• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Stunning W M D Development!!!

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#1
wow...how damaging as compared to what this president continues to tell his constituaents;

the president's own aid , (Kay has already determined a long time ago btw) has just testified that not only were there no weapons of mass destruction

but, (and this part is new)

now get this, this is the Bush aid's own words;

SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S AND SADDAM CHOSE NOT TO HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

incredible that Bush's aid would say that point blank

yet even today, in the face of the report, president Bush thinks that if he says something often enough, no matter how incorrect, people will believe it...he has the nerve to use these WMD's that don't exist as some kind of "gathering threat" and he continues to use this as his justification

boy, I remember when this president actually said he would bring integrity back to the office....I wonder what happened to that?
 

American Zombie

Administrator
Staff member
Political User
#2
Then there is this:
Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. The report also says Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer's findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush's handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn't have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled.
Source:http://www.comcast.net/News/INTERNATIONAL//XML/1107_AP_Online_Regional___Middle_East/1e984766-8f63-421f-ba89-c762c79f3ba5.html
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#3
stunning?

not really...

the kay report has long ago been published and the duelfer report was leaked many months ago... not stunning IMO... more like a reiteration of the facts..
 

Tuffgong4

The Donger Need Food!!!!
Political User
#4
this news like sazar has said has been around for a while...it's about timing that news gets pushed to the outlets...presidential race is is heating up so what better time...

kind of why I wonder why fat necked Michael Moore didn't release his propaganda later so that it would influence people more now than when it was released?

also if that was too far off topic just edit or delete...didn't want to waste a new thread on such a tiny statement
 
L

Lee

Guest
#5
This is one reason why G.W. Bush and A.Blair should resign (or already) this moment.

It was all hype and b.s. Blair took his arguments for going to Iraq on a thesis written by an undergraduate in a University.

Bush probably got his from bazooka bubble gum, Joe Bazooka probably told him it was the right thing to do, of course Bush chew more gum as humble pie isn't that sweet in your mouth.
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#6
guys, it's not the statement of no w m d's that's stunning.

what's stunning is that the Bush aid goes right out and says point blank;

"saddam didn't have w m d's and Saddam chose not have w m d's"

Bush has always maintained that saddam would get them at the very first oportuninty.

so this is the ground breaking statement
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#7
bush has long ago moved beyond asserting that saddam had wmd's... he did say it, don't get me wrong...

now i believe the bush mantra is the possibility of perhaps some day in the future acquiring technology that may be used to pursue a program that could be used to begin the development of weapons of mass destruction...

btw if I am not being vague enough that means I got it wrong...
 
#8
It wasn't only Bush and Blair:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Just a few of many...
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#9
it's just amazing to me that the president just goes on ignoring reality

a couple of highlights from the report, it's not what the report says that's surprising to me, we already knew this from the the report he's already commissioned from kay...it's the nerve of the administration and this presidents reaction...he really has trouble understanding reports if it points out he's mistaken;

Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war,...

American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


now get this...the president knows about this report, and he has the nerve to continue his rhetoric...just today, he says;

bush said:
...the prospect that terrorists who killed thousands with hijacked airplanes would kill many more with weapons of mass murder."
as if he doesn't get it...uhmmm Mr president...the report you've asked for tells us there are NO w m d's

as if he didn't hear his own vice president tell us Saddam was not associated with 9/11...I guess he thinks his constituents are still buying his "we had to go after Iraq when Afghanistan attacked us" rhetoric

I'm supposing he doesn't understand the report yet...it must not have been explained to him because this president continues;

bush said:
"We had to take a hard look at every place where terrorists might get those weapons, and one regime stood out," Mr. Bush said. "The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein."
like I said, he's having trouble understanding the report...more from the report;

that [Iraq] posed chemical and biological weapons, and was reconstituting its nuclear program — bore no resemblance to the truth.

this is a 900 page vloume...incredibly the president would make comments as he's made...I doubt he's even tried to read it
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#10
GMeagle86 said:
It wasn't only Bush and Blair...:
you've I guess missed it;

kerry agreed to the attack as it was promised by the president, not as the president actually proceeded...as last resort

in addition, Bush witheld vital information from his own agencies that told the administration that the assertations Bush was making misinterperatations.

improtant stuff
 

ThePatriot

-=[BOHICA!]=-
Political User
#11
what's really amazing is how the parts of the report that justify our actions get convieniently ignored. Re:

" But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.

So, leave him in power and wait and see? C'mon, you all know that would have been the wrong path, not to mention a much more dangerous path. Why argue the point anymore? Here is your reason for being there... But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Everybody touted this report as the say all and end all. There you go, end of story.
 

Tuffgong4

The Donger Need Food!!!!
Political User
#12
GMeagle86 said:
It wasn't only Bush and Blair:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

Just a few of many...

beautiful!
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#14
GMeagle86 said:
It wasn't only Bush and Blair:
this is a cyclic argument...

yes saddam was a bad man and yes he should have been disarmed...

how do you proceed with it?

do you proceed while there is another war going on already? do you proceed against the advice of your generals?

do you proceed w/o a policy for ensuring there will be peace and stability afterwards?

do you proceed while alienating allies and allowing the terrorist networks you proclaim to have destroyed to build back up and launch new attacks?

---

you have just used a few choice quotes to show that kerry and edwards were for a strong foreign policy and a strong, unambiguous message to saddam that he should co-operate with disarmament.... exactly what he was doing when the US led coalition of the few invaded...

bush decided he had had enough... and that was that...

this is the same man who had just a few months previously asked for and received a unanimous security council resolution that allowed inspectors to do EXACTLY what he wanted them to do...

bush GOT what he wanted and then he wanted more... he did not receive it and he went it alone (with the brits and australians... and POLAND)

---

someone would have to be retarded not to suggest that saddam did indeed pose a threat...

however you have to quantify a threat when neutralizing it... did saddam pose a bigger threat than pakistan or syria or iran or north korea? honestly did he?

while duelfer and kay will kiss ass (they were after all appointed by the administration itself), their reports are not ambiguous... they are pointed in their description of capabilities both present and in the recent past, and likely, in the future...

---

bush f*cked up... he dropped the ball... he undertook an unecessary war effort against a nation that wasn't even in the top 5 most dangerous nations and has bogged down the bulk of our army there...

HIS decision has led to over ONE THOUSAND dead united states soldiers... and many many thousands of maimed and wounded...

HIS decision, no one elses...

remember what peter parker's grand-dad told him in spiderman...

---

in light of the "catastrophic success" of the invasion of iraq it is absolutely ludicrous to keep bringing up quotes from kerry and edwards as if it proves a point... it does absolutely nothing of the sort...

so they gave the president of the United States of america the authority to use force if necessary... was it necessary? how the hell can we say it was necessary when there has been no proof of it whatsoever... there are many evil despots... there are many dictators in the world... there are many many bad people who do terrible things... take out the most dangerous ones FIRST if you really want to make people feel safe... start perhaps with kim jong il if you REALLY want to prove that you are doing something to make the united states safer...

its simply a deflection of responsibility away from the f*ckup that bush engaged in... he BROKE iraq and we are stuck there till we FIX it... and FIX it completely...

we, our children and their children are going to be paying for this war when all is said and done... for a war that had nothing to do with terrorism...
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#15
what a great post^^^^

do you proceed while there is another war going on already?
not if you've studied war 101

do you proceed w/o a policy for ensuring there will be peace and stability afterwards?
only if your very purpose is instability

do you proceed while alienating allies
of course not...especially when you are for warned that you'd be alienating those that would rather be your alies

and allowing the terrorist networks you proclaim to have destroyed to build back up and launch new attacks?
only if you are the miltary giant this head of state is

could we find a "comander in cheif" that would have made worse choices then this president in defense of this country?

if there's any person with normal inteligence that doesn't think they wouldn't have defended this country better then this president, I'd be surprised
 
#17
Could we find a worse commander and cheif???

Well, yeah.

-John F. Kennedy
-Lyndon B. Johnson

About 58,000 US troups butchered (and I use that word accurately) for absolutely nothing. (Note there were also Korean, New Zealand and Austrailian troops lost in that police action.)
 

Sazar

F@H - Is it in you?
Staff member
Political User
#18
LeeJend said:
Could we find a worse commander and cheif???

Well, yeah.

-John F. Kennedy
-Lyndon B. Johnson

About 58,000 US troups butchered (and I use that word accurately) for absolutely nothing. (Note there were also Korean, New Zealand and Austrailian troops lost in that police action.)
nixon belongs in there as well...

JFK has a good rap for 2 reasons... his dealing of the cuban missle crisis and he was assasinated..

I am sure his pursuance of putting a man on the moon helped too...
 

ThePatriot

-=[BOHICA!]=-
Political User
#19
perris said:
what a great post^^^^


not if you've studied war 101


only if your very purpose is instability


of course not...especially when you are for warned that you'd be alienating those that would rather be your alies


only if you are the miltary giant this head of state is

could we find a "comander in cheif" that would have made worse choices then this president in defense of this country?

if there's any person with normal inteligence that doesn't think they wouldn't have defended this country better then this president, I'd be surprised
...or do you ignore the issue like we did for TWELVE YEARS and hope that nothing bad happens? Nah, sorry boys, I'll take err on the side of caution any day. Funny part is, if we did ignore Saddam, if we did leave the sanctions go, if we did let him (and Kofi, and Jaques...etc) continue to line their pockets with "oil-for-food" profits, if we let him rebuild his military(as Hitler did under everyones "ignorance"), and God forbid he did launch/sell/fund something bad, you would all be trashing the President for that!

The real funny part is how the anti-Bush group is all over the place on this war, yet they claim the President is! First, it was "no blood for oil", then it was "no-WMD's", then it was "no Iraq-Al Quaeda connection", the ever popular "not part of the terror war", "Haliburton waged this war for profit", "oh, and don't forget that classic, "Bush's personal grudge war!".

While the administration, and it's now-nay sayers, had said at the time we dicided to go to war that he was a threat, he is a threat, and he will only become a worse threat because of his past obsession with WMD's and questionable, and STILL UNRESOLVED terrorist involvement.

Was all the intel correct? No. Was all the intel incorrect? No. The President made a decision to take out the possibility, rather than wait on a proven dangerous regime to show it's cards and then have to clean up another mess.

It ain't gonna be easy, but it HAD to be done. We can snivel about it all we want, John Kerry can say he'll pull out the troops, and we can all worry about the draft 'till we get ulcers (yes, my son is 16 and I worry too) but it doesn't change the fact that it was the correct thing to do. Even Duelfer agrees.
 

Perris Calderon

Moderator
Staff member
Political User
#20
I'll take err on the side of caution any day
caution is it thepatriot?...this is caution as far as you're concerned?

great

here's the caution of this military giant...you know, the same person you've already told us botched his attack on Iraq.

this president has forsaken the defense of this country so he could start a war of his personal obsession

he's circumvented our government and witheld vital information he is obligated to produce

he has been the ruin of this land, her reputation, her safety, her sanctity for now and generations, her standing among nations is forever deminished

you sit there telling us "what had to be done"...right..at the expense of this land

now I'll tell you what had to be done;

this country had to be defended when we were warned with stunning and precise accuracy about an impending attack...we needed a president that would do no less then other presidents before him who've been given almost identical intel.

this president needed to defend this country as any other person would have

when the attack this president was warned would happen, this president needed to take action against the country that attacked us before the effort would become impotent...as he was implored to do.

this president needed to finish the defense of this nation before he started making up wars.

this president needed NOT to secretly divert funds from the boys and girls that are defending this country so he can make up a war unnasociated.

and this president needs to stop flip flopping all over the place and then making believe that it's his opponent who does it

but it doesn't change the fact that it was the correct thing to do
there is notthing correct about the fasion this made up war has been conducted
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me ...
Xie
What a long strange trip it's been. =)

Forum statistics

Threads
61,961
Messages
673,239
Members
89,014
Latest member
chawalsub