"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...


When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if
that is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.

That may well be true. However, as you know by now, highly competent
inspectors found zip. This included people who did not have pansy-ass
foreign accents or work for that sissy organization, the U.N.

Doug,

Don't you agree that the WMD Iraq had used in the past had probably been
shipped somewhere else? Certainly you do not believe Iraq destroyed them
secretly? If they wanted to destroy them, they would have done that
publicly so the UN would have removed the economic boycott against Iraq.

Bush is a dummy, but even he would not believe that.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...


When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if
that is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.

That may well be true. However, as you know by now, highly competent
inspectors found zip. This included people who did not have pansy-ass
foreign accents or work for that sissy organization, the U.N.

"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.

"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.

"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???

First of all, unlike you and I, there are people who know quite a bit about
chemical and biological weapons. Quite a few of those people stated clearly
that some of the weapons had definite "shelf lives", and that the weapons
used against the Iraqi people in the distant past would've been far from
useful by 2001-2002.

Second, you may have to allow for the possibility that Saddam had a more
personal motive, if he destroyed the weapons secretly: Making a fool look
like an even bigger fool (GWB, in other words). Saddam is not a stupid man.
He knew full well that he could skirt the economic sanctions easily. He
didn't need to put on a show to impress the U.N.



"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...
Doug,

Don't you agree that the WMD Iraq had used in the past had probably been
shipped somewhere else? Certainly you do not believe Iraq destroyed them
secretly? If they wanted to destroy them, they would have done that
publicly so the UN would have removed the economic boycott against Iraq.

Bush is a dummy, but even he would not believe that.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...


When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if
that is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.

That may well be true. However, as you know by now, highly competent
inspectors found zip. This included people who did not have pansy-ass
foreign accents or work for that sissy organization, the U.N.

Doug,
I guess you are correct. Saddam played a great game of poker against GWB.
He made GWB look foolish with his statements concerning WMD. Spending the
rest of his life in prison, giving up his palaces and wealth was a small
price to pay to rub GWB's nose in it.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
First of all, unlike you and I, there are people who know quite a bit
about chemical and biological weapons. Quite a few of those people stated
clearly that some of the weapons had definite "shelf lives", and that the
weapons used against the Iraqi people in the distant past would've been
far from useful by 2001-2002.

Second, you may have to allow for the possibility that Saddam had a more
personal motive, if he destroyed the weapons secretly: Making a fool look
like an even bigger fool (GWB, in other words). Saddam is not a stupid
man. He knew full well that he could skirt the economic sanctions easily.
He didn't need to put on a show to impress the U.N.



"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...
Doug,

Don't you agree that the WMD Iraq had used in the past had probably been
shipped somewhere else? Certainly you do not believe Iraq destroyed them
secretly? If they wanted to destroy them, they would have done that
publicly so the UN would have removed the economic boycott against Iraq.

Bush is a dummy, but even he would not believe that.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"ME ME ME" wrote in message
...


When you say Rowe and GWB lied to the world concerning WMD, remember if
that is true, every politician in the US lied to world since 1990.

That may well be true. However, as you know by now, highly competent
inspectors found zip. This included people who did not have pansy-ass
foreign accents or work for that sissy organization, the U.N.

"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/

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"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/

Do you think Putin wouldn't have seen any further "investigations" as simply
the cost of doing business? He was a spook, you know. Still is.

What does this have to do with boating?


wrote in message
ups.com...

snip