"Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".
You know at the end of these threads I always know who's name I'll see.
He never gives up even if the facts are right there in front of him.
Oh well...................But he is still in check.
What delivery systems are you talking about? Missles from the 60's that could go 600 miles tops?
Ps. They also seem to have quite a bit of trouble hitting their targets even at close range. This notion of yours is really half baked.
Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.
There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!
What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.
Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.
There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!
What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.
93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff said!
93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff said!
Seriously, I can't believe you. Once again:
The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.
tonton:
Quote:
It's a big deal because the Bushies wanted to make a big deal out of it. And gullible people fell for it, not realizing the difference between an Al Samoud I, Al Samoud II or a SCUD. Not realizing that the distance violation of these particular missiles was questionable and that it was splitting hairs anyway , because the range of the missiles found was still well within the "cushion" of safety. All those gullible people screamed "Oh, my God, they have banned missiles! They are a threat. See. They are liars. They are hiding weapons!" Uh. No. they weren't.
I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?
Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!
The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.
tonton:
I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?
Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!
Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?
The other thing is were the WOMD even there? Well it's unlikely that Saddam could have spirited them away so compleatly once he knew war was brewing. What would have been the point? He coudn't have gotten rid of them so compleatly that we would be finding what have. Once again what would have been the point?
This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.
Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?
Still in check.
jimmac, you just refuse to listen.
Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?
Quote:
The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us.
Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.
Quote:
The other thing is were the WOMD even there? Well it's unlikely that Saddam could have spirited them away so compleatly once he knew war was brewing. What would have been the point? He coudn't have gotten rid of them so compleatly that we would be finding what have. Once again what would have been the point?
This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.
Ether way this should lead to only one thing :
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees outta there!
Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!
"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".
This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?
And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.
See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.
You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....
Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.
Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.
Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?
Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.
Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!
"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".
This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?
And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.
See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.
You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....
Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.
Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.
Bad intellegence......wait...... oh god! I can't stop!
Listen it's very simple ( not complex like your trying to make it ).
Did we find anything? No. Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No. Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No. Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No. Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?
Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.
Still in check ( really mate ).
Out the door in 2004!
PS. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.
Bad intellegence......wait...... oh god! I can't stop!
Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!
Quote:
Did we find anything? No.
This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"
Quote:
Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No.
I Disagree!!! Once again, he had FIVE YEARS. We are talking about weapons that don't necessarily take up a lot of space. 150,000 square miles jimmac! Five years, jimmac! Iraq borders on the terror-supporting Syria! Nah, no possbility! Not even likely!
Quote:
Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No.
Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.
Quote:
Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No.
Yes. It would. Really...it would.
Quote:
Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.
Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.
Quote:
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?
It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?
Quote:
Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.
I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."
Quote:
S. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.
1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate? Keep dreaming. I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!
This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"
I Disagree!!! Once again, he had FIVE YEARS. We are talking about weapons that don't necessarily take up a lot of space. 150,000 square miles jimmac! Five years, jimmac! Iraq borders on the terror-supporting Syria! Nah, no possbility! Not even likely!
Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.
Yes. It would. Really...it would.
Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.
It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?
I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."
1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate? Keep dreaming. I really feel sorry for you sometimes.
No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.
We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.
No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.
We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.
Still in check.
jimmac, now you're playing the exclusivity game. "Everyone disagrees with you, SDW" is essentially what you are saying. It's a common tactic, and it's also false. Meanwhile, the only pathetic piece of evidence you can muster is that we haven't found the WMD yet. Childish. See the previous "M&M" example.
As for Bush, your dislike of him is obvious. Bush, despite coming off as not that intelligent, proves his political cunning and skill every day. Bush is not a linguist...that much is for certain. But Bush isn't stupid. In fact, I think he is MUCH smarter than anyone gives him credit for. His poiltical opponents have underestimated him time and time again. People like you continue to do so, which is inexplicable. I also disagree re: Bush being dynamic. He has the balls to do what he thinks needs to be done. He is blunt. He drives his cabinet. He hammers them with questions. In short, he's not the disengaged Nintendo-playing guy he's been made out to be. You should really go read the book "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. It would change your mind about some things. Woodward is no Bush cheerleader...I hope you'd agree.
There is more trouble brewing. Big Trouble. It appears that Saddam Hussein never existed.
Sources inside the administration claim the highly visible leader did, in fact, exist---although no trace of Saddam Hussein has been found.
Teams specifically sent to the war-torn nation to find the alleged Iraqi leader, have searched for several months, but have come away empty handed, adding credence to the administration's critics' claims that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, a construct of the CIA. The CIA and Halliburton have both denied repeated claims that they were instructed to fabricate the leader under direct orders from Dick Cheney and the shadow government.
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war?
SDW just writes so much garbage that I only have time to respond to the important parts.
As for this, war is only to be used in self defense.
The Iraq war was unprecedented in that we attacked an occupied a nation that did not attack us first, and was not on the verge of attacking us. The 'preemptive' was really sold more as 'preventative,' though the former word conveys the immediacy needed to gain support.
The fact that the US was not under attack IN ITSELF makes the war unjustified according to American values and history, UN charter and world public opinion. This is why the Bush admin created the specter of the 'imminent threat.' Americans simply do not support unprovoked attacks. This is one of the foundations of US foreign policy.
But even if you believe that preventative war is justified, his uncooperation doesn't justify a war of this scale and the following reconstruction by the unless it poses an 'immediate threat' to the US. You aren't going to find anyone anywhere (not the Bush admin, sot even the most hardened neo-cons) that will disagree with this. If Saddam does not pose a threat, war will not be justified.
To put it simply, the determining part of the equation is the threat not the lack of cooperation. If he was not cooperating over a possible stockpile of Twinkies, war would be considered rediculous.
Ena, the problem with your whole philosophy is that you are trying to equate things that are vastly different. A chemical weapons program requires HUGE facilities. Period. That's why we know now that there was no large program. You can play dumb until the end of time and you aren't going to change this cold, hard fact.
As for the weapons themselves, the US has found NO TRACE whatsoever. How can such a massive weapons program and millions of pound of chemcials disappear with NO TRACE WHATSOEVER, yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?
According to what I have heard Iraq hired David Copperfield the day before the invation (and I heard Bush hired him to work for him the day before he announced that WoMD will be found)
According to what I have heard Iraq hired David Copperfield the day before the invation (and I heard Bush hired him to work for him the day before he announced that WoMD will be found)
I didn't know that Saddam Hussein was an homosexual ?
.....yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?
....all that was planted by Halliburton and the shadow government. I just can't believe he ever existed. This whole thing smells to high heaven!! How can the administration keep insisting that he existed without verifiable proof?
Honestly, they even fooled the UN into thinking he existed. This whole thing goes right to the top. Kofi's probably dirty as well---I heard he shook hands with Dick Cheney once. There all in this together, its all about oil. I mean when you have people ramming jet planes into the pentagon and world trade center, people sending anthrax through the mail---it only makes sense to go out and secure more oil fields. How could anyone expect the Administration to do more than attack Afghanistan (with the backing of Halliburton, of course---to get the oil in Berzerkistan) just for show?
Its all about oil, no connections with CBN, no connections with al Queda, no foreign fighters from other countries, no connection with violence in Israel, no payments to suicide bombers, and certainly no suicide vests.
Comments
You know at the end of these threads I always know who's name I'll see.
He never gives up even if the facts are right there in front of him.
Oh well...................But he is still in check.
What delivery systems are you talking about? Missles from the 60's that could go 600 miles tops?
Ps. They also seem to have quite a bit of trouble hitting their targets even at close range. This notion of yours is really half baked.
Originally posted by jimmac
"Bush Admin. Intel". That's deceptive. It's intel that was PRESENTED to them. It's not "Bush Admin. Intel".
You know at the end of these threads I always know who's name I'll see.
He never gives up even if the facts are right there in front of him.
Oh well...................But he is still in check.
What delivery systems are you talking about? Missles from the 60's that could go 600 miles tops?
Ps. They also seem to have quite a bit of trouble hitting their targets even at close range. This notion of yours is really half baked.
Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.
There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!
What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, it is deceptive because it IS presented to the administration by others. IF there is evidence that they intentionally distorted such evidence or put pressure on intel agencies, then I have as much as a problem as you do with that. There is no, I repeat jimmac, NO EVIDENCE of that at this time.
There were missiles that were discovered that the UN ordered destroyed. I don't seem to recall the name...AL-Samoud (sp?) II, I believe. There range went WELL beyond the 93 miles (it's something like that...go look it up) allowed. They were being produced right up until the war!
What notion is half-baked? The missiles? WMD is Iraq? That's "half baked?" God.
93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff said!
93 miles is even better. Even if that's what was allowed they couldn't reach the US or much else. This means no threat. The idea was WOMD and immediate threat to us. So the reason Bush listed for the war didn't exist. Nuff said!
Seriously, I can't believe you. Once again:
The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.
tonton:
It's a big deal because the Bushies wanted to make a big deal out of it. And gullible people fell for it, not realizing the difference between an Al Samoud I, Al Samoud II or a SCUD. Not realizing that the distance violation of these particular missiles was questionable and that it was splitting hairs anyway , because the range of the missiles found was still well within the "cushion" of safety. All those gullible people screamed "Oh, my God, they have banned missiles! They are a threat. See. They are liars. They are hiding weapons!" Uh. No. they weren't.
I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?
Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!
http://www.observer.co.uk/internatio...977853,00.html
WEE DON'T NEED ANY STINKING DELIVERY SYSTEM.
....but seriously.
Since it's so easy to smuggle white powders of many kinds into the country, how about the US Postal System?
Oh wait, somebody already tried that.
Nevermind.
I did get a ~100 pound hallibut yesterday---he is now safely in my freezer, no longer a threat to the bottom fish habitat of Kachemak Bay.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Seriously, I can't believe you. Once again:
The threat was Saddam giving WMD to a terrorist organization, NOT lauching an ICBM at the US. The missles were banned under the UN regulations and were therefore a violation.
tonton:
I already told you I didn't remember the exact name. I dispute your claim that we "pressured" the UN. If the missles weren't a big deal, then why were they ordered destroyed?
Oh, and look everybody...tonton is another kool-aid drinker! HE'S now convinced himself, as had pfflam, as has giant... that there are and were no WMD in Iraq!
Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?
Still in check.
This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.
Ether way this should lead to only one thing :
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees outta there!
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes, but the fact that it's very difficult to get those missles to us is pretty much the point. The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us. This proves that wasn't true! Get this through that thick skull of yours. It doesn't matter if they were in violation. That's not why the war started and that's what we're talking about. Before anyone else starts. Terrorists sneeking stuff into the country that they bought from Saddam isn't enough ( plus nothing's been found ). Plus there's no proof this has ever happened ether. We were talking direct threat. Remember?
Still in check.
jimmac, you just refuse to listen.
Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?
The war didn't start because they were in violation of anything. The war started because Saddam had WOMD and was a direct threat to us.
Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.
The other thing is were the WOMD even there? Well it's unlikely that Saddam could have spirited them away so compleatly once he knew war was brewing. What would have been the point? He coudn't have gotten rid of them so compleatly that we would be finding what have. Once again what would have been the point?
This will lead you to only one of two conclusions. Ether Bush lied or is very incompetent.
Ether way this should lead to only one thing :
Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees outta there!
Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!
"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".
This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?
And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.
See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.
You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....
Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.
Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac, you just refuse to listen.
Are you ACTUALLY denying the possiblility that Iraq could have given WMD to a terrorist group who would then, in turn, use them against the United States?
Actually, it started for both reasons. As for Iraq being a threat, it amazes me that some members here STILL think the world is a pre-9/11 one. Before 9/11, I don't know if I would have supported this kind of action. But afterwards? No question. Iraq was hostile to the US in the extreme. Iraq had a history of not only chemical and biological weapons posession, but USE. Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, at least previously. There were no inspectors present for five years. When they WERE there, they were "played with" by the regime. Prior to 9/11, these were all items of concern. After 9/11, they became reasons to ensure Iraq didn't give WMD to any group which might threaten us...even if it meant war.
Is it possible there were no weapons? Yes. Is it likely there were no weapons? No. Not at all. Not when we've seen nearly zero evidence of their destruction. You question whether or not Saddam could have hidden the weapons over a five year period in a country the size of California. That's over 150,000 square miles, jimmac. Are you serious? Iraq is right next to Syria, remember? Seriosuly jimmac...5 years!! Come on!
"Either Bush lied or is very incompetent".
This is a ridiculous statement. Let's look at those possibilities for a second. George Bush and his advisors would have to be some of the stupidest people on this planet to intentionally lie about WMD. If they had significant doubts, they would have had to be shit-for-brains stupid to focus on WMD as much as they did. I know you think Bush is stupid and incompetent, but Cheney? Rumsfeld? Powell? Rice? Karl Rove? Andy Card? All these people came to the conclusion that it didn't matter if we found WMD even though they would focus on it heavily? Really. It's just unbelievable to think they knew there were no WMD (which again...has not been proven in ANY way) but then told the world there was. Are you telling me no one in that group and in the defense department thought this through? No one thought "Gee, if we say there are weapons (which we know aren't there) and then people find out there are no weapons...maybe we'll be screwed"?
And now....you are telling me that if people in the CIA, NSA and military intel agencies delibrately distorted evidence that was presented to the President....that it was Bush's fault? Many of these people aren't even Bush apointees...they are holdovers from the Clinton administration. It's not as if George Bush has a big joystick on his desk that controls a super-secret Dr. Evil-like intellligence satellite. It's not as if Condi Rice has a pair of night visions goggles in her bag that she uses after work. People have to give them the intel. They are so far removed from it, it isn't even funny.
See, it's all a question of which is more likely....Bush delibrately lied (which he HAD to know would come out) or he got bad intelligence. This is all assuming Iraq had completely discontinued it's weapons programs despite any evidence of that happening.
You, of course, believe the former. No surprise there. Funny, where were the people like you when Clinton bombed without so much as going to the UN even once? Show me the WMD that was supposed to be there in 1998, jimmac! That's hypocrisy is the extreme on your part and EVERYONE else's part who argues against Bush's reasons for war. Clinton used nearly the same WORDS when he bombed. No calls for impeachment there, though. Oh, wait....
Now, let's go even a step further. Let's say we find out there are no WMD in Iraq after, say, 18 months. Let's say the administration can't produce the evidence they used to make their decision. Then guess what? NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, because Congress is controlled by Republicans.
Might as well go buy a Bush sticker because short of fathering an illegimate child, he WILL be reelected easily. End of story. Game Over. You Lose.
Bad intellegence......wait......
Listen it's very simple ( not complex like your trying to make it ).
Did we find anything? No. Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No. Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No. Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No. Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?
Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.
Still in check ( really mate ).
Out the door in 2004!
PS. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.
Bad intellegence......wait...... oh god! I can't stop!
Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!
Did we find anything? No.
This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"
Is it likely that Saddam could have spirited it all away just before the war? No.
Is there any proof that he sold WOMD to terrorists. No.
Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.
Even if he did would that constitute the kind of threat Bush was talking about? No.
Yes. It would. Really...it would.
Does 1998 or any other year have anything to do with him having WOMD just before the war? No.
Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.
The only question here that doesn't get a no is what would it have profited Saddam to hide all this stuff so completely that we wouldn't have found a trace?
It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?
Only two possibilities for Bush : He lied or he and his staff is incompetent. Ether way he's not fit to be president.
I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."
S. Dummer things have been done by presidents. Nixon lied about Watergate ( breaking and entering to effect a presidential election. And he said in his book he'd do it again! ) and he was a lot more on top of things than Bush ever will be. Even if by some quirk of fate he does get reelected this will haunt him and hamper his effectiveness ( another reason he should go ) for the rest of his days.
1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, hillarious! Imagine the non-exact science of espionage and a massive federal bureacrocy presenting incorrect or distorted information to the people that make the decisions! Ridiculous!
This in itself proves nothing as I said. "DID we...." The past tense, jimmac? The case isn't closed. I seem to remember people screaming to give the inspectors more time, and now: "That's it! They're done! We win! They'll never find anything!"
Say it with me. "Post 9/11, Post 9/11, Post 9/11"! Our strategy for national security has changed, as it had to. It's not about waiting for him to sell weapons, it's about...wait for it...PREVENTING him from doing so. Anyone who denies this very real possibility has my sincere thanks in advance for NOT running for any elected national office.
Yes. It would. Really...it would.
Yes, it does. It has A LOT to do with WMD before the war. The reason is we know he had WMD then. Since then, we have seen no evidence of his weapons' destruction. Since then, the inspectors have been removed and he (a hostile militant maniac who has used WMD before) has had FIVE years to continue his program unsupervised. Since we know he had a program then, there is no reason to think he just magically discontinued it. It also has a lot to do with your asking for proof now. Clinton bombed in 1998 with the same (and weaker) verbal arguments and NO hard facts presented to the public. Bush went to the UN. Powell presented in-depth. Bush secured a Congressional resolution. Bush showed much of the intel to Congress members. Clinton did none of this in 1998 and I don't hear a word about that! 1998 has EVERYTHING to do with today. Everything.
It might have. Saddam wasn't insane per se, but I think we can agree he didn't have all the cards needed for a deck. There is speculation that this may be why he didn't use chemical weapons during the war....to avoid looking like the "bad guy". Say what you like, Saddam was a master of playing the PR game on the world stage. It's also pretty obvious that if he said he didn't have any WMD, then we found them, he'd look like a liar. Saddam was concerned with his place in history as it pertains to the Arab world. He wanted to be known as standing up to the Americans. We saw this in 1991. Why would he hide them? are you serious? Why WOULDN'T he? Wouldn't you?
I know you'd love to think that. There is no evidence he lied. None. I have seen some discrepancies in his rhetoric before the war, all of which could have a thousand explanations. There are too many questions that are still in play for you to come to that conclusion. As far as incompetence is concerned, I don't see how you support that either. The intelligence could be wrong or distorted or both. We could still (and I think we will) find WMD. There are just too many unknowns. Even without WMD, there's no evidence Bush was incompetent. I can't see how you're ready to come to a conclusion. Oh, wait. Yes I can...you are jimmac, "Master of Illogic and Wishful Thinking."
1) Bush is not Nixon
2) Which is it? Is Bush smart enough to lie or not? Or, are you arguing he's stupid enough to lie?
3) Quirk of fate?
No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.
We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.
Still in check.
No Bush is not Nixon. I may have not liked the man or his policies but I have to admit he was a very intelligent and dynamic individual. Everything Bush isn't.
We could go on like this forever as I see you live in another reality from everyone else. Only one word for your comeback.....weak.
Still in check.
jimmac, now you're playing the exclusivity game. "Everyone disagrees with you, SDW" is essentially what you are saying. It's a common tactic, and it's also false. Meanwhile, the only pathetic piece of evidence you can muster is that we haven't found the WMD yet. Childish. See the previous "M&M" example.
As for Bush, your dislike of him is obvious. Bush, despite coming off as not that intelligent, proves his political cunning and skill every day. Bush is not a linguist...that much is for certain. But Bush isn't stupid. In fact, I think he is MUCH smarter than anyone gives him credit for. His poiltical opponents have underestimated him time and time again. People like you continue to do so, which is inexplicable. I also disagree re: Bush being dynamic. He has the balls to do what he thinks needs to be done. He is blunt. He drives his cabinet. He hammers them with questions. In short, he's not the disengaged Nintendo-playing guy he's been made out to be. You should really go read the book "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward. It would change your mind about some things. Woodward is no Bush cheerleader...I hope you'd agree.
Sources inside the administration claim the highly visible leader did, in fact, exist---although no trace of Saddam Hussein has been found.
Teams specifically sent to the war-torn nation to find the alleged Iraqi leader, have searched for several months, but have come away empty handed, adding credence to the administration's critics' claims that Saddam Hussein was, in fact, a construct of the CIA. The CIA and Halliburton have both denied repeated claims that they were instructed to fabricate the leader under direct orders from Dick Cheney and the shadow government.
Developing......
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's not really correct. And, why didn't Saddam's lack of cooperation justify war?
SDW just writes so much garbage that I only have time to respond to the important parts.
As for this, war is only to be used in self defense.
The Iraq war was unprecedented in that we attacked an occupied a nation that did not attack us first, and was not on the verge of attacking us. The 'preemptive' was really sold more as 'preventative,' though the former word conveys the immediacy needed to gain support.
The fact that the US was not under attack IN ITSELF makes the war unjustified according to American values and history, UN charter and world public opinion. This is why the Bush admin created the specter of the 'imminent threat.' Americans simply do not support unprovoked attacks. This is one of the foundations of US foreign policy.
But even if you believe that preventative war is justified, his uncooperation doesn't justify a war of this scale and the following reconstruction by the unless it poses an 'immediate threat' to the US. You aren't going to find anyone anywhere (not the Bush admin, sot even the most hardened neo-cons) that will disagree with this. If Saddam does not pose a threat, war will not be justified.
To put it simply, the determining part of the equation is the threat not the lack of cooperation. If he was not cooperating over a possible stockpile of Twinkies, war would be considered rediculous.
As for the weapons themselves, the US has found NO TRACE whatsoever. How can such a massive weapons program and millions of pound of chemcials disappear with NO TRACE WHATSOEVER, yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?
Originally posted by Anders
According to what I have heard Iraq hired David Copperfield the day before the invation (and I heard Bush hired him to work for him the day before he announced that WoMD will be found)
I didn't know that Saddam Hussein was an homosexual ?
Originally posted by giant
.....yet it's impossible to miss the physical evidence of little 200-300 pound Saddam (hairbrushes, toilets, magazines, cars...all the PHYSICAL evidence of his presence)?
....all that was planted by Halliburton and the shadow government. I just can't believe he ever existed. This whole thing smells to high heaven!! How can the administration keep insisting that he existed without verifiable proof?
Honestly, they even fooled the UN into thinking he existed. This whole thing goes right to the top. Kofi's probably dirty as well---I heard he shook hands with Dick Cheney once. There all in this together, its all about oil. I mean when you have people ramming jet planes into the pentagon and world trade center, people sending anthrax through the mail---it only makes sense to go out and secure more oil fields. How could anyone expect the Administration to do more than attack Afghanistan (with the backing of Halliburton, of course---to get the oil in Berzerkistan) just for show?
Its all about oil, no connections with CBN, no connections with al Queda, no foreign fighters from other countries, no connection with violence in Israel, no payments to suicide bombers, and certainly no suicide vests.