"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_weapons_dc



Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials



By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's national security adviser said
Sunday
unconventional weapons material might have gone to neighboring
states in
the
war and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably
trying
to
get
some.


Sorry, but that doesn't meet the pre-invasion criteria. They
weren't
there before we invaded, and Zarqawi ain't the head of state.
That's
sorta like saying the Russians invaded Afghanistan because the
"freedom
fighters" had shoulder-fired SAMs...they didn't have them when
the
Russians invaded, but they sure had them after we shipped some
over
there, eh?

Nope. Good try.

"...might have gone to neighboring states in the war..."

Hmm, so in your little brain, the above sentence is difinitive proof
that Iraq, at the time Bush declared war on them, had WMD's? Please
tell me you aren't THAT stupid.

No, Dummy. That little statement is definitive proof that nobody
knows
for
sure what happened to the WMD.


They're buried in your backyard, Mr. Cheney.


Look, we know you bought into the WMD fantasy, but it's time to let go
of it.


Must I remind you that the former President and his VP, the current
Democratic candidate and his VP, the minority leader of the Senate,
everyone
of the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ariel
Sharon, the Israeli Mossad, and German, British, Russian, and most other
nations' intelligence services, also "bought into the WMD fantasy".

Only a naive, wishful fool would unequivocally state that there were/are
no
Iraqi WMD.



It's time to let it go.

....says the naive, wishful fool.

NOYB wrote:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/20040711/ts
_nm/iraq_weapons_dc

Why would you care, NOYB?

You guys have spent the last year convincing everybody that it was never
(really) about WMD from the get-go, that Bush never said we had to invade Iraq
because Saddam or the WMD posed any sort of threat to the US, and etc.

'Course, should *that* story (never said there were WMD in Iraq) prove
unsupportable in the end the fall back position is in place, "If we said
anything about WMD it was due to an intelligence failure."

You guys are squirming like a nightcrawler on a hook.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_weapons_dc



Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials



By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's national security adviser said Sunday
unconventional weapons material might have gone to neighboring
states in
the
war and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably trying
to
get
some.


Sorry, but that doesn't meet the pre-invasion criteria. They weren't
there before we invaded, and Zarqawi ain't the head of state. That's
sorta like saying the Russians invaded Afghanistan because the
"freedom
fighters" had shoulder-fired SAMs...they didn't have them when the
Russians invaded, but they sure had them after we shipped some over
there, eh?

Nope. Good try.

"...might have gone to neighboring states in the war..."

Hmm, so in your little brain, the above sentence is difinitive proof
that Iraq, at the time Bush declared war on them, had WMD's? Please
tell me you aren't THAT stupid.

No, Dummy. That little statement is definitive proof that nobody knows
for
sure what happened to the WMD. Just because your side and liberal media
have made up their collective minds that no WMD ever existed because they
haven't been found *yet*, doesn't mean they don't exist. And it doesn't
mean they won't be found.




Let's try this: In the sentence below, fill in the blank with a number of
your choosing:

"If, within ______ months of today, July 12 2004, there is still no proof
that Iraq possessed WMDs, in sufficient quantity, with a delivery method,
and in good enough condition to harm anyone within the past 3 years, I'll
drop the subject forever and go back to claiming there's really a tooth
fairy".

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Must I remind you that the former President and his VP, the current
Democratic candidate and his VP, the minority leader of the Senate,
everyone
of the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ariel
Sharon, the Israeli Mossad, and German, British, Russian, and most other
nations' intelligence services, also "bought into the WMD fantasy".

Only a naive, wishful fool would unequivocally state that there were/are
no
Iraqi WMD.



Politically naive and foolish, perhaps. Scientifically....that's another
story. I have heard many scientists say the 15 year old bio & chemical
weapons were fresh enough to worry about. Of course, scientists usually
don't claim they're doing god's work, so I suppose we can't trust what they
say.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"NOYB" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_weapons_dc



Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials



By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's national security adviser said
Sunday
unconventional weapons material might have gone to neighboring
states in
the
war and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably
trying
to
get
some.


Sorry, but that doesn't meet the pre-invasion criteria. They
weren't
there before we invaded, and Zarqawi ain't the head of state.
That's
sorta like saying the Russians invaded Afghanistan because the
"freedom
fighters" had shoulder-fired SAMs...they didn't have them when
the
Russians invaded, but they sure had them after we shipped some
over
there, eh?

Nope. Good try.

"...might have gone to neighboring states in the war..."

Hmm, so in your little brain, the above sentence is difinitive proof
that Iraq, at the time Bush declared war on them, had WMD's? Please
tell me you aren't THAT stupid.

No, Dummy. That little statement is definitive proof that nobody
knows
for
sure what happened to the WMD.


They're buried in your backyard, Mr. Cheney.


Look, we know you bought into the WMD fantasy, but it's time to let go
of it.


Must I remind you that the former President and his VP, the current
Democratic candidate and his VP, the minority leader of the Senate,
everyone
of the Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Ariel
Sharon, the Israeli Mossad, and German, British, Russian, and most other
nations' intelligence services, also "bought into the WMD fantasy".

Only a naive, wishful fool would unequivocally state that there were/are
no
Iraqi WMD.



Politically naive and foolish, perhaps. Scientifically....that's another
story. I have NOT heard many scientists say the 15 year old bio & chemical
weapons were fresh enough to worry about. Of course, scientists usually
don't claim they're doing god's work, so I suppose we can't trust what they
say.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/20040711/ts
_nm/iraq_weapons_dc

Why would you care, NOYB?

You guys have spent the last year convincing everybody that it was never
(really) about WMD from the get-go, that Bush never said we had to invade
Iraq
because Saddam or the WMD posed any sort of threat to the US, and etc.

'Course, should *that* story (never said there were WMD in Iraq) prove
unsupportable in the end the fall back position is in place, "If we said
anything about WMD it was due to an intelligence failure."

You guys are squirming like a nightcrawler on a hook.

Bush has always maintained that there were several reasons for invading
Iraq. However, as Wolfowitz said in an interview soon after the war, "WMD
was the one issue we could all (Dems and Republicans) agree upon".

Apparently, the Dems quit agreeing once they saw a political angle to
exploit.

NOYB wrote:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...nm/20040711/ts
_nm/iraq_weapons_dc

Why would you care, NOYB?

You guys have spent the last year convincing everybody that it was never
(really) about WMD from the get-go, that Bush never said we had to invade
Iraq
because Saddam or the WMD posed any sort of threat to the US, and etc.

'Course, should *that* story (never said there were WMD in Iraq) prove
unsupportable in the end the fall back position is in place, "If we said
anything about WMD it was due to an intelligence failure."

You guys are squirming like a nightcrawler on a hook.

Bush has always maintained that there were several reasons for invading
Iraq. However, as Wolfowitz said in an interview soon after the war, "WMD
was the one issue we could all (Dems and Republicans) agree upon".


Yes, we're sure you have convinced yourself.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_weapons_dc



Iraq Says Zarqawi Likely Seeking WMD Materials



By Edmund Blair

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's national security adviser said Sunday
unconventional weapons material might have gone to neighboring states in the
war and Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is probably trying to get
some.

snip

Rubaie said there were indications that some unconventional materials had
crossed borders into neighboring states, and said Iraq would seek to have it
returned if so.


"There are some indications that these (unconventional materials) have gone
that way during the conflict and immediately after the conflict," he said
but gave no details.


Hmm, then why did Bush say THIS:

Bush defends Iraq invasion, while acknowledging no weapons found

DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
Monday, July 12, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(07-12) 12:06 PDT OAK RIDGE, Tenn. (AP) --

President Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq even as he
conceded on Monday that investigators had not found the weapons of
mass destruction that he had warned the country possessed.

Allowing Iraq to possibly transfer weapons capability to terrorists
was not a risk he was willing to take, Bush said.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction,
we were right to go into Iraq," Bush said......

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:49:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush has always maintained that there were several reasons for invading
Iraq. However, as Wolfowitz said in an interview soon after the war, "WMD
was the one issue we could all (Dems and Republicans) agree upon".

BS! Wolfowitz never mentioned Democrats in his quote. He stated WMD was
used for "bureaucratic reasons". Presumably, because there was some
disputing the other reasons between the State Department (Powell) and the
Defense Department (Rumsfeld). Among the other reasons, were capitulating
to Al Qaeda's demands to remove American troops from Saudi Arabia.

Bush stated the Iraqi threat in his Cincinnati speech of 10/7/02. It
doesn't hold up very well either.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


Apparently, the Dems quit agreeing once they saw a political angle to
exploit.

Disingenuous.

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 18:49:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush has always maintained that there were several reasons for invading
Iraq. However, as Wolfowitz said in an interview soon after the war,
"WMD
was the one issue we could all (Dems and Republicans) agree upon".

BS! Wolfowitz never mentioned Democrats in his quote.

No, he didn't. But when he said "everyone could agree on", he was obviously
referring to Republicans *and* Democrats. Here's Wolfowitz's exact words to
Vanity Fair's Tanenhaus:

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S.
government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree
on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but . . . there
have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass
destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal
treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a
fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. . . .
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the
Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly
not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is
the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy,
even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda
group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al
Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke
about in his U.N. presentation."

He also added this (which is reason #5):
"There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by
almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement
between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of
our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years
has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I
think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the
door to other positive things."



Reason #6, is of course, oil...which is the connection between the first 5
reasons.



He stated WMD was
used for "bureaucratic reasons". Presumably, because there was some
disputing the other reasons between the State Department (Powell) and the
Defense Department (Rumsfeld).

There was also Democrats, and holdovers from the Clinton administration in
the CIA and State Department (ie-Richard Clarke), who disputed the notion
that Saddam was working with terrorists...and did their darndest to try to
dispel the notion.

Among the other reasons, were capitulating
to Al Qaeda's demands to remove American troops from Saudi Arabia.

Yes, that was one of them.


Bush stated the Iraqi threat in his Cincinnati speech of 10/7/02. It
doesn't hold up very well either.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021007-8.html


Apparently, the Dems quit agreeing once they saw a political angle to
exploit.

Disingenuous.

My statement? Or yours?