Report: Saddam's Bunker is GONE! (cuz it never existed)

Please please please, shut up!

To every government basher here, please show me your post's/references as to how you felt Clinton's bombings were wrong, and how you felt they were unnecessary.

You won't, because you hide behind your liberal stances.

As for me, I was never impressed with Clinton; never voted for him, and didn't like him.

That being said, the problem's I had with Clinton were his complete apathy towards the market, as well as his holding a National Press Conference, just to falsify the fact that a girl gave him a BJ.

To everyone here who decries this.....Where were you when Clinton was bombing Countries?

Ahhhh, Politics! Talking about it makes me want to puke.

If you ask me, I have always followed the Quote of One George Washington....

"A two-party system will always be doomed to fail."

 

Yes, I suppose it was useless to point out the uselessness of your useless comment... Silly me. (yes, this reply to your useless comment about my useless comment regarding your useless comment is also useless - I am aware of the irony)

No, just uninformed. It's easy to be skeptical about something you know nothing about.

And I suppose yopu could have done better? Let's see, Saddam, one of the world's greatest terrorism supporters, is gone; Osama is broke and in hiding, and cannot use a phone (Zawahiri is in the same boat); Al Qaeda's funding is dried up, thanks to our busting up Saudi charities and seizing bank accounts worldwide; Al Qaeda has lost its 50 or so training bases in Afghanistan; around 3,000 Al Qaeda operatives are in custody worldwide; many more than that are dead by our hand, and not their own - no suicide bombings from them; Al Qaeda's military chief is dead; Al Qaeda's operations chief, and the man who planned 9/11, is in custody; the man who orchestrated the Cole bombing is in custody... do you want me to go on?

Yeah, we've just gotten nowhere in this whole "phantom" War on Terror thing. Sure.

Is there more to do? Of course. We must have a reckoning with the Saudis. And the Iranians. And eventually elements of Pakistan's government. Will we do these things? I hope so. But for you to denigrate all that has been accomplished merely because not everything we must do has been done yet... well that just makes you an *******. I'm sure there are many a Special Operator who would like to discuss this with you in person, you thankless, ignorant worm.

Just the kind of guy who would spit on a soldier for "fighting the wrong war"...

My guess as to why you have seen no evidence of this is that you haven't been paying attention. That is the only possible explanation, because it has been happening where everyone else can see it.

You can't see the conspiracy here? Let's see, you accuse them of lying. To do so, they would have had to have known that the target was bogus. They are saying here that they did not know. But they are lying. They are lying, theyarelyingtheyarelyingtheyarelying!!!!!

You see lies everywhere, and that is just stupid. Do I really have to explain this to you? Ah, screw it. If you don't know what one is, then you're not worth talking to.

 

Treeman, are you saying that it is not important to bring Osama and/or Saddam to justice if they are alive?

If you are, I think that is a pretty sad & damning commentary on the Bush Administration and their true motives.

 

Will somebody explain the interview I saw with the German man who supervised constructon of The Bunker? DId the government fabricate that also?

 

tree...In that the administration admitted to collectively overemphasising the WMD angle to get people behind the war, please explain to me how a 'conspiracy' to mislead us and factual are mutualy exclusive. I would also ask you , in the same literal vein as you have retreated to re: Sadaami is gone being correct not because it's the only stance that agrees with you but is 'factual' , where is the non-factual aspect of this:

Bad intel? Yeah..real bad...so bad that even afterwards they were calling it good intel, very good intel, and calling the target hit accomplished. Which is amazing....as it was never there.

Please explain the whole factual/non-factual angle , because to a dummy like me it looks just like you're calling those you agree with factual and those you don't non-factual.

The Rumsfeld quotes you cite neither are what he said, nor defend his position. he said we had very good intel, hit our target etx....AFTER the fact. You can wax all you want about the fog of war, but they were claiming a success long after the incident. In fact, it is now 2 months later, and this is the 1st sniff of it having not been a good hit. Nice try on the whole ' sh8t happens in war' angle, but this was at the very least a statement in error followed up by confirmations, and never retracted at the time it was known to be wrong. That's misleading, period.

 

Okay...I'm the one trying to put a slant on things? My exact words, again, were:

" Bad intel? Yeah..real bad...so bad that even afterwards they were calling it good intel, very good intel, and calling the target hit accomplished. Which is amazing....as it was never there. "

Now, please explain where the slant is. I'll agree that one of us is spinning for all he's worth, but I'll be damned if I can see anything in my statement which is either a departure from the truth nor justifies your 'slant' accusation.

Was it bad intel? yes
Did they call it good intel after the fact? yes
Did they call the target hit accomplished? yes
Is hitting a target that was never there an amazing feat? yes


Please....educate me on my slanting here...or maybe take a look at who actually is doing the slanting.

 

Fatty, what does Clinton have to do with this. Every time GW messes up are you going to bring up Clinton? That is very weak. This is a totally different argument. As far as Clinton's wars, he messed up in Waco and Somalia. There, does that make you happy. Now can you move on to the next millineum. Your argument is so weak that you just say where were you when Clinton was bombing countries? What does that even mean? As far as I'm concerned, I just started posting on the BBS so I don't exactly know how you know how I felt about Clinton's mistakes. But its 2003, and in 2004 the Republicans won't be able to run against Clinton like they did in 2000.

 

This story has seriously wowed and awed me. You go Donald!!!

 

Ditto.....

DD

 

I think we are simply talking about a different bunker project. I'm confused on this point as well though, if the bunker was constructed by the Iraqis' I can understand the bad intelligence. However, if it was one of the structures built by outside contractors then it is very confusing as to why nothing was there.

 

I don't know if anything is there or not....it doesn't have to be an extensive bunker, it could be as simple as a bomb shelter room in a basement.

What I gather from this is that no bodies were there etc...but that does not mean the conclusions are correct.

DD

 

Conservatives will NEVER give up the Clinton card--nothing like beating a dead horse to make a man feel alive...Especially when so many Republicans in office got there by hating Clinton--Contract with America anyone?

 

Actually,

I don't hate Clinton and think he did an ok job...I didn't trust him for squat, but I thought he was ok as a president.

I trust Bush more then Clinton, and admire his backbone.

Glad to see the good ole US of A standing up and being heard.

DD

 

The best argument I've heard for Bush...period--kuddos

 

I remember how much people screamed about liberals controlling the media.

No....corporations control the media. Corporations want to make money. They mostly toe the line nowadays. War is money. Our nation has been one big balled-up fist; dissent slapped down.

Maybe some of the news outlets are finally getting a chance to lash out against their minders. Many stories fed to the media (drip-fed, that is; i.v. solution) are blatant lies.

"WMDs." Why anyone ever believed that one.

"Freeing the Iraqis." Look at what's going on there now.

 

Well they are still looking for a bunker----

Saddam's Suspected Hiding Place Excavated
By SLOBODAN LEKIC, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. Army engineers used bulldozers, backhoes and other equipment to dig through a rubble-filled crater Wednesday, trying to determine if Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) died in an April 7 airstrike on a house where he was believed to be hiding.
The site was attacked two days before U.S. forces took control of the capital. The U.S. military said at the time that it had reliable information that Saddam and members of his family and entourage were there.
"For us to expend the amount of money it took to destroy this place, it must have been a key target," said Maj. Scott Slaten of the newly arrived 1st Armored Division, which is now assuming responsibility for Baghdad.
An engineering unit of the Utah National Guard was excavating the site and moving the rubble to an undisclosed location to be examined for human remains, Slaten said.
The United States does not know Saddam's fate. Video allegedly taken on April 9 showed him atop a vehicle waving to supporters in the Azamiyah neighborhood. But U.S. officials question the accuracy of the footage.
It was not clear what prompted the search of the rubble.
For the six weeks that followed the end of fighting, the two-floor home in the upscale Mansour district — in which at least 14 civilians are believed to have died — was left mostly undisturbed. Now, crews were hard at work. Dozens of U.S. troops, three Bradley fighting vehicles and concertina wire protected the engineers clearing the debris.
Officers said they expected to be done with excavation by June 11. Crews were expected to remain for another week to 10 days to repair nearby homes damaged in the airstrikes and to clean the site and surrounding street.
"There's nothing interesting here, just a lot of rubble," said Pfc. Walter Phillips, 30, of Chicago, as he stood near his backhoe at the edge of a 15-foot crater.
Iraqis nearby doubted whether the soldiers would find the remains of Saddam, who they suspect was hiding at another house, just yards away.
"No, no — Saddam ran away. He's hiding," said Munther Meki, a grocer whose shop — its front window gone and shelves empty — is next to the destroyed house.
Meki said Saddam's government rented a small house opposite the targeted building about six months ago and that official-looking vehicles were parked outside before and during the war.
"Nobody knew for sure if it was Saddam or someone else," Meki said.
Except for the broken windows, the empty, unfurnished house appeared structurally undamaged. Its metal doors were held shut with a heavy chain and lock, and the interior was littered with smashed glass and broken bricks.