you can't transport nuclear weapons....without getting caught...there are satellites up there....remember??....they have Iran's whole facility monitored...but for some reason they dont know where the nuclear weapons went in Iraq....that's hilaious.
These two statements are very consistent. The U.S. could take steps against Saddam, and were doing so. The UN was doing so. Those steps could have ensured that Saddam didn't have WMD to give to the terrorists. There are things that could have been done, and were being done, that were different than an invasion. Not invading Iraq doesn't mean inaction. There isn't invasion or nothing. Those aren't the two choices we were faced with.
it's official. it's sad. wonder how they'll spin this one in the white house. thousands of people have died for a war against a country that has not produced weapons of mass destruction in over 13 years. it's a very sad day. <<Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." >> vs. U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20041006_1241.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/iraq/main643989.shtml http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041006/ap_on_re_ mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006182356 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report.ap/index.html
last post didn't got partially deleted... it's official. it's sad. wonder how they'll spin this one in the white house. thousands of people have died for a war against a country that has not produced weapons of mass destruction in over 13 years. it's a very sad day. Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." vs. U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20041006_1241.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004...ain643989.shtml http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...41006/ap_on_re_ mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006182356 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/ http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...t.ap/index.html
It always amazes me when people use the justification that we know Saddam used them. Like him using them ten years ago is a justification for war now.
now that you are just making wild assertions, let me join you... aliens, man, aliens! or teleporters! they stole that technology from us! Stealth camels! North Koreans did it for them! Kerry did it! It happened under Clinton's watch!
If I can interject with a slightly different issue from the report. One of the main points that the pro-invasion people bring up is that even though WMD weren't found but that Saddam had the desire to acquire them again once sanctions were ended that he would quickly reconstitute his program. The report addressed that by pointing out that any capability he had to restart his programs were getting weaker not stronger under sanctions and that after 9/11 there was almost no impetus to relax sanctions in the World community. I've felt all along that this Admin did the right thing to get a new resolution to get inspectors in and keep up pressure on Saddam. Considering the global good will we had after 9/11 and the unanimous vote for UNSC 1441 we could've kept that pressure up indefinately without having to invade Iraq and get stuck in the mess we've now got.
how is it possible that this man will probable e re-elected?? do people onjoy the fact that their presidant lies to them?? It is official, bush wanted this war. Bush is one of the most dangerous man alive.
Well, yeah, but you've taken the politics out of it. Cheney can't forget a meeting with Edwards without being called a LIAR repeatedly. How do you expect any kind of constructive re-consideration to go on about anything when there is that kind of hostility?
I think that there was conflicting intelligence. Those who oppose or regret the war think that the administration should have put their faith on one pile of intel, while those who support pre-emptive defense understand why they put their faith on a different pile of intel. See this thread: http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84824
We were told flat out that there were TONS of wmds waiting to be launched within 45 minutes! We were told we knew where they were. We were told we could be attacked at any time. All I know is that if you are going to overthrow a sovereign nation for whatever excuse you have, you better make DAMN sure that you're right. And even then you better have a plan to succeed.
The term WMD includes bio/chemical weapons and does not just refer to nuclear weapons. We thought we knew where they were; we were wrong... or are you saying that that was just a lie? We overthrew a murdering despotic dictator who had harbored terrorists and who had financed terrorism-- not the sovereign nation of Holland.
I know the term WMD includes bio/chemical weapons! I know that! Yes! I believe it was a lie Then we should have gone after the Saudis then! They have more to do with hardoring terrorists and financing terrorism then Saddam could ever dream of.
Originally posted by mc mark I know the term WMD includes bio/chemical weapons! I know that! <b>Okay, I guess. You keep coupling it with the word "launch" which has an overwhelming nuclear association....</b> Yes! I believe it was a lie <b>Why were our first line of soldiers dressed out in bio-suits then? And what was the pre-planned explanation to be offered when nothing was found: We were wrong!?</b> Then we should have gone after the Saudis then! They have more to do with hardoring terrorists and financing terrorism then Saddam could ever dream of. <b>Smaller and easier tasks first, I would say. Have you all been hearing the Saudi commercials on talk radio? "We are friends of the Americans...."</b>
Oh well, No threat. No wmd. Pro-war. One can always get back to we did it due to our " love for the Iraqi people"., "Christ-like" in that Bush-Cheney are asking many Americans to give up their only son for this "love". Of course we can claim that Sadam had some intent to do so in the future. Again almost anything is good enough for the war supporters. They need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no intent. The vast majority of the Iraqis just want us to leave. Doesn't matter. We want to keep our 14 permanent bases that we are building. We do this in the name of democracy and self determination for the Iraqi people. One of the cruel ironies is that as we get more and more Iraqis to be killed for this unpopular position in Iraq, Cheney can keep lowering the % of the casualties that have been Americans. In most cases I think those remaining war supporters are just overly loyal followers of the Republican Party or among the 42% who irrationally still think Sadam was behind 9/11. It should be interesting to see if this figure goes down since Bush finally admitted in the last debate that he realizes Sadam wasn't behind 9/11. Cheney, it should be noted still is trying to imply it. I did talk to my accountant who thinks that this is just part of a thousand year war of Christians and Jews vs. Muslims. I guess that is good enough for him. He has an 11 year old dtr. I wondr if he had an 18 year old son if that would be good enough for him. We didn't pursue it further. Is this coming from wierd fundamentalist sect? I don't know. Hating Democrats/ Kerry or loving Republicans/ Bush is no reason to support a war in which mainly Republican young folks from small towns are being killed.
Giddy there were several meetings. But if you don't like that one, what about Cheney claiming he never tried to make a connection between Saddam and 9/11? He lied about that one before, and was caught doing it then. He tried to do it again in the debate. If Cheney only told one lie in the debate instead of two whoppers would that be OK with you? Since Cheney has been caught lying, on the 9/11 Saddam issue, should he get the benefit of the doubt when caught in another falsehood? Has Cheney earned the benefit of the doubt? You choose to focus on only one of Cheney's lies. If that was the only one he'd ever been caught at, then maybe I would believe it was just his memorty being soft. But the way he delivered the line with clear intent to slam his opponent and score points combined with the fact that he LIED earlier in the very first few minutes of the debate doesn't incline a person to believe that later falsehoods were just an innocent mistake. Cheney made his bed and now he has to LIE in it.
