
it
looks like the Iraqi accounting that said "No WMD" is every bit as
credible as
a statement that we knew there were weapons and that we knew where they
were.

According to Bush, any statement that Iraq did not have WMD or did not
pose a
strategic threat to the US was a "lie."
He set the bar on this matter.

Could his lie have been an ignorant mistake? Yes, it could have been an
ignorant mistake. No less alarming if it was. Before we go sending our
armed
forces off to invade foreign countries we ought to have some *actual* clue
why
we're going about it.


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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

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

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

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

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

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

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003