|
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
From Reuters:
Saddam Giving Info on Weapons and Funds-Official Mon December 29, 2003 06:17 AM ET DUBAI (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein has given his U.S. captors information on hidden weapons and as much as $40 billion he may have seized while he was Iraq's president, an Iraqi official was quoted as saying on Monday. "Saddam has confessed the names of people he told to keep the money and he gave names of those who have information on equipment and weapons warehouses," Iyad Allawi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat daily. "The Governing Council is searching for $40 billion worth of funds seized by Saddam when he was in power and which has been deposited in Switzerland, Japan, Germany and other countries under the names of fictitious companies," Allawi said. He said the council had asked international legal companies to track the money. Allawi said interrogators were now focusing on whether Saddam -- arrested by U.S. forces this month and held at an undisclosed site -- had any links to militant groups. "Interrogators are now focusing on the relationship between him and terrorist organizations and on funds paid to groups outside Iraq," Allawi told the newspaper. It is not clear whether Saddam was ever behind ambushes that have killed at least 211 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over on May 1. The capture of Saddam has not ended guerrilla activity in Iraq, which U.S. officials believe involves non-Iraqi militant Islamist guerrillas and Saddam loyalists. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
NOYB wrote:
From Reuters: Saddam Giving Info on Weapons and Funds-Official Mon December 29, 2003 06:17 AM ET DUBAI (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein has given his U.S. captors information on hidden weapons and as much as $40 billion he may have seized while he was Iraq's president, an Iraqi official was quoted as saying on Monday. "Saddam has confessed the names of people he told to keep the money and he gave names of those who have information on equipment and weapons warehouses," Iyad Allawi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat daily. A member of the "U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council." A statement from the puppets we installed to replace the dictator? We can't believe the Bush Administration, because it lies about everything important, but you believe statements made by a puppet appointed by the Bush Administration? And what kinds of "hidden weapons" are under discussion here? The ones we can't find? The ones we're planting? What? -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
|
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"jps" wrote in message ... In article .net, says... From Reuters: Tripe. Plenty of info on hidden cash and nothing on weapons. As the old lady said: "Where's the beef?" Syria. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 19:56:35 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: From Reuters: Saddam Giving Info on Weapons and Funds-Official Mon December 29, 2003 06:17 AM ET DUBAI (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein has given his U.S. captors information on hidden weapons and as much as $40 billion he may have seized while he was Iraq's president ...... the council had asked international legal companies to track the money. All of which, most probably, means that none of this booty is in Iraq. Why did we have to capture Saddam to figure this out? Considering the source..... how much of this is truth? Allawi said interrogators were now focusing on whether Saddam -- arrested by U.S. forces this month and held at an undisclosed site -- had any links to militant groups. Whether? Whether?? I thought that this was a given. No. It's also been suggested that non-Iraqi's (under the control of groups linked to al Qaeda) have been behind the attacks...and I'd bet that that is the more likely scenario. It is not clear whether Saddam was ever behind ambushes that have killed at least 211 U.S. soldiers since Washington declared major combat over on May 1. How do you define behind? Geesh. Organizing, planning, financing, ordering, etc. I believe he was doing nothing more than financing the attacks. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
As the old lady said: "Where's the beef?"
Syria. Before they're done interrogating Saddam, he'll be telling the inquisitors that the weapons are anywhere (and everywhere) they want them to be. Funny how we had to capture Saddam and subject him to sleep deprivation (admitted) and possibly other "techniques" just hoping against hope that he'll say someting to "unlie" all the bsWMD justifications we were fed this time last year. Even is SH never mumbles a word, how would we know? With no weapons to be found, Bush administration could announce that SH confessed to shipping them all to Ft. Lauderdale. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... As the old lady said: "Where's the beef?" Syria. Before they're done interrogating Saddam, he'll be telling the inquisitors that the weapons are anywhere (and everywhere) they want them to be. Funny how we had to capture Saddam and subject him to sleep deprivation (admitted) and possibly other "techniques" .... Awww, poor guy. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"Gould 0738" wrote in message ... As the old lady said: "Where's the beef?" Syria. Before they're done interrogating Saddam, he'll be telling the inquisitors that the weapons are anywhere (and everywhere) they want them to be. Funny how we had to capture Saddam and subject him to sleep deprivation (admitted) and possibly other "techniques" just hoping against hope that he'll say someting to "unlie" all the bsWMD justifications we were fed this time last year. Even is SH never mumbles a word, how would we know? With no weapons to be found, Bush administration could announce that SH confessed to shipping them all to Ft. Lauderdale. Then bomb Ft. Lauderdale. There's nothing but a bunch of non-chad-punching Democrats over there anyhow. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
Why not believe it Harry,? You obviously believe every word of the crap you
dig up on partisan web sites when you google around to find the words that fit your thoughts and then insult every ones intelligence by posting it before the NG. Any one who puts more than a micro second of thought in crap from a partisan source needs a reality check. Remember, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Then again, this comes from Reuters. What's their slant ? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: From Reuters: Saddam Giving Info on Weapons and Funds-Official Mon December 29, 2003 06:17 AM ET DUBAI (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein has given his U.S. captors information on hidden weapons and as much as $40 billion he may have seized while he was Iraq's president, an Iraqi official was quoted as saying on Monday. "Saddam has confessed the names of people he told to keep the money and he gave names of those who have information on equipment and weapons warehouses," Iyad Allawi, a member of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, told the London-based Asharq al-Awsat daily. A member of the "U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council." A statement from the puppets we installed to replace the dictator? We can't believe the Bush Administration, because it lies about everything important, but you believe statements made by a puppet appointed by the Bush Administration? And what kinds of "hidden weapons" are under discussion here? The ones we can't find? The ones we're planting? What? -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
|
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"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 |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"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. :-) |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"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. :-) Ah, yes, the troika of turgid trash. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... 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. Too bad Gore, Hillary, and Kerry can't take advantage of that, eh? "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 "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 |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
Republicans think that they can steal history again, by using Howard
Dean to ignore the man they really fear --President John Kerry ! Kerry is an elected politician and a Veteran. Bush is only a selected candidate. http://www.geocities.com/botenth/pres.htm |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
|
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"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 |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
John H wrote:
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! I wouldn't give Saddam Hussein any more benefit of the doubt than George W. Bush; they're both liars of the first magnitude. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
Thanks Jim, Harry needed that!
John H On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:15:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote: "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 John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
John H wrote:
Thanks Jim, Harry needed that! John H On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:15:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote: "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 Yawn. Regurgitated too many times to bother reading again, and not relevant. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
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 Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you support Saddam Hussein." Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the wrapping and try it on: Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end results are somewhat acceptable. Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address, no less, that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the 30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of evidence"-----yeah, right.) |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... John H wrote: Thanks Jim, Harry needed that! John H On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:15:10 -0500, "Jim--" wrote: "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 Yawn. Regurgitated too many times to bother reading again, and not relevant. Absolutely nothing that contradicts your lies is relevant to you. Sad, but very telling. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
Gould 0738 wrote:
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 Same old right wing line: "If you're distressed about the techniques with which Bush maneuvered public opinion to support the war in Iraq, that means that you support Saddam Hussein." Here's a brand new, shiny, thought for you to think. Take it out of the wrapping and try it on: Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end results are somewhat acceptable. Bush never said, "We're going into Iraq because we suspect he *might* have WMD." We were told the weapons were there, for a certainty, and that they presented an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States. We were led to believe, for a while, based on information in the SOTU address, no less, that Saddam was going nuclear. (That statement was admitted to be false, and retracted, but not before it had further whipped up the pro-war emotion of the electorate----it's like the judge telling the jury, "Please ignore the 30-second video you were just shown of an individual holding up a convenience store at gunpoint. It wasn't presented under the strict rules of evidence"-----yeah, right.) Yup. That's what Bush said. He lied. -- Email sent to is never read. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"John H" wrote in message
... 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's a lie if what little evidence there was continues to blow away in the wind, and the knucklehead keeps repeating the same nonsense, which he DOES. Here's a question I'd like you to answer, John: If you were George Bush right now, today, December 31st 2003, could you actually back down from your WMD stance at this point if, in your heart, you'd realized you were wrong since the get-go? How would you back down? What would you tell the American people? Try not to consider things like "Yeah, but we *did* accomplish this that & the other thing....", because the creation of a stable Iraq trumps all other goals, and that job is far from complete. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:00:15 +0000, Gould 0738 wrote:
Demanding straight talk from public servants, including the POTUS, doesn't put those who demand straight answers into the camp of America's political or strategic enemies. To say that it does is to support the proposition that the public is well served by duplicitous, scheming, politicians as long as the end results are somewhat acceptable. Before we invaded Iraq, I had a conversation with someone who said that if we didn't find WMDs, we would plant them. I made the point that we didn't have to plant WMDs, we just had to muddy the waters. Drop an article that they were moved to Syria or Iran, people will believe what they want to believe. Here we are, nine months later, debating whether Bush lied about WMDs. To me, this is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant, in a democracy, is that we *don't* know. Maybe he lied. Maybe it was an intelligence failure. Maybe the neo-cons, that have wanted Saddam's head since 1991, have co-opted this government. Maybe Syria does have them. We just don't know. What we do know is our elected officials in Washington seem to be more interested in next November, than in the blood *we* are shedding today. |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
|
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 16:11:49 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "John H" wrote in message .. . 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's a lie if what little evidence there was continues to blow away in the wind, and the knucklehead keeps repeating the same nonsense, which he DOES. Here's a question I'd like you to answer, John: If you were George Bush right now, today, December 31st 2003, could you actually back down from your WMD stance at this point if, in your heart, you'd realized you were wrong since the get-go? How would you back down? What would you tell the American people? Try not to consider things like "Yeah, but we *did* accomplish this that & the other thing....", because the creation of a stable Iraq trumps all other goals, and that job is far from complete. Personally, I think the fact that he keeps looking speaks for itself. I believe that he believes there is stuff to be found. If I were Bush, and if I had reason to believe I had been lied to, then I would admit same to the American people and fire those who had done the lying. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:26:20 -0500, John H wrote:
If I were Bush, and if I had reason to believe I had been lied to, then I would admit same to the American people and fire those who had done the lying. Amen, do we start with Rumsfeld or Feith? http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20952 |
OT--Uh-oh. What if the anti-war liberals were wrong?
"thunder" wrote in message
... On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 15:26:20 -0500, John H wrote: If I were Bush, and if I had reason to believe I had been lied to, then I would admit same to the American people and fire those who had done the lying. Amen, do we start with Rumsfeld or Feith? http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=20952 Interesting articles. But the New Yorker article is disturbing. It says the U.N. and I.A.E.C. intelligence was more accurate than the CIA's. How can that be? Those organizations include scientists who aren't from America. How could their knowledge possibly have any value? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com