| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!? "possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!? That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!! I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so you can refer to it when necessary. Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move the materials elsewhere. Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup. 1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations. Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian populations. 2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were. 3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them in. So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!? "possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!? That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!! I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so you can refer to it when necessary. Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move the materials elsewhere. Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup. 1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations. Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian populations. 2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were. Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions. Why launch cruise missiles? So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people *think* that you're actually doing something? 3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them in. Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave the UN a chance to establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance. So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........ http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam I like this one, my how the story changed......... 24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John A" wrote in message .com... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........ http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam I like this one, my how the story changed......... 24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." No references to any of the statements they "quote" How convenient. www.rotten.com What a reliable source for news. LMAO. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
JimH wrote: "John A" wrote in message .com... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? Here's a comprehensive listing of what the administration DID say........ http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam I like this one, my how the story changed......... 24 Feb 2001 In Cairo, Secretary of State Colin Powell declares: "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." No references to any of the statements they "quote" How convenient. www.rotten.com What a reliable source for news. LMAO. What does this have to do with boats? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!? "possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!? That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!! I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so you can refer to it when necessary. Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move the materials elsewhere. Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup. 1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations. Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew where they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really. Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian populations. 2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were. Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions. Why launch cruise missiles? So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people *think* that you're actually doing something? Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do nothing. 3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them in. Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave the UN a chance to establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance. Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with absolutely no consideration for our image in the world? So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria. Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting for us? |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "unable to complete its investigation"?!?!?!? "possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war"?!?!? That's hardly "conclusive evidence" that WMD didn't exist!!! I know you're busy, so I can understand that you've forgotten how I explained this to you at least twice in the past. Print it out this time so you can refer to it when necessary. Shortly after 9/11, your president, Karl Rove, began announcing (via his boy, GWB) that he knew there were WMDs, and that he knew exactly where they were. But, for reasons you and I can only guess, Rove decided to rattle his sword for almost 7 months before actually doing anything about these weapons. By doing so, he gave one party or another plenty of time to move the materials elsewhere. Various reasons have been given for this delay, by people in this newsgroup. 1) "It takes a long time to prepare ground forces for an invasion." This is true, but irrelevant. If Rove knew exactly where they were, air strikes could have dealt with at least some of the locations. Rove never said such a thing...particularly 7 months before the invasion. If you're convinced that he did, then a simple google search should provide you with the necessary references to support your claim, right? OK. I generalized. Try this: At the moment president Rove said he knew where they were, he did not move. Doesn't matter when he said it, really. Excuse warning: "Saddam hides things near civilians, so we couldn't have used air strikes". Bull****. We dropped plenty of bombs near civilian populations. 2) "We couldn't have used air strikes because such-and-such country didn't want us using their air strips." Bull****. Ship-launched cruise missiles have enough range to get around distance limitations. Rove did not want to use this option because, in fact, he did NOT know where the WMDs were. Ipso facto, if Saddam had WMD, he was in violation of sanctions. Why launch cruise missiles? So you can emulate your predecessor and create a facade to make people *think* that you're actually doing something? Why launch? Because according to comments from Colin Powell, who ought to know what he's talking about, ****SOME**** of the weapons could have been safely destroyed via air strikes, while others were better dealt with more carefully, "by hand", if you will. But, president Rove chose to do nothing. 3) "Rove wanted to give the U.N. time to do blah blah blah so he could appear to have made a fair decision". Bull****. His mind was made up well before U.N. options had run out. If the military had been ready to go in October of that year instead of March of the next, Rove would've sent them in. Probably. But they had to at least create the appearance that they gave the UN a chance to establish its relevancy in the World. The UN blew that chance. Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with absolutely no consideration for our image in the world? Because the administration gave the French and Russians a chance to atone for their sins of sending banned arms to Saddam. As the Oil-for-food scandal unfurled, it became evident that neither of those two countries would have budged and inch no matter what we negotiated. So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria. Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting for us? No. And I never said that. But there were plenty of Russian soldiers elsewhere in the world that we didn't want to drag into our fight in Iraq. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with absolutely no consideration for our image in the world? Because the administration gave the French and Russians a chance to atone for their sins of sending banned arms to Saddam. As the Oil-for-food scandal unfurled, it became evident that neither of those two countries would have budged and inch no matter what we negotiated. I don't buy it, but that's just how I am. So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria. Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting for us? No. And I never said that. But there were plenty of Russian soldiers elsewhere in the world that we didn't want to drag into our fight in Iraq. Time out. If, theoretically, president Rove actually knew which trucks were hauling stuff out of Iraq, he wouldn't have gone after them because...why? You think the Russians would've swarmed in from wherever to mess with us??? |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... Why bother with appearances, when the entire plan was designed with absolutely no consideration for our image in the world? Because the administration gave the French and Russians a chance to atone for their sins of sending banned arms to Saddam. As the Oil-for-food scandal unfurled, it became evident that neither of those two countries would have budged and inch no matter what we negotiated. I don't buy it, but that's just how I am. So, please, cut the crap. If there were WMDs, your president wanted them gone. Use your imagination and you can figure out the reasons. I'll admit there may have been just ONE good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: To make the country a bit safer for our troops. But, since your president can't arrange for vehicle armor, I doubt he really cared much whether soldiers were exposed to chemical or biological weapons. I can think of another good reason to allow them to be smuggled out: We weren't ready to militarily engage the Russians who were helping Saddam sneak the WMD from his country to Syria. Oh boy. You think there were frightening numbers of Russian soldiers waiting for us? No. And I never said that. But there were plenty of Russian soldiers elsewhere in the world that we didn't want to drag into our fight in Iraq. Time out. If, theoretically, president Rove actually knew which trucks were hauling stuff out of Iraq You mean Russian trucks? Don't you remember the report of us hitting a Russian convoy heading to Syria (under the guise of a Diplomatic envoy) just a few weeks after the invasion started? If not, here is the report: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...nvoy.attacked/ We claimed that we had no forces in the area (special-ops always operates that way), yet Condi Rice made an emergency trip to Moscow the next day to smooth things over: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7133-3.cfm (You can bet she was armed with "proof" of Russian involvement in the evacuation of Iraqi WMD-related material and technology.) The administration obviously worked out a deal with the Russians. They'd shut up about US future involvement in Iraq (ironically, Putin practically endorsed Bush right before the election), and we'd keep lids on the evidence that we had accumulated. It was working very well, until John A. Shaw spilled the beans right before the election: http://www.washingtontimes.com/natio...2637-6257r.htm At the time that that story was released, the White House did not condone (but did not criticize) Shaw, because the story was valuable for Bush's re-election bid. But not long after the election, Shaw was dismissed...most likely because the truth that he was spreading was interfering with our on-going negotiations with the Russians regarding their planned shipment of anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. http://www.jeffbrokaw.net/notes/2005...ced-to-resign/ |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT--Democrats On Record Concerning WMD | General | |||
| O.T. Did I Really Say That: How soon they forget | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
