# Wikileaks reveals WMDs



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 24, 2010)

Gotta love Wikileaks.



> By late 2003, even the Bush White Houses staunchest defenders were  starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass  destruction in Iraq. But for years afterward, WikiLeaks newly-released Iraq war documents  reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter  insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass  destruction.
> An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesnt reveal evidence of some massive WMD  program by the Saddam Hussein regime  the Bush administrations most  (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons,  especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of  Saddams toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War,  remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian)  agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict  and may  have brewed up their own deadly agents.
> In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic blister agent  used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the  liquid, and reported two positive results for blister. The chemical  was then triple-sealed and transported to a secure site outside their  base.
> Three months later,  in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a chemical weapons  complex. One of the bunkers has been tampered with, they write. The  integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems  someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.
> ...




WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq &#8211; With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com

Myabe Bush did lie to us after all, if you call keeping evidence that will exonerate him lying.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2010)

Yep, a real WMD capability there.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Oct 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, a real WMD capability there.


If US Forces would have found Nuclear Weapons there all you Libs would have said was:

"Bush put them there".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, a real WMD capability there.



I am pretty sure you have argued more than once that no WMDs were found in Iraq. Am I wrong?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 24, 2010)

I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.

You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative.  So two words for you: buh bye.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  *Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.*
> 
> You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative.  So two words for you: buh bye.


i'd like to see a source for that


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 24, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.
> 
> You are not a conservative, that's for sure, only a stupid reactionary, while I am a GOP moderate conservative.  So two words for you: buh bye.



If I did say anything like that I have since had a severe attack of amnesia. Not that I am calling you a liar or anything, but do you have any sort of evidence to back up your Bush quote? Most of the stories I have read said he planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. If those are true there would be no reason for him not to do so if there were no WMDs.

Since I never claimed to be a conservative, I do not mind not be called one. It will probably be a surprise to many liberals on this board that the resident conservative expert does not think i am a conservative, but I don't care. One thing I know for a fact, you are no more a moderate conservative than Bush is.


----------



## blu (Oct 24, 2010)

Mad Scientist said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a real WMD capability there.
> ...



fallacy


----------



## Care4all (Oct 24, 2010)

wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....

nuclear wmd's, yellowcake from africa kinda stuff...that was touted by the administration


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 24, 2010)

Care4all said:


> wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....
> 
> nuclear wmd's, yellowcake from africa kinda stuff...that was touted by the administration


ah, the "yellowcake from Africa" was not that he ACTUALLY got it, but that he TRIED to
and the facts found proved that he did, but was denied


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, a real WMD capability there.


With a LD50 of 0.24 mg/kg (VX toxicity) and a density similar to water, for example, not much is needed for mass destruction.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

> The  WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked  documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles  were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration  presented in the run-up to the war.



see, he had WMD! we were right! everything is good now.

tossfaces
​


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 25, 2010)

It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's. 

I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

Lumpy 1 said:


> It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.
> 
> I'm not surprised though..(an inconvenient truth... I suppose).



believing there might be something, and invading a country because you believe there might be something are not the same.

the little difference is the invasion.

an inconvenient truth, i suppose.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 25, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.
> ...



Yup...all the Democrats in Congress voted against funding it...

Or was it they got a yellow streak up their back and for political reasons, turned on the military and conveniently forgot how they voted before the election, then tried to de-fund the soldiers still fighting in the field of battle several times, insulted the military leaders just previous to the next election.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

Lumpy 1 said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



your cute act is more than stale.

and shifting the blame from perps to enablers does nothing for you.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 25, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Well.. I guess were getting nowhere..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.
> ...



I heard him on the TV as did millions of others.  This is common knowledge, so go look it up.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  *Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.*
> ...


Actually the claim was made by Rove in his book.

Rove on Iraq: Without W.M.D. Threat, Bush Wouldn't Have Gone to War - NYTimes.com

Karl Rove, the chief political adviser to President George W. Bush  and architect of his two successful campaigns for the White House, says  in a new memoir that his former boss probably would not have invaded  Iraq had he known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.


&#8220;Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,&#8221; he  writes. &#8220;Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force  resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself  would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about  regime change, and deal with Iraq&#8217;s horrendous human rights violations.&#8221;


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So, did GWB lie, or did Rove lie?


----------



## Ravi (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gotta love Wikileaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This isn't news. From what I recall, most of these things were reported on. And no, a few leftovers from the first Gulf War do not mean Saddam was any kind of threat to us or had a workable WMD program.

It was pretty clear that was the case when we all watched footage of the invasion.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Both, of course.
Bush about not knowing there were no WMD, and Rove about Bush not invading if he knew there were no WMD.

Author: Bush knew Iraq had no WMD - TODAY People - TODAYshow.com

                                                By Bob Considine                                
                           TODAYshow.com contributor                   TODAYshow.com contributor  
      updated      8/5/2008 919 AM ET

         President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the  CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of a  backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, an  explosive new book claims.     
      The charge is made in The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.
 Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials  who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that  Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book  relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later  with the  forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering  the U.S. rationale to go into war.




*Prelude to war 
*Suskind reports that the head of Iraqi intelligence, Tahir  Jalil Habbush, met secretly with British intelligence in Jordan in the  early days of 2003. In weekly meetings with Michael Shipster, the  British director of Iraqi operations, Habbush conveyed that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
 When Tenet was informed of the findings in early February, he said,  Theyre not going to like this downtown, Suskind wrote, meaning the  White House. Suskind says that Bushs reaction to the report was: Why  dont they ask him to give us something we can use to help make our  case?
 Suskind quotes Rob Richer, the CIAs Near East division head, as saying that the White House simply ignored the Habbush report and informed British intelligence that they no longer wanted Habbush as an informant.
 Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in  office. Nothing was going to stop that, Richer is quoted in the book.
 Suskind also writes that Habbush was resettled in Jordan with help from the CIA and was paid $5 million in hush money.




*The letter 
*On page 371 of The Way of the World, Suskind describes the White Houses  concoction of a forged letter purportedly from the hand of Habbush to  Saddam Hussein to justify the United States decision to go to war.
 Suskind writes: The White House had concocted a fake letter from  Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11  ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq   thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam  and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's office had been pressing  CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade.
 He continues: A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would  be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for  dissemination.
 CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations  Group, are both on the record in Suskinds book confirming the  existence of the fake Habbush letter.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


So, you posted lies to support what, exactly?


----------



## editec (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gotta love Wikileaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Chemical weapons are not WMDs.

Yeah I know that people call them WMDs but they're really not.

They're tactical weapons at best.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Ahhhhh, the patented CON$ervative Dumb Act.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


If trying to get a poster actually  to focus makes me dumb, so be it.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

yeah, i think it is time for a personal anecdote of an uncle who considers leftovers from decades ago WMD's. 

true story


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


I'm not the one who isn't focused. See the first quote in my sig.

DumbCon asked for a link to BUSH saying that if he knew there were no WMD he would not have invaded Iraq. I merely pointed out that it was not Bush who said it and it was Rove in his book. It was merely a point of information.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  *Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.*
> ...



Me too. I recall him saying very much the opposite.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

editec said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love Wikileaks.
> ...



Actually..most of the bio agents and chemical weapons they found were very old and might have well been forgotten by the Saddam Hussien's regime. They were basically pretty harmless.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



 You post what you call the lies of others to support a claim by another poster; then you start talking about Limbaugh.  You've lost me.  But, at this point, that's OK.  I am not on a need-to-know basis in this matter any longer.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 25, 2010)

Dems still insist that Uncle Saddam was a good and kind man


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dems still insist that Uncle Saddam was a good and kind man



Never heard that one. They did however, insist that Iraq was largely contained and not a threat.

And on that..they were correct.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Dang you are dense. I posted nothing in support of another poster, I merely pointed out it was ROVE not BUSH who said if Bush knew there were no WMD Bush would not have invaded Iraq. Only CON$ervative "logic" could spin that into I was SUPPORTING the poster who claimed Bush said it.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



On that..Rove is wrong. Bush was dead set on invading Iraq and alluded to as much during his Presidential campaign.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...





Sallow said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...


Exactly, and I pointed that out in an earlier post where, after being told by the CIA that there were no WMD, Bush had a letter fabricated to have an excuse to invade Iraq.


----------



## editec (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
Even if they'd been 100% effective they still aren't WMDS.

Its that pesky word MASS that makes pronoucing chemical weapons WMDs a misnomer.

WMDs have got to TRULY cause MASS destruction to fit into that catagory.

Right now the only thing that really fits the bill is nuclear weapons.

Biological weapons might, but (thank god) nobody has yet fielded one of those.

But chemical weapons?  _Nah!_

They have very limited ability to cause* mass* destruction since they're so damned hard to get into the field.

If you really want to destroy a city or village, its easier to do with standard ordinance than chemically.

And if you truly want to cause mass destruction there's nothing like a nuclear weapon.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



 A request was made for the source and you posted what you call lies.

Yeah, my sense of logic doesn't understand - at all - your attempt at some point.  And, when I asked, you talk about Limbaugh.  As I said, I am no longer in any need-to-know situation in this matter as I am unable to follow your logic.  Thanks for trying to explain, though.  



DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure that early on I said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, I have said that the Iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "The Syrians have it.  Invade Syria to find out."  This issue is a non-issue.  *Bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the WMDs were not there,he would not have invaded.*
> ...


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Unfortunately, the claim of harmless doesn't jibe with the chemistry of organophosphates.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Exactly, and I pointed that out in an earlier post where, after being told by the CIA that there were no WMD, Bush had a letter fabricated to have an excuse to invade Iraq.



While I think Bush lied in the SOTU, it was one of the "pushing the envelope" lies you could sort of back out of by saying the intel came from the brits. And given that the administration could have "snowflaked" a WMD..and didn't..I highly doubt Bush had a letter fabricated. There are plenty of con artist types around the world that would be more then happy to fabricate a letter to make a buck. Think Nigerian scams for cash. What did happen, in all likelyhood, is that they got one of these letters and held it up as valid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I thought it was Bush that I remembered saying it; however, check 

Rove: We Wouldn't Have Invaded Iraq if We Knew the Truth About ...Earlier this week, Karl Rove said that President Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he knew there were no WMD. In today's press briefing, Helen Thomas ...
www.allvoices.com/...wouldnt-have-invaded-iraq-if...wmds/blogs


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



compared to mushroom clouds, yeah the claim "pretty harmless" does very much jibe. but continue to miss the point, as usual.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



"Jibe" or not..they were definitely not weapons grade and really had no strategic or tactical value.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


When it comes to organophosphates, weapons grade is largely irrelevant in their ability to kill.


----------



## edthecynic (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, and I pointed that out in an earlier post where, after being told by the CIA that there were no WMD, Bush had a letter fabricated to have an excuse to invade Iraq.
> ...


Read this:

Author: Bush knew Iraq had no WMD - TODAY People - TODAYshow.com

                                                By Bob Considine                                
                           TODAYshow.com contributor                   TODAYshow.com contributor  
      updated      8/5/2008 919 AM ET

         President Bush committed an impeachable offense by ordering the   CIA to to manufacture a false pretense for the Iraq war in the form of  a  backdated, handwritten document linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda,  an  explosive new book claims.     
      The charge is made in The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind, released today.
 Suskind says he spoke on the record with U.S. intelligence officials   who stated that Bush was informed unequivocally in January 2003 that   Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, his book   relates, Bush decided to invade Iraq three months later  with the   forged letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam bolstering   the U.S. rationale to go into war.




*Prelude to war 
*Suskind  reports that the head of Iraqi intelligence, Tahir  Jalil Habbush, met  secretly with British intelligence in Jordan in the  early days of 2003.  In weekly meetings with Michael Shipster, the  British director of  Iraqi operations, Habbush conveyed that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programs and no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
 When Tenet was informed of the findings in early February, he said,   Theyre not going to like this downtown, Suskind wrote, meaning the   White House. Suskind says that Bushs reaction to the report was: Why   dont they ask him to give us something we can use to help make our   case?
 Suskind quotes Rob Richer, the CIAs Near East division head, as saying that the White House simply ignored the Habbush report and informed British intelligence that they no longer wanted Habbush as an informant.
 Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq from the very first days he was in   office. Nothing was going to stop that, Richer is quoted in the book.
 Suskind also writes that Habbush was resettled in Jordan with help from the CIA and was paid $5 million in hush money.




*The letter 
*On page 371 of The Way of the World, Suskind describes the White Houses   concoction of a forged letter purportedly from the hand of Habbush to   Saddam Hussein to justify the United States decision to go to war.
 Suskind writes: The White House had concocted a fake letter from   Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001. It said that 9/11   ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq    thus showing, finally, that there was an operation link between Saddam   and al-Qaeda, something the Vice President's office had been pressing   CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade.
 He continues: A handwritten letter, with Habbush's name on it, would   be fashioned by CIA and then hand-carried by a CIA agent to Baghdad for   dissemination.
 CIA officers Richer and John Maguire, who oversaw the Iraq Operations   Group, are both on the record in Suskinds book confirming the   existence of the fake Habbush letter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 25, 2010)

Personally, I would not have made Iraq the next stop in the war after Afghanistan, but I'm absolutely certain I do not have, and never will have, all the facts.

That said, many Dems consider the Tea Party a WMD


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 25, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Personally, I would not have made Iraq the next stop in the war after Afghanistan, but I'm absolutely certain I do not have, and never will have, all the facts.
> 
> That said, many Dems consider the Tea Party a WMD



a whiny moron distraction


----------



## American Horse (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, a real WMD capability there.



Of course there were WMDs.  The man used them. He only needed a delivery system however crude (... connect the dots ... ) and willig religious zealots to make them dangerous even to us.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 25, 2010)

It must be so... if it wasn't so, they wouldn't keep on showing stupid films of Americans killing Muslim terrorists. I strongly believe that the owners of Wikileaks should be rounded up and be given a CIA accident!!!

The main reason that I hate wikileaks is cos they are anti-Israel... and I am Jewish.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 25, 2010)

Good thread. I knew all along that Iraq had WMDs, cos they are the sort of people to have em.

My Indian friend reckons that Pakistan has WMDs, so we should nuke Pakistan.

Personally, I think we should nuke India too, cos they also have WMDs and are taking our jobs.


----------



## uscitizen (Oct 25, 2010)

Have wikileaks been accurate?


----------



## blu (Oct 25, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> Have wikileaks been accurate?



ignore trolls


----------



## California Girl (Oct 25, 2010)

blu said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Have wikileaks been accurate?
> ...



Who's lost a sock recently?


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> Good thread. I knew all along that Iraq had WMDs, cos they are the sort of people to have em.
> 
> My Indian friend reckons that Pakistan has WMDs, so we should nuke Pakistan.
> 
> Personally, I think we should nuke India too, cos they also have WMDs and are taking our jobs.


Your friend reckons that Pakistan has WMDs, eh?  I guess s/he got that info from those well-known insider sources such as the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc.  That's some resourceful pal you have there, dude.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

American Horse said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a real WMD capability there.
> ...



Yep, a real capability there for SH.  Study history, Horse.


----------



## Si modo (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## American Horse (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...




Jake, I will let history speak for me:

Bill Clinton: 2-17-98: 
&#8220;&#8230;Let there be no doubt we are prepared to act; But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow, simply by letting the weapons inspectors finish their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that, and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now.  One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise&#8230;&#8221;






_ *..... pray for us sinners, now, and in the hour of our death*_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

And you have shown no reason for an invasion of Iraq, Horse: none.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> And you have shown no reason for an invasion of Iraq, Horse: none.


just because you were ignorant and thought WMD was the only reason, doesn't mean the rest of us are as ignorant as you


----------



## Gunny (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gotta love Wikileaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gotta love lefties who will post wiki and polls when it suits them; otherwise, if they back the right you just lie your ass off about them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

Both sides do it, gunny, and neither side is right to do so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.
> ...



So true.

Isn't a good thing none of the Democratic Party leadership voted for the invasion of Iraq?

Oops, that would be the real inconvenient truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Common knowledge? Not in my universe.

Funny thing about making wild statements. The guy that makes them is the one that has to prove them, not the people who wonder what it is he is talking about.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



But, that can't be right. Jake just said he heard Bush say it, not that Rove said Bush say it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

editec said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love Wikileaks.
> ...



Yes they are.

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The point is not where I heard it, QWB, but the fact that Bush did say it, and the fact that Rove repeated it in his book.  That's what you can't deny.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

QWB, quit your lying.  You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception.  You have been exposed.

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.  

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

Your lies availeth you nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> QWB, quit your lying.  You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception.  You have been exposed.
> 
> (1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.
> 
> ...


wow, thats some massive projection


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

editec said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Really?

Biological weapons could potentially wipe a significant fraction of the world's population. I think that would qualify as mass destruction in anyone's book.

With a bit of ingenuity it is possible to make enough botulism toxin to wipe out a large city, the only real problem would be delivering it.

Besides, US policy clearly states that a WMD is a WMD, and we have always made it clear that we would retaliate in kind if one is used against us. Since we do not admit to developing either chemical or biological weapons we would respond to any attack using either with nuclear weapons.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



No.

The point is you claimed that you heard Bush say it, and that it is common knowledge. Rove is not Bush, and him saying that Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he knew there were no WMDs is not the same as you hearing Bush say it. Nor is it Rove saying Bush said it. He does not say that Bush said it, he just states that he would not have done it.

That is a complete failure on your part to prove anything you said. Thanks for playing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> QWB, quit your lying.  You are a poor excuse as a Weapon of Mass Deception.  You have been exposed.
> 
> (1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.
> 
> ...



Oh No

The Great JokeStarkey has proved nothing, and his brain is working in full denial mode. We all know what will happen next.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantam Wind Puffery, all of the posts in the world by you does not remove the facts that:

(1) Bush would not have invaded Iraq had he known about the absence of a WMD capability.  Both he and Rove have attested to that.

(2) A few chemistry labs do not make a WMD capability.

As a propaganda tool, you are nothing by a Weapon of Minuscule Deception.

Even bigrebnc is better than you at this, and he is laughable.

The fact that you have been proven wrong again but can't admit it means that you are both wrong and petty.  Move along, son, nothing here for you.


----------



## rdean (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gotta love Wikileaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Uh, let's see.  Bush said Iraq had WMDs.  People called him a liar.  Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar.  Because only he knew he wasn't lying.  That's why he was always smirking.  Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.


----------



## rdean (Oct 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



The American people believed the President and the Republicans.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


so the democrats were such idiots that someone you call stupid was able to fool them
LOL
yeah, run on that


and amazing how Bush was able to do this as Gov of TX too


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> Uh, let's see.  Bush said Iraq had WMDs.  People called him a liar.  Bush discovered WMDs but kept it a secret because he preferred that people call him a liar.  Because only he knew he wasn't lying.  That's why he was always smirking.  Because he knew people calling him a liar were wrong.



You got it.


----------



## American Horse (Oct 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love Wikileaks.
> ...



Bush did not respond because it would continue to be a distraction.  Had he mounted a defense he would've been hassled no end. He fixed a smile on his face, the adult thing to do, and relegated it to the past. Since when is it a personal flaw to smile privately to oneself? It just proves the left and their sophomoric pals in the lapdog press that perceive a "smirk" in a president's private smile and go all hysterical while he can remain unperturbed.  

He was a confident adult being harassed by a tribe of Lilliputians. That's why almost no one on the left can stand to see him simply be himself; they don't uderstand a completely confident man, being confident because he's satisfied he's doing the right thing.


----------



## rdean (Oct 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Zogby International

Referring to our soldiers going into Iraq according to a Le Moyne College/Zogby International Poll of the troops taken as they were entering Iraq:

Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam's role in 9/11

So are you calling our troops "stupid, idiots and fools"?  I just want you to be clear.  Is that what you are calling our troops?  Because they also believed Bush and the Republicans.


----------



## rdean (Oct 25, 2010)

American Horse said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Seriously, you don't really believe that bullshit do you?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


god damn you are a fucking idiot
i never said anything of the sort


----------



## American Horse (Oct 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I absolutely do.  You can't understand that because it's not a part of you to react the way Bush, did; - to never ever respond to the left's bullshit.  What he failed to take into account was that they, and people just like you would never relent.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 25, 2010)

A nuclear bomb could have gone off and the left would still be claiming that Bush lied.

There is no satisfying some people. No point continuing to argue over WMDs. There are some people which will do anything to excuse themselves.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> A nuclear bomb could have gone off and the left would still be claiming that Bush lied.
> 
> There is no satisfying some people. No point continuing to argue over WMDs. There are some people which will do anything to excuse themselves.


which is what Bush did when they didnt find the stockpiles


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



A pencil can kill others..in the right hands.

Still doesn't it make it a reason to attack a person carrying a pencil.


----------



## Sallow (Oct 25, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> A nuclear bomb could have gone off and the left would still be claiming that Bush lied.
> 
> There is no satisfying some people. No point continuing to argue over WMDs. There are some people which will do anything to excuse themselves.



There is a huge reason to argue over it. This war was prosecuted on the basis of a falsehood. There has been no accountability for that..none. And the tax payer has been left holding the bag.

There has been nothing to at least try to make sure this doesn't happen again.

So yeah..it needs to be pressed. And hard.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > A nuclear bomb could have gone off and the left would still be claiming that Bush lied.
> ...


how many fucking times do libs need to be told that the War in Iraq was NOT just about WMD before you fucking wake up and understand it?


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 25, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


It was also about this:


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 25, 2010)

yup
it was also about his support for terrorists


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You have to remember that rdean lives in an alternate universe where black is actually white. Anything that goes from this universe to that one goes through his head, so he sees things that do not happen in either world. If you get upset because he is confused it just makes him sure he is right, so enjoy the joke and let him think he he is right. It makes life a lot more amusing.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...



how clever, lumpy2.

the buck stops where? with the dems, of course.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> And you have shown no reason for an invasion of Iraq, Horse: none.



We invaded Iraq to punish the fuckers who laughed celebrated when the towers went down.

The best day of the war was that 1st day of bombing the living daylights out of the Iraqi fuckers. It was like Christmas and me and my friends watched Baghdad being blown up over a few crates of beer!

If people piss the UK, USA and Israel off, the terrorists must be prepared to accept the consequences.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > And you have shown no reason for an invasion of Iraq, Horse: none.
> ...




you are trying too hard.

you get better results by hiding behind dems, organophosphates and just saying saying.

and btw, the WMD are all in syria. 


hahahahhahaa


----------



## u2scram (Oct 26, 2010)

"Wikileaks reveals WMDs "

a sign of desperation that the repugs are now resorting to outright lies to try and justify the foolish decision to attack iraq.

its also an indication of the well known fact that the further to the right you are the more stupid you are.

its one thing for a double digit iq tea-bagger to believe that nonsense. but to actually expect anyone else to believe it require a rather quaint belief that your fellow man is as stupid and ignorant as you are.


----------



## editec (Oct 26, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


\
You didn't read that very thoroughly.



> However, there is an argument that *nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "**dirty bomb**" radiological weapons,* which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), *whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves*


*.*

Do remember that the designation Weapon of MASS destruction is the key to deciding.

No chemical weapons do not fit into the catagory of MASS destruction any more than normal ordanance, does.

I don't give a flying fig what other people call it, the name itself tells you what the weapon must be capable of doing.

*MASS *destruction.

Chemical weapons do not have that much potential.


----------



## britishbulldog (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> and btw, the WMD are all in syria.



Iraq hid some of its WMDs in Iran and Pakistan, which is why we need to nuke those two terrorist countries.

God Bless Israel.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Oct 26, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > and btw, the WMD are all in syria.
> ...



i think some suspicious isotopes are to be found under your kneecap.

i suggest drilling into it with a powertool, tool.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> britishbulldog said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...


i have a feeling this guy is nothing but a stormfront troll


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

To match the dive control tool?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Nor does it stop with the Republicans, which is my point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

The buck stops with George W. Bush, the then President of the United States.  Harry Truman would consider you a toid, Weapon of Minuscule Deception.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2010)

editec said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I read it completely. There is debate about where mass comes in. That does not change the fact that I can kill more people with a smaller chemical or biological payload than I can with a nuclear one. If you want to measure mass in property damage versus people killed, feel free, but i think people count for more.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The buck stops with George W. Bush, the then President of the United States.  Harry Truman would consider you a toid, Weapon of Minuscule Deception.



Now you are an expert on what dead people think. What next? Alien psychology?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 26, 2010)

You are an expert on nothing but a tool for anyone who points you in a certain direction.  That's what I mean about common sense and character.  You appear deficient in both.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 26, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are an expert on nothing but a tool for anyone who points you in a certain direction.  That's what I mean about common sense and character.  You appear deficient in both.


projections from jokey again


----------



## HinduPatriot (Oct 27, 2010)

britishbulldog said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > and btw, the WMD are all in syria.
> ...



I agree, Pakistan has the WMDs. We should nuke Pakistan.

But we should not nuke Iran, it is India's friend.

I am neutral on Israel. I do not mind if we nuke them or don't nuke them.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Oct 28, 2010)

My god you people are so stupid you make africans look like Einstein.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 29, 2010)

R.C. Christian said:


> My god you people are so stupid you make africans look like Einstein.



Racist much?


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 29, 2010)

edthecynic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...



^^ This.

No one ever disputed that Iraq contained some old, rotting traces of a defunct WMD program. Heck, we largely sold it to them. 20+ years prior.

But that's not what Powell lied about to the UN in early 2003. Gotta love pro-war con men, desperately twisting whatever angle they can find 7-8 years later for an argument long-since crushed.

Their heroes lied, yet their loyal little disciples have FAR too much invested at this point to ever admit they were wrong. Deny, deny, deny, deflect, spin, distort, extrapolate, pretend, fake.

Sorry, Bush Leaguers... You're not fooling anyone anymore.


----------



## HinduPatriot (Oct 29, 2010)

America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!

India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.


----------



## Marc39 (Oct 29, 2010)

HinduPatriot said:


> britishbulldog said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Iraq's WMD were transported to Syria.   Bomb Syria back into the Middle Ages.  Oh, that's right, they're already there.


----------



## Bonano (Oct 29, 2010)

HinduPatriot said:


> America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!
> 
> India will be willing to give the USA a list of targets. Here it is: All of Waziristan, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad.



US should nuke Pakistan and India, then blame it on each other. Fucking rags heads are dumb enough to fall for it.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 29, 2010)

Bonano said:


> HinduPatriot said:
> 
> 
> > America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!
> ...


just what we need, another racist asshole on this board


----------



## Bonano (Oct 29, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Bonano said:
> 
> 
> > HinduPatriot said:
> ...



Why not? Because India and Pakistan bring so much positivity to the world?


----------



## Charles_Main (Oct 29, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> > It always gets me how Democrats conveniently forget about their own Democrat Party Leaderships belief in WMD's.
> ...



Those same Democrats also voted to authorize the war. Another Inconvenient truth.


----------



## HinduPatriot (Oct 30, 2010)

Bonano said:


> HinduPatriot said:
> 
> 
> > America can make up for its phoney war against Iraq, by attacking a country which actually has WMDs... PAKISTAN is next !!
> ...



Haha. Nah, this one is better: India bombs American bases in Afghanistan and blames it on the Pakistani Taliban.

This way the USA takes decisive military action against the Pakistani fuckers.

The fucking rednecks are dumb enough to fall for it.


----------



## Bonano (Oct 30, 2010)

HinduPatriot said:


> Bonano said:
> 
> 
> > HinduPatriot said:
> ...



How is India going to bomb shit in Afghanistan? Drop it on them from a rickshaw?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

So, basically... there was no WMD program, he didn't kill everyone who had any knowledge of the subject, and- shockingly- not every last item was destroyed?

Oh, and after we invaded they desperately tried to use what they could still find or brew anything they could?


That about sum it up?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

editec said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta love Wikileaks.
> ...




When machine guns came out, they were considered weapons of mass destruction. So, too tanks and bunker busters.

He had nothing we needed to be afraid of.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

American Horse said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a real WMD capability there.
> ...


He was working with the Hutaree?


----------



## hipeter924 (Oct 30, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Lumpy 1 said:
> ...


And the war in Vietnam. 
And democrats well before them supported the Jim Crow laws and slavery. 
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_republican.html


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Since when does America give a fuck about a bunch of dead brown people?

We didn't give a crap about the Kurds anymore than we gave a shit about the Tusis. 

Just ask the Jews how much we cared about a bunch of non-WASPs before someone bombed us.


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> yup
> it was also about his support for terrorists


?

You mean he supported the Pinochet coup? He trained the Muhajadeen? 


Oh wait... that was us...


What were you saying again?


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


He made pappa look bad


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > yup
> ...


most of the people we trained became the northern alliance, and we did NOT work with Bin Laden at all


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Much of whom we worked with became the muhajadeen, and much of that became Taliban.  Quit being a fauxconservative brownnoser, divecon.  You are right there with your ass buddy Dr. House.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Much of whom we worked with became the muhajadeen, and much of that became Taliban.  Quit being a fauxconservative brownnoser, divecon.  You are right there with your ass buddy Dr. House.


you are a fucking moronic idiot who is totally devoid of fact and honesty


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

You, in other words, can't refute what I am saying.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You, in other words, can't refute what I am saying.


you cant prove what you are saying


----------



## Solace (Oct 30, 2010)

The liberation of Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom) was justified after all, not that I ever had any doubts. Not only did we free their people and put an end to genocide, but we also found chemical weapons and it turns out that Saddam Hussein was working on a WMD program after all.



> By late 2003, even the Bush White House&#8217;s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
> 
> But WikiLeaks&#8217; newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> ...



WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq &#8211; With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Course I can, bud.  It's a beautiful day outside.  In a moment, I am going to sit in the gazebo and enjoy the woods, and have a glass of wine.  I love high autumn.  Chill for a while, dive.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 30, 2010)

They don't care. In fact, as in the other threads on this topic, you will see people either

a) ignoring it, or
b) trying to explain why these WMDs aren't really the WMDs we were looking for.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Course I can, bud.  It's a beautiful day outside.  In a moment, I am going to sit in the gazebo and enjoy the woods, and have a glass of wine.  I love high autumn.  Chill for a while, dive.


i'm always chill, you fucking moron

you cant prove it because it ISNT true


----------



## Solace (Oct 30, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> They don't care. In fact, as in the other threads on this topic, you will see people either
> 
> a) ignoring it, or
> b) trying to explain why these WMDs aren't really the WMDs we were looking for.



They being the American people or users of this forum?


----------



## mal (Oct 30, 2010)

There were 109 Facilites that were Locked and Sealed by the UN that had Banned Long Range Missiles and WMD...

By the time were done playing footsies with the French at the UN and we Finally Invaded, those Facilities had been Emptied...

Google it.

They aren't "Never Existed"... They are Fucking MISSING.



peace...


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 30, 2010)

Does this mean that Bush wasn't really an asshole like all the liberals claim?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 30, 2010)

Solace said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't care. In fact, as in the other threads on this topic, you will see people either
> ...


liberals. non-thinkers and Bush haters.

Look, this is not news. Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds  by the village. Over one million Kurds in the North of Iraq were killed are permanently affected by nerve gas and other WMD's.
one of the main reaosns why WMD's ( BTW Both Bush AND Clinton stated they belived Iraq had WMD's) were so hard to find is that because Hans Blix was incompetent or he was being paid off...Meanwhile, Hussein's Republican Guard was busily moving stocks around while UN Inspectors were being told where to go and where they could go.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

The extreme wacks are exposed by their evidence such as this: "These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.&#8221;

This is why folks like Solace and Avatar431 are given no consideration.


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> most of the people we trained became the northern alliance, and we did NOT work with Bin Laden at all



This is demonstrably false. Do you really wanna open yourself up to that? The evidence that bin Laden was a CIA asset is glacier like. If you could avoid the vitriol for once, I'd be happy to engage you in that debate. 

Ready? If not, retract your statement please.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > most of the people we trained became the northern alliance, and we did NOT work with Bin Laden at all
> ...


no, it isnt
short of nutter conspiracy sites


----------



## mal (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The extreme wacks are exposed by their evidence such as this: "These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.
> 
> This is why folks like Solace and Avatar431 are given no consideration.



JokeSnarky... 109 Facilites... Locked and Sealed by the UN just Prior to our Invasion...

Empty once we got to them...

God Damned Son-of-Bitch-Bastard Frogs and our Absurd Need to Entertain their Shittiness...



peace...


----------



## rdean (Oct 30, 2010)

Gawd you guys are dumb.

If there were these WMD's, Bush would have been crowing from the roof of the White House.  He didn't.  What does that tell you?

Give it up.  We were all tricked by Bush and the Republicans.  

Iraq

The economy

the Katrina aftermath

Ignoring Enron

Spending

No bid contracts

The energy policy

The drugs for votes bill

Moving jobs to China

Bush and the Republicans squat on this country and especially the Middle Class.  That's the REAL story.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 30, 2010)

Solace said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't care. In fact, as in the other threads on this topic, you will see people either
> ...



They being the latter.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The extreme wacks are exposed by their evidence such as this: "These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.
> 
> This is why folks like Solace and Avatar431 are given no consideration.



Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

mal said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The extreme wacks are exposed by their evidence such as this: "These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.&#8221;
> ...



Love you, Mal and Avitar, but you got it wrong.  The Frogs are allies, the Iraqis are not, and you had best re-read your history.  Don't twist your facts to fit your theories.  Adjust the facts to fit the theories.  That is called critical thinking.  Bush would have told us if WMDs were found, doncha think?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 30, 2010)

mal said:


> There were 109 Facilites that were Locked and Sealed by the UN that had Banned Long Range Missiles and WMD...
> 
> By the time were done playing footsies with the French at the UN and we Finally Invaded, those Facilities had been Emptied...
> 
> ...



"In its May 22, 2004 edition, the New York Times confirmed a myriad of reports on Saddam's nuclear fuel stockpile - and revealed a chilling detail unknown to weapons inspectors before the war: that Saddam had begun to partially enrich his uranium stash.

The Times noted:

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, . . . . holds more than 500 tons of uranium . . . . Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium."

Thomas B. Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the Times that "the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions."

"A country like Iran," Mr. Cochran said, "could convert that into weapons-grade material with a lot fewer centrifuges than would be required with natural uranium."

Saddam's 500-ton Uranium Stockpile


All available intelligence data, from every nation that contributed same, as well Democrats such as President Clinton informed the policy.

Even Joe Wilson, who fabricated the NYTimes Op-Ed where he claimed there was no yellow cake connection, agreed that Iraq had sent agents for purchase in Chad, thus contributed to the data.

Data informs policy.


"The famous 16 words in President Bushs Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain."
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from a number of intelligence reports, a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. 
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bushs 16 words a lie, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. "

FactCheck.org: Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

PC's nonsense is answered in #9 above.  And, PC, once again you mistake the role of the use of fact.  Reputable thinkers don't twist facts to fit theories, but that is what you do.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 30, 2010)

rdean said:


> Gawd you guys are dumb.
> 
> If there were these WMD's, Bush would have been crowing from the roof of the White House.  He didn't.  What does that tell you?
> 
> ...


Yes, The President of the United States has the power to order business to move jobs to another country....Now, who is being stupid?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)

Only the hyper-left internet k00ks think there were never WMD's in Iraq.............the rest of the world, including most high level Dem leaders publically stated they were there............its not even debatable.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

That makes Bush a "hyper-left internet" kook, according to you, silly one.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)

I love this forum............several reasons to get giddy every single fcukking day!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



dive, you are the nutter conspiracy case on this, and if you push it, you will lose badly.  Just sneak away.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Indeed, you are giddy and gay.  Not that that is a bad thing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


wrong again, jokey
there is no credible evidence that Bin Laden had any connections with the CIA


----------



## JBeukema (Oct 30, 2010)

That, Dive, is what makes it so incredible that they pulled it off.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)

Talk about a bad week for the k00ks..............1) Its election week 2) Study comes out linking a gene in the brain and liberals ie: mental disorder 3) WMD's found.








And Sarah Palin still causes mental meltdowns.............


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> PC's nonsense is answered in #9 above.  And, PC, once again you mistake the role of the use of fact.  Reputable thinkers don't twist facts to fit theories, but that is what you do.



Joe Wilson's famous trip to Niamey notwithstanding, *intelligence analysts generally accept that Iraq made overtures to Niger about purchasing "yellow cake" uranium in 1999. *This conclusion has been *endorsed by both the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq War intelligence and by the British Butler Report*. To the best of our knowledge, then, *the "16 words" were in fact true. *It is not known, on the other hand, whether any deal was actually concluded. As so happens, however, whether or not Iraq obtained uranium from Niger in or after 1999, the inference that the Iraqi nuclear program could not have *posed a threat *without its having done so is not only obviously problematic on logical grounds -- it is also demonstrably false. 

It is* well known and well documented that Iraq already possessed some 500 hundred or so tons of "yellow cake" uranium, most of it imported from Portugal and Niger in the early 1980s. (See here, for example, under "yellow cake inventory," from a 1991 IAEA report.) *It is, above all, *this fact that has been made to disappear *from public view by the theatrics surrounding the "16 words." It is worth noting in this connection that the forged documents that were used, along with the Wilson trip, to discredit the administration's arguments reportedly referred to a purchase of some 500 tons of yellow cake: i.e. around the size of Iraq's actual yellow cake stocks. This curious detail *suggests that the obfuscation was not accidental.* In any case, if Iraq was interested in enriching uranium for weapons use -- which would have been the purpose of importing unenriched "yellow cake" -- it already had *ample stocks *on hand for doing so.
WPR Article | 16 Words, 500 Tons and 28 Kilograms: the Iraqi Nuclear Program Revisited

"This curious detail *suggests that the obfuscation was not accidental."
So, the leftists tried to muddy the waters so that the easily led, and not-too-bright are fooled.

See, Jakey, that's where you come in....*


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

WPR?  The online presence that is "balanced and thoughtful" like FoxNews is "fair and balanced"

You just proved my point.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> That, Dive, is what makes it so incredible that they pulled it off.


ah, the lack of evidence is the proof

NOW i see it

LOL


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Dweebcon, you have to prove that they are there when the invasion went off.  That's the proof you lack.  If they were, you know your master Bush would have told you in great detail.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 30, 2010)

From the OP:

*An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesnt reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime  the Bush administrations most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq....*

I love it when posters refute themselves in the first post of their thread.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 30, 2010)

Bush eventually admitted there were no WMD's.  When he retracts that, this fairy tale might rise to the level of debatable.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dweebcon, you have to prove that they are there when the invasion went off.  That's the proof you lack.  If they were, you know your master Bush would have told you in great detail.


what the fuck are you rambling about now?
my posat had NOTHING to do with WMD, it was refering to the connections of bin laden to the CIA you fucking idiot


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Dweebcon, to prove the WMDs were there, you have to find them.  No one has.  The government would be announcing from the roof tops of all America.  Never happened.  Thus . . . .


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Dweebcon, to prove the WMDs were there, you have to find them.  No one has.  The government would be announcing from the roof tops of all America.  Never happened.  Thus . . . .


dipshiot, fuck off
i wasnt talking about WMD you fucking MORON


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Yeah, you were.  Let's see you get  yourself out of this one.  It is fun to watch you wriggle like a fish on a hook.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 30, 2010)

Wait...

So do we like wikileaks again now?

Did they tooootally redeem themselves?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Paulie, for most Americans I think, wikileaks is like judicial activism.  If they guys agree with you, they are good; if not, they are bad.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yeah, you were.  Let's see you get  yourself out of this one.  It is fun to watch you wriggle like a fish on a hook.


you are a moron
fuck off


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

You are projecting again, divedweeb.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> You are projecting again, divedweeb.


dipshit, this is what happens when people dont QUOTE who they are responding to
morons like YOU lose track of the conversation


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Describing yourself, divedweeb.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

the post i made


DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


my reply to JB about that post


DiveCon said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > That, Dive, is what makes it so incredible that they pulled it off.
> ...


then you come in stating this


JakeStarkey said:


> Dweebcon, you have to prove that they are there when the invasion went off.  That's the proof you lack.  If they were, you know your master Bush would have told you in great detail.





DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Dweebcon, you have to prove that they are there when the invasion went off.  That's the proof you lack.  If they were, you know your master Bush would have told you in great detail.
> ...


game set match, jokey is a fucking retarded moron


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Nope, divedweeb, you lost the entire game.  The WMDs were not there when the invasion went off.  That is what your side of neo-cons have to prove and you can't.  End of discussion.

Now, really, stay on track.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Nope, divedweeb, you lost the entire game.  The WMDs were not there when the invasion went off.  That is what your side of neo-cons have to prove and you can't.  End of discussion.
> 
> Now, really, stay on track.


again, moron, the conversation i was in had NOTHING TO DO WITH WMD


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

Says you now. . . hmmm, divedweeb?


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Says you now. . . hmmm, divedweeb?


then you wonder why everyone dismisses your input


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)

Holy shit..........this thread has grown X 10 in about 2 hours!!!

The lefty internet k00ks always fall all over themselves trying to discredit this stuff...............when the irony is........the whole damn world and everyones brother has always known WMD's were there in Iraq. Deep down, these people know they are mental cases and they know shit like this exposes them like shitforbrains standing in the middle of Siberia yelling "FIRE!!!".

One will always  note that threads like this become epic threads in a matter of hours.

The reason...............is clear.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yep, a real WMD capability there.





*ONE* well placed Sarin device can kill 25,000+, is that capability enough for you?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a real WMD capability there.
> ...






West bro...........the dumbass lives in fcukking Bumfook, USA!!! Never has to spend one day of his life worried about a WMD!! Unless we are to think the terror bad guys will target the local cornfield!!!


----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So, as usual, you just run your mouth as assert an easily crushed premise as fact, and refuse to agree to a direct challenge.

White flag accepted, coward.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


still waiting for your proof from reliable sources


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2010)




----------



## JiggsCasey (Oct 30, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JiggsCasey said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Finally you accept. If you just said so in the first place, rather than duck it, you unrivaled tool.

Michael Powelson of the Russian journal Demokratizatsiya:

_    It is difficult to believe that the United States played no role in the operations of the son of one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, it is much more likely that the United States knew full-well of bin Laden's operation and gave it all the support they could._​
BBC article: "Al-Qaeda's origins and links":

_During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.​_
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2006:

_Bin Laden apparently received training from the CIA, which was backing the Afghan holy warriors &#8211; the mujahedeen &#8211; who were tying down Soviet forces in Afghanistan.​_
Larry King interview with Prince Bandar:
_
*Bandar bin Sultan: *This is ironic. In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?

*Larry King:* How ironic. In other words, he came to thank you for helping bring America to help him.

*Bandar bin Sultan: *Right.​_
So please STFU. ...  You routinely show you have no idea what you're ever talking about.

If you like, I got plenty more.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 30, 2010)

JiggsCasey said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > JiggsCasey said:
> ...


i said "reliable sources"
fail


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, a real WMD capability there.
> ...



Yep, we were forever worried about it in West Germany in the Fulda Gap.  However, that was the commies, and you are talking about the guy who had dismantled his system.  The question is not if he had it, but how our intelligence system failed, and the neo-cons used that to invade a 3rd-world military power.  Another question is the role that Cheney played in that failure.  The failed leftist neo-cons ideologues never should have been advising Bush.


----------



## westwall (Oct 30, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...







I guess you forget the Japanese Sarin attack huh...

Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway

Or the fact that a complex plan was carried out that resulted in a 75% hit rate of airliners into high value targets some time back in 2001.

Or the fact that 500 tons of low grade uranium (which can be made into high grade uranium) was taken from Iraq after the fact?

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says - CNN

The fact remains that WMDs and material to make them WERE found in Iraq.  No amount of sniveling or blaming "neo-cons" for the invasion, or whining about it will change the fact that they were there.  Maybe not in the amount that would impress a biased person like you, but enough that if it had been used the results would (please note I don't use the term "could") have been catastrophic, far more deadly than 9/11.

You should hope that no one, technically inclined or not, gets their hands on a WMD and uses it properly.

The Jordanians almost got to find out what would have happened, estimates run to 55,000 casualties would have resulted.

Jordan says major al Qaeda plot disrupted - CNN

So go ahead and bury your head in the sand, it seems to like it there.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2010)

West, very weak red herrings.  The question is whether tthe Iraqis had it at the time we invaded.  They did not.  That's the point.  The point is why our military intelligence failed.  And if you are the type of quality defending the failed administration, then you have lost this argument in your first post.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> West, very weak red herrings.  The question is whether tthe Iraqis had it at the time we invaded.  They did not.  That's the point.  The point is why our military intelligence failed.  And if you are the type of quality defending the failed administration, then you have lost this argument in your first post.






They certainly had no weapons ready.  However there have been at least 50 chemical shells found for the G-6 155 howitzers they had.  They also clearly had the ability to fill those shells.  So yes they did have WMDs available.  We are just fortunate that they chose not to use them.  Also the fact that 500 tons of uranium that was sent to Canada also disproves the contention that they had none...or are you saying the uranium showed up after Saddam was deposed?

And I am most certainly not defending Bush.  His administration was very poor, but Obama's is proving to be even worse.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> [
> 
> They certainly had no weapons ready.  However there have been at least 50 chemical shells found for the G-6 155 howitzers they had.  They also clearly had the ability to fill those shells.  So yes they did have WMDs available.  *His administration was very poor, but Obama's is proving to be even worse.*




1) so where were the WMDs
2) Even if they did have them, how were they an 'immediate threat' to the US? ie, how was the means of delivery?
3) Did Sadman even give a shit about the US or wish to do it harm.
4) The bold part - bullshit. History will show Dumbya was one of the worst - if not the worst - president in US history.
5) Obama is doing Ok...not brilliant, but ok...10 times better than the moron he took over from...


----------



## rdean (Oct 31, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Gawd you guys are dumb.
> ...



If they give those companies subsidies and tax breaks, then yes, they do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > West, very weak red herrings.  The question is whether tthe Iraqis had it at the time we invaded.  They did not.  That's the point.  The point is why our military intelligence failed.  And if you are the type of quality defending the failed administration, then you have lost this argument in your first post.
> ...



The verdict on Obama regarding national security is out.  There certainly has been nothing remotely like 9-11.  If the Iraqis had the capacity to fill the shells, they would have.  They did not.  We did not have a capacity to deliver them.  If the 500 tons of uranium was in Canada, then it was not in Iraq.  Your argument is not convincing at all.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...






If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country.  they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month.  

The means of delivery close range would be the G-6 which can launch a 155 projectile over 45 km.  Long range would be the SCUD missile which as was seen in the war was capable of reaching most of the middle east.

Actually yes he did.  Or did you forget the launch of the Exocet missiles against the USS Stark by an Iraqi fighter way back in 1987?

Maybe.  Like I stated I am no fan of Bush.  Senior or Junior.  But Obama is certainly giving them a run for their money.  I told my wife when he was elected, he would be either one of the very best presidents we would ever have or one of the worst.  So far it is looking like the one of the worst.

How do you figure?  If you're a lib and want to be taken care of cradle to grave, then yes he is certainly your man.  On the other hand if you are an adult and like to think and do for yourself, then no he is awful and making this country into a ghost of its former self.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2010)

No, they are not to "If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country. they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month."  You are as mindless at Revere.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...






Try reading the CNN article Jake.  The 500 tons was shipped from Iraq TO canada.  Obama is not responsible for national security any more than Bush was.  that is the responsibility of our intel services and the military.  It is the administrations job to make sure they have the ability to do their jobs.  So far both have been wanting.

The Iraqi's clearly had the ability to fill them.  There is no doubt of that.  they chose not to do so.  Probably because they realised that if they used them on us they, and their families, would have been wiped off the face of the planet.

Your argument is nonexistent as you clearly know nothing of what you are speaking.  Read the articles, read the wikileaks releases and then get back to us when you have something to share.


----------



## Dr Grump (Oct 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country.  they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month.
> 
> The means of delivery close range would be the G-6 which can launch a 155 projectile over 45 km.  Long range would be the SCUD missile which as was seen in the war was capable of reaching most of the middle east.
> 
> ...



1) Where was the USS Stark parked? New York Harbour? Long Beach? Pearl Harbour. Just because you're in THEIR neighbourhood, doesn't mean that the US was in danger in any way, shape or form. The 'factories' were no longer a threat. Sadman was a sabre rattler who wouldn't do jack shit. He was a ruthless totalitarian dictator, not a person who had a death wish. He was smart enough to know taking on the US was a suicide mission, and he was smart enough not to do so.

2) A society is judged by the way it treats it's most vulnerable citizens. Conservatives make out that most people on food stamps or need help are lazy, good for nothing layabouts. While there are people who certainly fit into that category, the vast majority do not. Most people I know who have fallen on hard times HATE handouts and feel very bad about it. I believe in the social safety net at the bottom of the cliff, not a hammock. All Obama is doing is trying to look after the most vulnerable. If you guys could get past the generic, sound-bite politics that infest your country, you will find what he is doing goes a little more deeper than soembody wanting to be 'taken care of from the cradle to the grave'. 

3) Your country is becoming a ghost of its former self because you had CEO's of money institutions earning 10s of millions of dollars with no regulations to reel them in when they started doing dodgy deals. And what happened when these finacial institutions collapsed and it was suggested more regulation was needed? They screamed blue murder and still demanded their bonuses. And do you think these guys earning all these monies are liberals? Doubtful. Your GoP screwed the pooch, and like every other conservative hypocrite the world over that demand people take responsibility for their actions, refuse to take responsibility for their own..

Go sell your medicine to some other poor saps...I ain't buying...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Westwall, you can't make a sensible discussion out of your material.  Sorry, that's the way it is.  I certainly know that you are screwing the evidence on this.  Your conclusions are _non sequiturs_.

The simplest argument is that the dog did not bark.  If the Iraqis had WMDs, the government would have barked all night.

Now I leave the field to you, and bid you a good night.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


keep proving yourself a fucking idiot
its very funny
you should be on TBS


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2010)

As usual, divedweeb, you have nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> As usual, divedweeb, you have nothing.


as usual, you are projecting your own faults


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2010)

It is too nice a night to quarrel with divedweeb.  Dweeb you are on your own with Dweeb2.  See ya tomorrow.


----------



## DiveCon (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> It is too nice a night to quarrel with divedweeb.  Dweeb you are on your own with Dweeb2.  See ya tomorrow.


jokey, you are one of the most pathetic idiots on this board
and thats saying something
i hope that one day you grow up and realize it before you get any worse


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > If you would care to rea the wikileaks revelations they were all over the country.  they are finding WMD production facilities almost every month.
> ...






The Stark was in international waters.  The factories so long as they exist are a threat.  Saddam poisoned tens of thousands of Kurds and fought a 10 year war with Iran, and invaded Kuwait,  so your contention he was merely a sabre rattler is not born out by fact.
He also continuously violated the UN orders (and fired at US aircraft) while Clinton was pres or have you forgotten that too?

Why is it then that conservative areas ALLWAYS give more to charity then liberal areas?  There have been many studies carried out and here is a link to a story about one of them. 
Guess what conservatives are FAR more charitable then liberals.  Liberals are only charitable with other peoples money...not their own.

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...s-out-conservatives-really-are-compassionate/

Here I agree with you.  The executive compensation levels are ridiculous.  Especially for those who have failed.  If you need a government bailout there is no Earthly reason for you to get a frikin bonus.  Those are for people who did something good for the company.  I was absolutely outraged when Barney Frank made sure the bailout funds would be able to be used for bonuses.  What a complete asshole.  Any politician (of whatever party) who voted for that dreck should be in jail.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...







I hate to tell you Jake old chum...if you can't understand what I am writing that is on you pardner...not me.  I suggest a remedial English class..it will do you some good.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

We all understand what you are about, Westwall, I think.  No, the Iraqis did not have WMDs, if they did they did not have the capacity to deliver them, and everything you have written in defense of your positions molders in ruins, just like all those readytogo WMD labs throughout Iraq.

Your argument is the type that history and government instructors love to post in Discussions. so the silly neo-con arguments can be shown not only incorrect in questions and answer but nefarious in intent as well.


----------



## Bonano (Nov 1, 2010)

Of course there were WMDs in Iraq, the merruccans had tons and weren't afraid to use them either! 

Anyways, the Iraqis wouldn't have wasted them on the US, they would have lobbed them at Israel or Iran.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2010)

Bonano, _et al,_

This is not even close.



Bonano said:


> Of course there were WMDs in Iraq, the merruccans had tons and weren't afraid to use them either!
> 
> Anyways, the Iraqis wouldn't have wasted them on the US, they would have lobbed them at Israel or Iran.


*(COMMENT)*

But there will always be those that "have to believe" that WMD was an issue.

The battlefield remnants found were not the weapons or programs the Administration was looking for or discussed in pre-war media ramps.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

divecon said:


> jakestarkey said:
> 
> 
> > i am sure that early on i said that, and then later, when small labs or whatever, i have said that the iraqi programs had been generally ended.  I am sure you said, "the syrians have it.  Invade syria to find out."  this issue is a non-issue.  *bush himself has said that if he had flatly known that the wmds were not there,he would not have invaded.*
> ...



+1


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

And Karl Rove in his book said it as well, guys.  You have lost this one, flat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission  Such a strange brain of Bush.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission  Such a strange brain of Bush.



Once again, where does he say that he wouldn't have invaded, had he believed Hussein had no WMD?

This is what Pres. Bush said.

Text Of Bush Iraq Speech To U.N. - CBS News

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped  by the might of coalition forces, and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities and to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear: to him, and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge  be his deceptions, and by his cruelties  Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities  which, the Council said, "threaten(ed) international peace and security in the region."

This demand goes ignored. Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating, burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands; children in the presence of their parents  all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.
I
n 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary-General's high-level coordinator of this issue reported that Kuwaiti, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for  more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.I

n 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded the Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.


United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

And in 1995  after four years of deception  Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program  weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that could inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and arms his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N. inspectors before ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, "condemning" Iraq's "serious violations" of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that demand in 1994 and twice more in 1996, "deploring" Iraq's "clear violations" of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing "flagrant violations" and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior "totally unacceptable." And in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it has been almost four years since the last U.N. inspectors set foot in Iraq  four years for the Iraqi regime to plan and build and test behind a cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in the country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic and the facts lead to one conclusion. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.Delegates to the General Assembly: We have been more than patient. We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of "oil for food" and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbid, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the U.N. to be effective and respected and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Right now these resolutions are being unilaterally subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and unconditionally forswear, disclose and remove or destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans and others  again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues

as required by the Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis  a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty and internationally supervised elections.The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people, who have suffered for too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it and the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, and Kuwait in 1990. He has fired ballistic missiles at Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in Northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council on a new resolution to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately and decisively to hold Iraq to account. The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced  the just demands of peace and security will be met  or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.
Events can turn in one of two ways.

If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully, dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom and isolated from the progress of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. Delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand as well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

That he would not have invaded has been documented.

You don't like it, neo-con weirdos: who cares?  Truth is truth, and you don't have it.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

The 2nd in command of Hussein's air force and the chief of Israeli counter intelligence said it was moved to Syria. 

A good chunk was probably looted too.

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says - December 15, 2005 - The New York Sun


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> That he would not have invaded has been documented.
> 
> You don't like it, neo-con weirdos: who cares?  Truth is truth, and you don't have it.



No it hasn't. I just posted the text of why he invaded.

He gave numerous reasons.

Notice that I posted the entire speech, which makes it in context.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

Karl Rove has said that Bush would not have invaded.  No WMDs were found.  The evidence for removal to Syria is unverifiable, merely the whinings of people trying to save their lives, and no one of creditability in Israeli intelligence said any such thing based on solid evidence.

The truth, as always, is not in the neo-cons.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Karl Rove has said that Bush would not have invaded.  No WMDs were found.  The evidence for removal to Syria is unverifiable, merely the whinings of people trying to save their lives, and no one of creditability in Israeli intelligence said any such thing based on solid evidence.
> 
> The truth, as always, is not in the neo-cons.



Duh. Hussein had months to get rid of the weapons since the US made it pretty clear that they were going to invade.

Also, there were WMD found in Iraq.

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq - U.S. Senate - FOXNews.com

_Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."_


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

No, CMike, you are a wierdo neo-con who has lost this argument years ago.  You sound like a ninny.  Let it go.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

Lol you are funny


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> That he would not have invaded has been documented.
> 
> You don't like it, neo-con weirdos: who cares?  Truth is truth, and you don't have it.






All you have are insults.   Have fun blabbering to yourself.


----------



## Bonano (Nov 1, 2010)

Let's face it, the US invaded iraq because any other country would have kicked its arse. No wait! That happened anyways.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

Let's take it slow so even Jakey could understand.

This is President's Bush's own words of why we went into Iraq.

1) By breaking every pledge  be his deceptions, and by his cruelties  Saddam Hussein has made the case again himself.

2) Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human rights found that Iraq continues to commit "extremely grave violations" of human rights and that the regime's repression is "all pervasive." 

3) In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise

4) Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organization that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September 11th. And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq.

5) In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

6) After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

7) United Nations inspections also reveal that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard, and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

8) Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

9) Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its unclear program  weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials, and documentation of foreign assistance. 

10) In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending seven years deceiving, evading and harassing U.N.

11) Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take

There are 11 reasons that Pres. Bush gave of why we went into Iraq.

Also, the reports are that they were moved to Syria, looted, and there were WMD found, which I have shown.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

Show me where the Bush administration agreed with you before it left office.  Show me where Rove said that Bush would not have invaded Iraq if he had know that it did not have WMDs.

Do those two things.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

I don't care what Rove said or didn't say.

I posted the speech that gave the reasons that we invaded Iraq.

No where in the speech did Pres Bush say that if WMD were not found he wouldn't have invaded as you said.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike, history is ongoing.  It does not stop.  History invalidates your conclusions.  Thanks for getting it out there; I appreciate it.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike, history is ongoing.  It does not stop.  History invalidates your conclusions.  Thanks for getting it out there; I appreciate it.


yet you still dont get it
you are totally batshit crazy insane delusional


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> CMike, history is ongoing.  It does not stop.  History invalidates your conclusions.  Thanks for getting it out there; I appreciate it.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > CMike, history is ongoing.  It does not stop.  History invalidates your conclusions.  Thanks for getting it out there; I appreciate it.


jokey is on the wrong side of history


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

The fact is that history disproves CMike's thesis and divecon's support.  Guys, faith does not outweigh works, and in this case the work of history moves CMike's argument over the cliff of despair into the lake of forgotten.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

I stated the facts in context you chose to ignore it...again.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The fact is that history disproves CMike's thesis and divecon's support.  Guys, faith does not outweigh works, and in this case the work of history moves CMike's argument over the cliff of despair into the lake of forgotten.


wrong again
and its "faith without works is dead"
you are dead inside


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike,  _et al,_

These judgments were made (back then) on either 10 year old intelligence, fraudulent information, or faked claims.  The logic was based on a broken National Security Decision Making process which corrupted the Military Decision Making Processes.



CMike said:


> Let's take it slow so even Jakey could understand.
> 
> This is President's Bush's own words of why we went into Iraq.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The decade old rumors and innuendoes that Saddam sent his best weapons agains an Allied Invasion to Syria just doesn't make any sense at all and completely defeated the purpose of the weapons if they had them.

The fact that we found some degraded, non-lethal remnants for the Iran-Iraq War is immaterial.  Information Fog used by WMD Supporters to justify the military intervention.

The humanitarian arguments are merely propaganda dressing.  The US never considered that as a "reason" to invade.

The reasons were much simpler than this complex subterfuge.  

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

What he said.   Divecon and CMike, are you wrong, flatly.  Admit it, and let's move on.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> What he said.   Divecon and CMike, are you wrong, flatly.  Admit it, and let's move on.


no, you are perpetually wrong
and so was he


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

RoccoR said:


> CMike,  _et al,_
> 
> These judgments were made (back then) on either 10 year old intelligence, fraudulent information, or faked claims.  The logic was based on a broken National Security Decision Making process which corrupted the Military Decision Making Processes.
> 
> ...


you are massively wrong


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

For some reason they think that their own opinion is proof

Prove that the 11 points are incorrect.

Prove that the chief of  Israeli counterintelligence and Sada were wrong.

Prove that the 500 chemical weapons found in Iraq were not WMD.

Opinion is not proof .


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> What he said.   Divecon and CMike, are you wrong, flatly.  Admit it, and let's move on.



Prove it.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike said:


> For some reason they think that their own opinion is proof
> 
> Prove that the 11 points are incorrect.
> 
> ...


whats really funny ius that some of the stuff found they CLAIM Reagan gave/sold to Saddam
and it was WMD when Reagan did it, but suddenly not WMD when found later


----------



## manu1959 (Nov 1, 2010)

Care4all said:


> wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....
> 
> nuclear wmd's, yellowcake from africa kinda stuff...that was touted by the administration



the un has a definition of wmd.....items meeting that definition were found....the un also had 18 resolutions that definign what should be done.....

no whether the us should have invaded iraq based on the un's paperwork is a whole other issue....


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > For some reason they think that their own opinion is proof
> ...



They are very creative.

When it comes down to it their opinions are based on


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > What he said.   Divecon and CMike, are you wrong, flatly.  Admit it, and let's move on.
> ...



You have failed in your points.  That is obvious.  Now you are merely being stubborn.  It's a human trait not to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

manu1959 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > wmd's to me was the smoking gun that could show in the form of a mushroom cloud....
> ...



Not in the sense that our Beloved Leader Kim il Bush was talking.

No such weapons have ever been found.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


and jokey lies again


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

The WMDs as described by Bush did not exist in Iraq.  They were never found.  Anyone who says differently is either monumentally stupid, monumentally ignorant, or monumentally malignant.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> The WMDs as described by Bush did not exist in Iraq.  They were never found.  Anyone who says differently is either monumentally stupid, monumentally ignorant, or monumentally malignant.


wrong again, dipshit, the STOCKPILES didnt exist


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

As described by Bush et al, they did not exist.  Get it straight, fringer.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> As described by Bush et al, they did not exist.  Get it straight, fringer.


fuck off moron, you are wrong


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike,_ et al,_

It's impossible to prove a negative.  You can only show that no one can show it's true.



CMike said:


> For some reason they think that their own opinion is proof
> 
> Prove that the 11 points are incorrect.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*


Former Air Vice-Marshal Georges Hormis Sada, Iraqi Air Force, said what he said to make his book deal.   There has to be something spectacular in the book, or no one would buy it.  And the Syrians just love the rumor, because that would make them the top dog in the Middle East.  But no one is buying that story, except for the Americans.  There will be always those that cling to that rumor.

As for Israeli disinformation, the Israelis are not the allies people think they are (Remember the USS Liberty).  It is to there advantage if they could convince the US Intelligence Community that there are weapons in the hands of the Syrian (State Supporters of Terrorism).  That would drag us into another war that would serve simply to eliminate another Israeli opponent.  The Israelis would love for us to invade any nation hostile to them.  We would be their proxy warriors.

Don't be so easily fooled.  If the Syrians had viable (weapons grade) WMD, then simply storage is not all there is to it.  That material requires maintenance; it has a shelf life, and the Syrian could not do this all on their own without it coming the the attention of all the assets (non-US) that are looking at them everyday.

*(WHO ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?)*

You have a choice, as to who you are going to believe.  VAM Sada and Israeli Intelligence, *"OR"*  the CIA chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr David Kay, Iraq Survey Group (ISG)? 



			
				Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee said:
			
		

> KAY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
> 
> As you know and we discussed, I do not have a written statement. This hearing came about very quickly. I do have a few preliminary comments, but I suspect you're more interested in asking questions, and I'll be happy to respond to those questions to the best of my ability.
> 
> ...



The ISG did an outstanding job.  And they had access to all the information you could have wanted.  They too knew about the battlefield remnants.  But they were looking for the material that the IC predicted.  They were looking for the useable material and the project documentation and plans.  They busted their ass, and wanted nothing more than to go back to The President and report:  They found it!  But that's not what they discovered; not at all.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

Okay let's go by the UN.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/wmd/iraqarticle2pg1.pdf

This is from the New York Times



The authors, Gary Milhollin and Kelly Nugent, based their work principally on reports from the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, and statements by Richard Butler, the commission's chief inspector. POISON GAS 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 3.9 tons of VX nerve gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing this amount in 1988 and 1990. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The gas was low quality and the effort to make it failed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- VX nerve gas put into warheads. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- U.S. and French tests found traces of nerve gas on warhead remnants. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The evidence was planted. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- About 600 tons of ingredients for VX gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Out of 805 tons on hand, only 191 could be verified as destroyed. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything was destroyed or consumed in production. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Up to 3,000 tons of other poison gas agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing agents in the 1980's. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were used, thrown away or destroyed by U.S. bombs during the 1991 gulf war. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Several hundred additional tons of poison gas agents that Iraq may have produced. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq had enough ingredients to make more poison gas than it admits producing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- All poison gas production has been declared.

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 4,000 tons of ingredients to make poison gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits importing or producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records of what happened to them are available. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 500 bombs with parachutes to deliver gas or germ payloads. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- About 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits they existed. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were lost shortly after the gulf war. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 107,500 casings for chemical arms HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing or importing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records are available. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 31,658 filled and empty chemical munitions. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing or importing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were thrown away, destroyed secretly or destroyed by U.S. bombs. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- An Iraqi Air Force document showing how much poison gas was used against Iran, and thus how much Iraq has left. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- A U.N. inspector held the document briefly in her hands before Iraq confiscated it. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Inspectors might be able to see it, but only in the presence of the Secretary General's personal envoy. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The results of a project to make binary artillery shells for sarin nerve gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it ran such a project and made experimental shells. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- There are no records or physical traces of the program. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Production procedures for making poison gas. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Such proceedures are needed for large-scale production. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No documents containing these procedures can be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents showing the overall size of the chemical weapons program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined that specific documents are still missing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No such documents can be found. 

GERM WARFARE AGENTS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits filling this many. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- At least 25 missile warheads containing germ agents (anthrax, aflotoxin and botulinum). HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 


UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Excess germ warfare agent. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits producing more of the agent than was used to fill munitions. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The excess was secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Spraying equipment to deliver germ agents by helicopter. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it tested such equipment. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq refuses to explain what happened to it. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The results of a project to deliver germ agents by drop tanks. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the project existed, but inspectors cannot verify Iraq's account. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything has been accounted for. 


UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Growth media to produce three or four times the amount of anthrax Iraq admits producing. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- U.N. inspectors discovered that this much was imported. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Either the material was not imported or it went to a civilian lab. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Equipment to produce germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq provided an incomplete inventory. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Everything has been accounted for. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Program to dry germ agents so they are easier to store and use. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors saw a document revealing the program's existence. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No such program existed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Log book showing purchases for the germ warfare program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors saw the log book in 1995. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The book cannot be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- List of imported ingredients for germ agents. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the document exists. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The document cannot be found. 


UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- List of ingredients for germ agents stored at Iraq's main germ facility. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits the document exists. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The document cannot be found. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The total amount of germ agents Iraq produced (anthrax, botulinum, gas gangrene, aflatoxin). HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Production capacity far exceeds the amount Iraq admits producing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq did not use full capacity. 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Components for three to four implosion-type nuclear weapons, lacking only uranium fuel. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Intelligence gathered by the former U.N. inspector Scott Ritter. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Such weapons do not exist. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Drawings showing the latest stage of Iraq's nuclear weapon design. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined the drawings must exist. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Cannot explain why the drawings are missing. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Design drawings of individual nuclear weapon components, including the precise dimensions of explosive lenses. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Other drawings show that these drawings. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq no longer has these drawings exist. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Drawings of how to mate a nuclear warhead to a missile. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Other drawings show that these drawings exist. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq no longer has these drawings. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents detailing cooperation among various Iraqi nuclear weapon and missile groups. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- The cooperation must have generated a paper trail. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No response. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents revealing how far Iraq got in developing centrifuges to process uranium to weapons grade. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq tested one or two prototypes. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The documents were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- 170 technical reports explaining how to produce and operate these centrifuges. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits a German supplier provided them, and a few were found. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- The documents were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Materials and equipment belonging to Iraq's most advanced nuclear weapon design team. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors have determined that important items are still missing. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq has provided everything it can find. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Materials and equipment belonging to the group trying to process uranium to nuclear weapons grade. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors have determined that important items are still missing WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Iraq has provided everything it can find. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- The name and whereabouts of a foreign national who offered to help Iraq's nuclear program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors were informed that the offer was made. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- Inspectors should consult an Iraqi expatriate who might provide a lead. (They did; it was a dead end.) 

UNACCOUNTED FOR IN IRAQ -- Documents proving Iraq's claim that it abandoned its secret nuclar-bomb program. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Inspectors determined that such a step must have been recorded. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- No records can be found. BALLISTIC MISSILES 

U
NACCOUNTED FOR -- Seven, locally-produced ballistic missiles. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed in 1991. UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Two operational missiles that Iraq imported. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed in 1991. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Components for missile guidance that Iraq imported. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq supplied an inventory but it was incomplete. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Up to 150 tons of material for missile production. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had it; destruction could not be verified. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- It was secretly melted or dumped into rivers and canals. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Liquid fuel for long-range missiles. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- It was secretly destroyed and will not be discussed further. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Up to 50 Scud-type missile warheads, presumably for high exposives. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq admits it had them. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- They were secretly destroyed. 

UNACCOUNTED FOR -- Drawings showing how to together a Scud missile. HOW INSPECTORS KNOW -- Iraq needed such drawings to produce these missiles. WHAT IRAQ SAYS -- All available drawings were provided


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > CMike, history is ongoing.  It does not stop.  History invalidates your conclusions.  Thanks for getting it out there; I appreciate it.
> ...






No, JS is intellectually dishonest.  Just ignore it.  It is a waste of air and time.  He's the John Cleese character in the Argument Clinic sketch!  Only nowhere near as smart!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/ame]


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

RoccoR said:


> CMike,_ et al,_
> 
> It's impossible to prove a negative.  You can only show that no one can show it's true.
> 
> ...



Also I care nothing about what the UN shits said because they opposed the war. All of a sudden because they opposed the US, they changed their tune. The UN has long been the enemy of the United States and freedom.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM[/ame]


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

Westwall tells lies because he knows the truth and attempst to cover his intellectual dishonesty in accusations he can't support.

The WMDs did not exist when we invaded Iraq, or we would have found them.  Rove said Bush would never have invaded Iraq otherwise.  If the WMDs had been there, the administration would have told us.

Thus . . . they did not exist.

The fringers and wing nuts and the lunatics crack me up.  The scary thing is that folks CMike ande Westwall and CrusaderFrank and conhog and bigrebnc and Jack Fate walk among us as if they are normal.  That is scarier than halloween.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Westwall tells lies because he knows the truth and attempst to cover his intellectual dishonesty in accusations he can't support.
> 
> The WMDs did not exist when we invaded Iraq, or we would have found them.  Rove said Bush would never have invaded Iraq otherwise.  If the WMDs had been there, the administration would have told us.
> 
> ...



Prove that Rove said that.

Also I don't consider using one of your left wing sources that tries to plug in two words taken out of context as proving it.

That said I care what Pres. Bush said, not Rove.

Pres. Bush gave 11 distinct reasons for invading Iraq which I showed in context.

What is scary about the libs is that they consider what their Emperious Leader to be fact. They don't have the brains to actually challenge anything they say or see if it's true or not.

That's why they are so fucked up.


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Westwall tells lies because he knows the truth and attempst to cover his intellectual dishonesty in accusations he can't support.
> 
> The WMDs did not exist when we invaded Iraq, or we would have found them.  Rove said Bush would never have invaded Iraq otherwise.  If the WMDs had been there, the administration would have told us.
> 
> ...


you are the lunatic delusional fringe
you just think you are mainstream
but then i did say you were DELUSIONAL


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2010)

Rove said it, and you know it.  What you consider is a reputable source is immaterial, because you are loony.  Bush's reasons for WMDs did not prove out, and nothing anyone has posted has changed that.  Anyone who defends neo-conservatism is an enemy of American goodness and principles.


----------



## CMike (Nov 1, 2010)

No, I don't know it. You said it back it up.


----------



## RoccoR (Nov 1, 2010)

CMike,  _et al,_

Again, you are using data point that was a decade old - even before the invasion.



CMike said:


> Okay let's go by the UN.
> 
> This is from the New York Times


*(COMMENT)*

Even back then, they were trying to impose, as a measure of proof, a Western Accounting system on an Arab Dictatorship.

Unaccounted does not mean they have it.  Nothing proves that more than the entire ISG (1400 Intelligence Personnel), our best, boots on the ground, 100% access, interrogation teams, with every report and previous suspicious indicator.  And they found - what? 

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## DiveCon (Nov 1, 2010)

RoccoR said:


> CMike,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you are using data point that was a decade old - even before the invasion.
> 
> ...


the problem you guys have is you think the UN "Inspectors" were their looking for WMD
they WEREN'T
they were there to DOCUMENT that it was destroyed
and Saddam played them like the keystone cops
Saddam didnt provide the access for them to actually do their job


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Westwall tells lies because he knows the truth and attempst to cover his intellectual dishonesty in accusations he can't support.
> 
> The WMDs did not exist when we invaded Iraq, or we would have found them.  Rove said Bush would never have invaded Iraq otherwise.  If the WMDs had been there, the administration would have told us.
> 
> ...








  looneytoons!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2010)

Thanks, Westwall, in your affirmative silence, giving up the discussion.  Thus endeth the lesson.


----------



## Si modo (Nov 2, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks, Westwall, in your affirmative silence, giving up the discussion.  Thus endeth the lesson.


Idiot.


----------



## westwall (Nov 2, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Thanks, Westwall, in your affirmative silence, giving up the discussion.  Thus endeth the lesson.






No, when the person you are supposedly discussing things with demonstrates intellectual dishonesty there is no point.  Enjoy talking to yourself in the mirror.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2010)

I agree.  Your intellectual dishonesty disqualifies your argument.  No WMDs as warranted by Bush for going to war were ever discovered.  I guarantee you that your type of dissimulation is used at high school and university to discount the need for war.

You serve a useful purpose in that sense.


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

RoccoR said:


> CMike,  _et al,_
> 
> Again, you are using data point that was a decade old - even before the invasion.
> 
> ...



I appreciate your civility.

A western accounting system? 

Example 300 gallons of mustard gas are missing. Where is it? Either they know or they don't know.

Hussein was playing a shell game with inspectors for a long time.

Let's say you committed a murder with a gun. You have months before the police close in on you, and you know that the police are closing in on you.

Would you try and dispose of the gun before you were caught? If the police didn't find your gun does that mean that the gun never existed?

This is very similar to what happened with Hussein. He had many months to dispose of his WMD. Just because they the majority weren't fund doesn't mean it never existed.

In fact, it was Hussein's responsibilty to document that they destroyed, it wasn't the inspectors' responsibilty to find them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2010)

CMike, you are looking in the mirror when you suggest incivility in this thread.  Be polite, get it in return.

The administration did not admit that WMDs, the basis for invasion, had been found.  No other evidence means anything.  Rove said the president would not have invaded if he had know the WMDs were not there.


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush Admits WMD "Main Reason" for Iraq; Press Ignores Admission  Such a strange brain of Bush.



This is from YOUR link.


QUESTION: A quick follow-up. A lot of the consequences you mention for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that? 

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had a Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. 

Now, look, I -- part of the reason we went into Iraq: was -- the main reason we went into Iraq: at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. 

But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of a world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. 

You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and, you know, kind of -- the "stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were -- 

QUESTION: What did Iraq: have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq: have to do with what? 

QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center. 

BUSH: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq: was a -- Iraq: -- the lesson of September the 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. 

Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case. And one way to defeat that -- you know, defeat resentment, is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. 

Now, I said going into Iraq: we got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialized. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world was better off without him. Now, the question is, how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting. 
.


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

This is from the original post.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq &#8211; With Surprising Results | Danger Room | Wired.com
_

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic blister agent used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and reported two positive results for blister. The chemical was then triple-sealed and transported to a secure site outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to
look in on a chemical weapons complex. One of the bunkers has been tampered with, they write. The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.


Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a house with a chemical lab  substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab. The following day, theres a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a chemical cache.


Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance. Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, the rounds tested positive for mustard.

...

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.


...That same month, then chemical weapons specialists were apprehended in Balad. These foreigners were there specifically to support the chemical weapons operations. The following month, an intelligence report refers to a chemical weapons expert that provided assistance with the gas weapons. What happened to that specialist, the WikiLeaked document doesnt say._


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 2, 2010)

Bush never admitted that WMDs, the reason for the invasion, were ever found.  Rove has stated the president would not have invaded Iraq if he had known that.  That is the kernel of the problem, CMike.


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

FOXNews.com - U.S. Officials 'Confident' of Weapons Lab Find - U.S. &amp; World


U.S. Officials 'Confident' of Weapons Lab Find
Tuesday, May 06, 2003

A vehicle found by Kurdish fighters last week in the northern Iraq city of Irbil (search) may be a mobile weapons laboratory, U.S. officials said.

Senior defense officials told Fox News they are "confident" the vehicle was used to manufacture biological or chemical weapons agents.

The officials said the mobile biological weapons lab has been moved to the Baghdad International Airport, where tests on its contents continue.

The vehicle contained fermenting tanks and dryers, such as those used to make the powder form of anthrax (search). Initial tests on the interior of the vehicle, which appeared to have been thoroughly cleaned, turned up negative results, but officials said tests were ongoing.

Officials said the equipment inside the trailer unit was scrubbed clean with a powerful, caustic cleaning agent, and some of the equipment had recently been painted. Nonetheless, the truck and its contents are still being swabbed for any trace at all of bioagents, and the samples obtained thus far have been sent to a variety of labs for analysis.


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush never admitted that WMDs, the reason for the invasion, were ever found.  Rove has stated the president would not have invaded Iraq if he had known that.  That is the kernel of the problem, CMike.



Are you truely not capable of comprehending english?


----------



## L.K.Eder (Nov 2, 2010)

CMike said:


> FOXNews.com - U.S. Officials 'Confident' of Weapons Lab Find - U.S. &amp; World
> 
> 
> U.S. Officials 'Confident' of Weapons Lab Find
> ...



they also found this wadi. they are confident that it was used as an ICBM launch site. but it was scrubbed clean of the evidence. 
tests are still ongoing.
rumsfeld is quoted as saying: "just yesterday, north, west, south, east and smack in the middle of this wadi there were anthrax, yellowcake and saddam's mom knitting missiles. i swear."


----------



## westwall (Nov 2, 2010)

CMike said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Bush never admitted that WMDs, the reason for the invasion, were ever found.  Rove has stated the president would not have invaded Iraq if he had known that.  That is the kernel of the problem, CMike.
> ...






No, JS is intellectually dishonest.  Don't waste your time.  Facts have no bearing on JS's "belief system".


----------



## CMike (Nov 2, 2010)

westwall said:


> CMike said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I noticed. I don't think he realizes that he makes himself and his arguement look really stupid.


----------



## Bonano (Nov 2, 2010)

The US invaded Iraq because they knew they would never get Osama bin Laden, he's waaayyyy too crafty for them.


----------



## ginscpy (Nov 2, 2010)

Recent study showing volunteer military is filled by a lot of risk-takers /loose cannons

The draft is a cross-section of society 

3 freaking years at most................


----------



## RoccoR (Dec 4, 2010)

ginscpy,  _et al,_

This is an interesting prediction!



ginscpy said:


> Recent study showing volunteer military is filled by a lot of risk-takers /loose cannons
> 
> The draft is a cross-section of society
> 
> 3 freaking years at most................


*(COMMENT)*

I don't think it will come about that way.  But we shall see.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 4, 2010)

Cmike, WMDs are not chemistry labs in high schools or inert artillery shells with traces of mustard gas.  Either you believe  Bush or you don't, but you don't get to both keep and eat your cake.  For heaven's sake, man up.


----------



## CMike (Dec 6, 2010)

I am sure that Saddam Hussein was going to leave a big pile of WMD right in the middle of his palace with a big sign saying all the evidence is here 

As I stated previously he had months to get rid of it by transfereing and destroying it. Most if was sent to Syria or looted.

I made this analogy before. If a murderer who knows that the police are closing in on him, and he knows they are closing in on him, gets rid of his gun, it doesn't meant that the gun never existed.

Why is this so difficult for the libs to understand?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 6, 2010)

Cmike, you are entitled to your internet opinion.  You are as crafty as the birthers and the truthers; in other words, you don't do this well.  The objective facts of the matter are overwhelmingly against your contention, which is fine that you have one, but it is just that your contention is epic fail.


----------



## California Girl (Dec 6, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Gotta love Wikileaks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sometimes, it is worth the price of unpopularity in order to keep stuff secret.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 6, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Cmike, you are entitled to your internet opinion.  You are as crafty as the birthers and the truthers; in other words, you don't do this well.  The objective facts of the matter are overwhelmingly against your contention, which is fine that you have one, but it is just that your contention is epic fail.


why dont you take that up with the leaked documents


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 7, 2010)

The leaked documents do not sustain Cmike's assertion, divecon.


----------



## Andy_D (Dec 7, 2010)

I was very disturbed to hear about this.


----------



## Intense (Dec 7, 2010)

ginscpy said:


> Recent study showing volunteer military is filled by a lot of risk-takers /loose cannons
> 
> The draft is a cross-section of society
> 
> 3 freaking years at most................



That is an insult to our Military and those who serve. The loose Cannon's you refer to are the tongues like your own that put out non filtered garbage, without thought. Your reasoning is a false generalization and Stereo-Typing, Profiling, if you will, based on prejudice and misinformation.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 7, 2010)

I served many years with "loose cannons" and "risk takers".  I assure you the men in the garrison forts in the valleys downline from Kabul, and that female E-5 who daily for 13 months runs the medical supplies down the line from Kabul with only a hummer and a gun vechile and an overhead attack chopper as her defense ~ these are risk takers.

Thank heavens for such people, and those of you who have not served with them are in no position to judge, only to give fervent thanks.


----------

