I've been saying this. There is no reason on this earth Blair would support a war which about 80% of his population opposed...unless that reason had to do with a threat to world security. Can you think of one? I can't.
giant:
Quote:
I mean, what the hell does it take for some of you to get it? It wouldn't be surprising if Bush said 'martians took the wmd' and folks like sdw somehow figured out a way to fit it into their make-believe world views.
It just never stops with you. It really doesn't. The more you attempt to paint me as blindly partisan, the more you reveal yourself to be nothing but an anti-Bush zealot hell-bent on saying anything...and I mean *anything* to discredit the President whom you hate.
We all have questions about the WMD. So, let's cut the crap here giant. Please stop with your assinine attempts to make it seem as if I will believe anything that fits my world view. It's simply untrue. Of course I would like to know where the WMD is. I would like to know why we haven't found them. My point has remained and will remain this: There are other possible explanations for the "lack" of WMD....a lot of them. It is far too early to come to a conclusion on whether they were there or not. Most importantly, is WAY too early to make the large leap that "Bush lied". Is it possible? Sure. Do I think so? No. And it's not because I'm a Bush supporter, though I am. It's because there are a myriad of other possibilities here, including that the intelligence presented to the President was faulty. Or, Saddam may have (over five years) moved the weapons to another nation. He could have hidden them securely in a country the size of California. These are but a few of the possibilities.
So keep posting. Ignore all possibilitiies that don't fit YOUR view. We're all starting to see who the truly close-minded partisan is here.
Forgive me if I don't fly into liberal hysterics screaming "Where are the WMD?".
I've been saying this. There is no reason on this earth Blair would support a war which about 80% of his population opposed...unless that reason had to do with a threat to world security. Can you think of one? I can't.
As much as the anti-war segment of the board likes to ignore it, Blair tried very hard to sell the humanitarian case for war and went to great lengths to attack Hussein's human rights record.
There are obviously reasons:
1) The US is the UK's best ally, and mostly vice versa.
2) Blair may have actually believed in the cause.
Most likely (like everything in life) a mix of the two.
point has remained and will remain this: There are other possible explanations for the "lack" of WMD....a lot of them.
Nope. Iraq's weapons program is well documented. The war was sold on the idea that there was new information, which there wasn't, as Rumsfeld himself admitted. According to all information available, the weapons programs were abandoned.
Even disregarding the fact that the discontinuation of the weapons programs was well documented, we now know through occupation that there was no production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons since the inspection process removed Iraq's ability to do so.
So the only thing left is existing stocks. Well, every single thing that Iraq ever possessed with the exception of mustard gas is now degraded. Unavoidable FACT. So the only thing in the world you could possible accuse Iraq of having is a stock of mustard gas. The ONLY evidence whatsoever (look it up!) that Iraq would have ANY mustard gas left comes from one single document that cited different numbers for munitions expended during the war with Iran. The finding of a large previously undocumented buried cache of biolaogical agents outside of fort detrick here in the US this spring demonstrates clearly the inaccuracy of documentation.
There is no question as to where the weapons are. RTFM! which in this case refers to the UN reports.
The way in which you characterize things is laughable, as is the way in which you out and out LIE. Are you an attorney? I have to give you credit: You're good. Very good. Your point-of-view is obvious, though your fallacies are well-concealed. Let's take a look:
Quote:
Nope. Iraq's weapons program is well documented.
By whom? The US? The Brits? Saddam? Show me. If it was well documented then the delcaration due on 12/7/2002 would have been complete. That is, unless saddam had domething to hide?
Verdict: Fallacy
Quote:
The war was sold on the idea that there was new information, which there wasn't, as Rumsfeld himself admitted.
If part of a statement is false, then the entire statement is false. This is basic grammar school logic, giant. I can't recall where or when anyone said "New intelligence suggests..." or something to that effect...can you? And, I've already asked to define what "new" meant. 5 years? 10 years? A month? 60 days?
Verdict: Fallacy
Quote:
Even disregarding the fact that the discontinuation of the weapons programs was well documented, we now know through occupation that there was no production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons since the inspection process removed Iraq's ability to do so.
See above...first sentence.
Well documented? Really now? Show me, oh master of research in the New Yorker and Time Magazine. The whole point was that there WASN'T enoough documentation. There WASN'T enough cooperation. There WAS literally TONS of material unaccoutned for. Well documented? As far as production facilities, are you ready to call of the search? I say again: I thought we all wanted more time for the inspectors? I know, I know "But SDW, these facilities are so massive they WOULD have bene found by now". No. I don't think you understand the size of the country we are talking about here. I really don't. I'll tell you what. You give me five years to hide 6 trailers in California. I can go anywhere I want. I can even hide them in Nevada if I want. Or perhaps, I'll take them down to Mexico. Then, you go play hide and seek, taking care to check every secret underground facility. Oh, and make sure you bring your schematics with you because I might just ave disassembled them and hidden them in small pieces before you came.
Verdict: Lie
Quote:
So the only thing left is existing stocks.
Unsupported.
Quote:
Well, every single thing that Iraq ever possessed with the exception of mustard gas is now degraded. Unavoidable FACT.
"Every single thing. Every single thing. Every single thing." You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Your statement is questionable in itself, because the las ttime I checked you are not a chemical weapons expert. Pardon me if I don;t take your word for it. Secondly, you incorrectly assume that there is no possibility of a current program. While it's possible that there was no current program, it's not a proven point either.
Verdict: Speculation
Quote:
So the only thing in the world you could possible accuse Iraq of having is a stock of mustard gas. The ONLY evidence whatsoever (look it up!) that Iraq would have ANY mustard gas left comes from one single document that cited different numbers for munitions expended during the war with Iran. The finding of a large previously undocumented buried cache of biolaogical agents outside of fort detrick here in the US this spring demonstrates clearly the inaccuracy of documentation.
There is no question as to where the weapons are. RTFM! which in this case refers to the UN reports.
They're not there. No weapons. None. Zero. No production facilities. Nothing since 1988. The weapons inspections worked. They stopped Saddam. Saddam didn't defy the world. Saddam cooperated. He was honest and truthful. Those chemical warheads we found in "excellent" condition (the UN's term)? Oh, well we forgot about those. Those banned missles? Those suspicious trailers? The chemcial suits? The centrifuge? All meaningless.
You're really showing your true colors now, giant.
You are your own encore! I get this awful feeling you're going to implode or something if your far fetched predictions don't come to pass.
As I've stated before there is really no point in going into a long detailed debate with you as you ignore factual data.
However it's not a waste of my time to occasionally try to pull you back toward reality.
Yes I admit it's a bit fun at times because you are soooooo out there.
Still in check.
Have a nice day.
Yes, I'm insane, jimmac. Keep thinking that.
I mean, IMAGINE. I ACTUALLY think that Saddam deserved what he got. I ACTUALLY think that we will or already have found WMD. I ACTUALLY think the President may have gotten bad intelligence. I ACTUALLY think the economy is turning around. I ACTUALLY think Bush is going to win in a landslide.
This may be a sign of things to come. John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, is one of the Bush administration's most hawkish hawks. Last year he caused a stir by claiming Cuba was developing biological weapons. He's also nearly blown the lid off northeast Asia a few times since he's been in office.
Bolton is generally understood to be the neo-cons' minder and advanced scout over in the wilds of the State Department.
In any case, he was slated to testify before a House International Relations Committee subcommittee Tuesday morning. But his testimony was cancelled at the last minute and then postponed until September. Bolton is something of a WMD maximalist. And when I heard about the cancelation Tuesday morning I was told it was because the White House had decided it didn't want to send him up to the Hill to face questions which would inevitably turn to Iraq and the intel iffiness.
According to this Knight Ridder article, that was clearly part of the issue. But there seems to have been more to it than that.
According to the article, Bolton was prepared to tell the subcommittee that "Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region." Sound familiar? Apparently it did to many at the CIA and other US intelligence agencies because they flew into something close to full revolt. Clearly, the career people in the intel community are feeling emboldened by the White House's recent Iraq embarrassments. The CIA alone compiled a list of "objections and comments" to Bolton's proposed testimony which ran more than 35 pages.
Is the Agency coming around on 'regime change' after all?
ricky ricardo a terrorist? say it ain't so!
Its ain't so. just another lunatic running his mouth off in the asylum.
I mean, IMAGINE. I ACTUALLY think that Saddam deserved what he got. I ACTUALLY think that we will or already have found WMD. I ACTUALLY think the President may have gotten bad intelligence. I ACTUALLY think the economy is turning around. I ACTUALLY think Bush is going to win in a landslide.
What a kook I am!
That's right SDW. We found WOMD already ( it was under Saddam's door mat ), Saddam's head is hanging in Dubbya's oval office, the media is criminal, and liberal, and Katie Couric is the evil genius she pretends not to be..........er..............lay back. Relax........er...........it'll be ok.
The very idea that some people think Bush would lie!............You just rest...........uh.............I'll be back soon. No really I will.
Oh! George already won the election! The criminal, liberal media just hasn't found a way to break it to the democrats. Yes, Dubbya decided to do away with the formality of a real election all together.
Isn't the world wonderful!
Now you just rest and don't let that nasty jimmac bother you with his......
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
but check out this bit from FAS Secrecy News
Quote:
Senator Levin noted, "Last Sunday, Ms. Rice said 'we have
never said that we thought he [Saddam] had nuclear weapons.' But Vice
President Cheney said on March 16 'we believe he [Saddam] has, in
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."]
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
'we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons'.
Rice (July):
Quote:
'we have
never said that we thought he [Saddam] had nuclear weapons.'
And Bush:
Quote:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power...
Comments
I've been saying this. There is no reason on this earth Blair would support a war which about 80% of his population opposed...unless that reason had to do with a threat to world security. Can you think of one? I can't.
giant:
I mean, what the hell does it take for some of you to get it? It wouldn't be surprising if Bush said 'martians took the wmd' and folks like sdw somehow figured out a way to fit it into their make-believe world views.
It just never stops with you. It really doesn't. The more you attempt to paint me as blindly partisan, the more you reveal yourself to be nothing but an anti-Bush zealot hell-bent on saying anything...and I mean *anything* to discredit the President whom you hate.
We all have questions about the WMD. So, let's cut the crap here giant. Please stop with your assinine attempts to make it seem as if I will believe anything that fits my world view. It's simply untrue. Of course I would like to know where the WMD is. I would like to know why we haven't found them. My point has remained and will remain this: There are other possible explanations for the "lack" of WMD....a lot of them. It is far too early to come to a conclusion on whether they were there or not. Most importantly, is WAY too early to make the large leap that "Bush lied". Is it possible? Sure. Do I think so? No. And it's not because I'm a Bush supporter, though I am. It's because there are a myriad of other possibilities here, including that the intelligence presented to the President was faulty. Or, Saddam may have (over five years) moved the weapons to another nation. He could have hidden them securely in a country the size of California. These are but a few of the possibilities.
So keep posting. Ignore all possibilitiies that don't fit YOUR view. We're all starting to see who the truly close-minded partisan is here.
Forgive me if I don't fly into liberal hysterics screaming "Where are the WMD?".
Originally posted by jimmac
More alternate reality drival.
Still in check ( what can you say ).
You really told me jimmac! Excellent! Well done! Encore!
On Bush and Blair:
I've been saying this. There is no reason on this earth Blair would support a war which about 80% of his population opposed...unless that reason had to do with a threat to world security. Can you think of one? I can't.
As much as the anti-war segment of the board likes to ignore it, Blair tried very hard to sell the humanitarian case for war and went to great lengths to attack Hussein's human rights record.
There are obviously reasons:
1) The US is the UK's best ally, and mostly vice versa.
2) Blair may have actually believed in the cause.
Most likely (like everything in life) a mix of the two.
Originally posted by SDW2001
So, let's cut the crap here giant.
I've been asking you to do that all along.
point has remained and will remain this: There are other possible explanations for the "lack" of WMD....a lot of them.
Nope. Iraq's weapons program is well documented. The war was sold on the idea that there was new information, which there wasn't, as Rumsfeld himself admitted. According to all information available, the weapons programs were abandoned.
Even disregarding the fact that the discontinuation of the weapons programs was well documented, we now know through occupation that there was no production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons since the inspection process removed Iraq's ability to do so.
So the only thing left is existing stocks. Well, every single thing that Iraq ever possessed with the exception of mustard gas is now degraded. Unavoidable FACT. So the only thing in the world you could possible accuse Iraq of having is a stock of mustard gas. The ONLY evidence whatsoever (look it up!) that Iraq would have ANY mustard gas left comes from one single document that cited different numbers for munitions expended during the war with Iran. The finding of a large previously undocumented buried cache of biolaogical agents outside of fort detrick here in the US this spring demonstrates clearly the inaccuracy of documentation.
There is no question as to where the weapons are. RTFM! which in this case refers to the UN reports.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You really told me jimmac! Excellent! Well done! Encore!
You are your own encore! I get this awful feeling you're going to implode or something if your far fetched predictions don't come to pass.
As I've stated before there is really no point in going into a long detailed debate with you as you ignore factual data.
However it's not a waste of my time to occasionally try to pull you back toward reality.
Yes I admit it's a bit fun at times because you are soooooo out there.
Still in check.
Have a nice day.
I've been asking you to do that all along.
The way in which you characterize things is laughable, as is the way in which you out and out LIE. Are you an attorney? I have to give you credit: You're good. Very good. Your point-of-view is obvious, though your fallacies are well-concealed. Let's take a look:
Nope. Iraq's weapons program is well documented.
By whom? The US? The Brits? Saddam? Show me. If it was well documented then the delcaration due on 12/7/2002 would have been complete. That is, unless saddam had domething to hide?
Verdict: Fallacy
The war was sold on the idea that there was new information, which there wasn't, as Rumsfeld himself admitted.
If part of a statement is false, then the entire statement is false. This is basic grammar school logic, giant. I can't recall where or when anyone said "New intelligence suggests..." or something to that effect...can you? And, I've already asked to define what "new" meant. 5 years? 10 years? A month? 60 days?
Verdict: Fallacy
Even disregarding the fact that the discontinuation of the weapons programs was well documented, we now know through occupation that there was no production of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons since the inspection process removed Iraq's ability to do so.
See above...first sentence.
Well documented? Really now? Show me, oh master of research in the New Yorker and Time Magazine. The whole point was that there WASN'T enoough documentation. There WASN'T enough cooperation. There WAS literally TONS of material unaccoutned for. Well documented? As far as production facilities, are you ready to call of the search? I say again: I thought we all wanted more time for the inspectors? I know, I know "But SDW, these facilities are so massive they WOULD have bene found by now". No. I don't think you understand the size of the country we are talking about here. I really don't. I'll tell you what. You give me five years to hide 6 trailers in California. I can go anywhere I want. I can even hide them in Nevada if I want. Or perhaps, I'll take them down to Mexico. Then, you go play hide and seek, taking care to check every secret underground facility. Oh, and make sure you bring your schematics with you because I might just ave disassembled them and hidden them in small pieces before you came.
Verdict: Lie
So the only thing left is existing stocks.
Unsupported.
Well, every single thing that Iraq ever possessed with the exception of mustard gas is now degraded. Unavoidable FACT.
"Every single thing. Every single thing. Every single thing." You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. Your statement is questionable in itself, because the las ttime I checked you are not a chemical weapons expert. Pardon me if I don;t take your word for it. Secondly, you incorrectly assume that there is no possibility of a current program. While it's possible that there was no current program, it's not a proven point either.
Verdict: Speculation
So the only thing in the world you could possible accuse Iraq of having is a stock of mustard gas. The ONLY evidence whatsoever (look it up!) that Iraq would have ANY mustard gas left comes from one single document that cited different numbers for munitions expended during the war with Iran. The finding of a large previously undocumented buried cache of biolaogical agents outside of fort detrick here in the US this spring demonstrates clearly the inaccuracy of documentation.
There is no question as to where the weapons are. RTFM! which in this case refers to the UN reports.
You're really showing your true colors now, giant.
Originally posted by jimmac
You are your own encore! I get this awful feeling you're going to implode or something if your far fetched predictions don't come to pass.
As I've stated before there is really no point in going into a long detailed debate with you as you ignore factual data.
However it's not a waste of my time to occasionally try to pull you back toward reality.
Yes I admit it's a bit fun at times because you are soooooo out there.
Still in check.
Have a nice day.
Yes, I'm insane, jimmac. Keep thinking that.
I mean, IMAGINE. I ACTUALLY think that Saddam deserved what he got. I ACTUALLY think that we will or already have found WMD. I ACTUALLY think the President may have gotten bad intelligence. I ACTUALLY think the economy is turning around. I ACTUALLY think Bush is going to win in a landslide.
What a kook I am!
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, I'm insane, jimmac.
That's the first step to recovery
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=3100641
some soilders are calling on rumsfield to resign.
Originally posted by giant
That's the first step to recovery
July 16th, 2003 -- 2:51 AM EDT // link)
This may be a sign of things to come. John R. Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, is one of the Bush administration's most hawkish hawks. Last year he caused a stir by claiming Cuba was developing biological weapons. He's also nearly blown the lid off northeast Asia a few times since he's been in office.
Bolton is generally understood to be the neo-cons' minder and advanced scout over in the wilds of the State Department.
In any case, he was slated to testify before a House International Relations Committee subcommittee Tuesday morning. But his testimony was cancelled at the last minute and then postponed until September. Bolton is something of a WMD maximalist. And when I heard about the cancelation Tuesday morning I was told it was because the White House had decided it didn't want to send him up to the Hill to face questions which would inevitably turn to Iraq and the intel iffiness.
According to this Knight Ridder article, that was clearly part of the issue. But there seems to have been more to it than that.
According to the article, Bolton was prepared to tell the subcommittee that "Syria's development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons had progressed to such a point that they posed a threat to stability in the region." Sound familiar? Apparently it did to many at the CIA and other US intelligence agencies because they flew into something close to full revolt. Clearly, the career people in the intel community are feeling emboldened by the White House's recent Iraq embarrassments. The CIA alone compiled a list of "objections and comments" to Bolton's proposed testimony which ran more than 35 pages.
Is the Agency coming around on 'regime change' after all?
ricky ricardo a terrorist? say it ain't so!
Its ain't so. just another lunatic running his mouth off in the asylum.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Yes, I'm insane, jimmac. Keep thinking that.
I mean, IMAGINE. I ACTUALLY think that Saddam deserved what he got. I ACTUALLY think that we will or already have found WMD. I ACTUALLY think the President may have gotten bad intelligence. I ACTUALLY think the economy is turning around. I ACTUALLY think Bush is going to win in a landslide.
What a kook I am!
That's right SDW. We found WOMD already ( it was under Saddam's door mat ), Saddam's head is hanging in Dubbya's oval office, the media is criminal, and liberal, and Katie Couric is the evil genius she pretends not to be..........er..............lay back. Relax........er...........it'll be ok.
The very idea that some people think Bush would lie!............You just rest...........uh.............I'll be back soon. No really I will.
Oh! George already won the election! The criminal, liberal media just hasn't found a way to break it to the democrats. Yes, Dubbya decided to do away with the formality of a real election all together.
Isn't the world wonderful!
Now you just rest and don't let that nasty jimmac bother you with his......
STILL IN CHECK!
PS. " The bells, The bells! "
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
but check out this bit from FAS Secrecy News
Senator Levin noted, "Last Sunday, Ms. Rice said 'we have
never said that we thought he [Saddam] had nuclear weapons.' But Vice
President Cheney said on March 16 'we believe he [Saddam] has, in
fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons'."
Thank the goddess it has returned to the white house.
Originally posted by giant
So not only did Bush try to rewrite history:
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."]
Best. Bushism. Evar.
Originally posted by giant
So not only did Bush try to rewrite history:
"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."
but check out this bit from FAS Secrecy News
Ooooh! Senator Levin!
Turn on ABC right now and tell me World News Tonight isn't liberally biased.
I did. They are not.
Turn on Foxnews or read your NYSun rag and tell me they are not conservatively biased.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[duh....wassat?]
Here, let me dumb it down so you can understand:
Cheney (March):
'we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons'.
Rice (July):
'we have
never said that we thought he [Saddam] had nuclear weapons.'
And Bush:
And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power...