Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Saddam's 17 Volumes of Enjoyable Reading - OT
Here you will find a table of contents for Saddam's volumes. You'll note that
very few weapons programs are mentioned. The stuff he provided was primarily old, worthless crap. Note the date, 7 December, 2002. http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/12/iraq120702.pdf Here is the UNMOVIC report of 6 March, 2003. Turn to page 19 of the report for a listing of weapons and chemical systems of concern in the report. Then go to the specific pages for the weapons and look at the recommended Iraqi actions. You will see that in almost every case, one of the recommendations is 'to provide documentation to show the disposition and account for the weapon or system. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf If, Chuck and Doug, your Saddam volumes were so worthwhile, then why is documentation being requested for virtually every weapon system of interest to UNMOVIC? John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Let's make this real simple, John.
The volumes of material that Iraq supplied in compliance with the UN deadline essentially said, "We ain't got no stinkin' WMD." Bush, on the other hand, said "That claim is a lie. All 17 volumes are lies." Ok. Based on the premise that the denial was "all lies" and the pointed suggestion during the SOTU speech that Iraq was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons capable of attacking the United States, all the Republican faithful began beating the war drums until Congress was pressured to OK the Iraq attack. Funny thing happened on the way into (and out of) Baghdad......the claim of the 17 volumes, that there were not WMD in Iraq, was proven to be essentially true. Our invasion proved Bush to be the (I'll be kind here) "mistaken" one on the WMD issue, so, of course, he immediately changed his story about why he had asked us to go to war in the first place. Typical. No matter how you spin the contents, those basic facts always come out the same. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I don't believe your quote. Please show me. I refer to, "That claim is
a lie. All 17 volumes are lies." ***************** You'll have to find that one yourself. "All Lies" is exactly what Bush said when asked about the 17 volumes of material. Unfortunately, when I entered Lies Weapons Iraq Report Bush into my search engine, I got almost 21,000 hits. Virtually all detailed lies told *by* Bush, rather than a comment by Bush that the reports from Iraq were lies. I don't have time to sort through there for you, but if you care to do so you will find the quote buried in there, someplace. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
JohnH wrote:
I would respectfully suggest that is bull**** **************** But you would rather "suggest" and waste time (allegedly) typing in a completely different search criteria than enter exactly what I told you I entered and seeing, for yourself, that the result is as I reported. Typical neo-con, John. If the facts don't suit you, ignore them and/or make up some you like better. When all else fails, try to switch the subject or divert to flame war with a personal insult |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speaking of lies, John H set up an interesting experiment when he
claimed: The number of hits you got was quite small. When I put in 'gould lies' I get the following: Results 1 - 10 of about 254,000 for gould lies ***************** Funny, I got 3,302 pages with 10 entires per page, or 33,020. Long way fron 254,000. So what did I do wrong, John, or is your claim of 254,000 hits as flimsy as your logic? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
compass deviation | General |