kosar said:I guess it depnds on your definition of 'lying.' I think that it would be hard to argue that Bush dismissed any opinions (EVERY F*CKING INSPECTOR THAT HAD BEEN IN IRAQ SINCE 1991) and glommed on to wrapped around intelligence from literally ONE shady Iraqi. Look into this.
again...why was there inspections from "91-until the start of the war if it was definitively proven that saddam was weaponless?...
because,it was not proven....from not allowing inspectors complete access to all sites...to kicking inspectors out....
if saddam had folllowed south africa`s lead and systematically opened up the country and came clean,none of this would have happened...
he deceived...blocked....removed inspectors....almost a decade and a half and the world was still fighting for clear access....
""""Are you kidding me? It wasn't a matter of them hiding info that Saddam had no WMD. That info was always out in the open. The problem comes when you try to get people to believe that some dots on a satellite are chemical facilities, when in fact they're....well, we still don't know""""""
we`d have known if saddam had given the inspectors total access....now,wouldn`t we...
why didn`t we know...if the inspectors,ala south africa,had total access?
that`s what you don`t get...he blocked access....and the u.n. did everyting they could to enable saddam....
we know that now...
""""I noticed that you avoided commenting on the British memo that blatantly stated that Bush was taking certain 'intelligence' to fulfill his mission. Bush himself did not dispute it"""".
post it...i hope it`s not from some blatantly anti-american british dishrag of a newspaper...
""""Of course not. He thought that there was a reasonable chance that we'd find something there and that if we found even a cache' of mustard gas that we supplied them in the 80's but was currently unusable, that he'd be proven 'right.' He was wrong. Bad bet."""
between not allowing inspectors total access and kicking inspectors out when they asked for access to areas saddam didn`t want them to see.......and the fact that the u.n. dragged their feet for around 2 and a half years leading up to the invasion,it`s not unreasonable to surmise that saddam had more than enough time to remove anything he may have had...or bury it...
"""Can you possibly be kidding? You're intelligent. You know damn well that this cadre has been gunning for Saddam since the mid-90's. This crap has nothing to do with 9/11, but that was a great excuse"""
what great excuse?....
that we seem to have to revisit the saddam threat every 8 years?....
that he didn`t give inspectors complete access?....
that the u.n. was in league with saddam....lining their pockets running interference for him...
that he invaded his neighbors and was trying to corner the middle eastern oil market so he would have leverage against the west?...
that he was behind an attempted assassination plot to kill our president?
that he burned the kuwaiti oil fields?
that he lobbed scuds into israel when the u.s.-led u.n. contingent kicked him out of kuwait?...while they sat on their hands...
the fact that he attempted to start another arab/israeli war goes unmentioned on this board....
slipped everyone`s memory,that one did.....
the fact that he was the very first middle eastern despot that tried to build a nuclear weapon in the 80`s thanks to the french....
and those are just off the top of my head...who,in the middle east....possibly in the world....was more of the threat than saddam over the last 20 years...
maybe n.korea...but their track record pales in comparison to saddam`s...
"""Talk about whiffing. Even *if* Saddam had chemical weapons, who really gives a f*ck, especially at that exact time? Seriously. We gave them to them to begin with. But more than that, Iraq had not threatened anybody since Kuwait in 1991, let alone us ever. They were contained. Period."""'
we also were allies with stalin in ww2..he was as bad a despot and murderer as anyone in history.....alliances ebb and flow....it happens throughout history....it`s not unusual....you know that....
""""What happened? What happened is that he's a friggin' idiot who thought that France and Germany and Russia would stop us from coming in. I'm still trying to figure out how you prove that you destroy something. Isn't that like proving a negative?"""
south africa did it...under u.n. supervision..systematically..to show that they were legitimately diasarming.... to the rest of the world....and has an open door policy...
went about as smooth as glass...read up on it....
iraq...over a period of almost 2 decades...has flouted international norms and legally binding obligations requiring it to eliminate arms programs and to prove this to the satisfaction of the international community. ....
it never did...never did...
read this... http://www.dispatch.co.za/2003/01/29/editoria/LP2.HTM
then,you`ll understand the difference between the two....
""""Documents? What are you talking about? How about the 100+ ex-employees/associates that have stepped out against Bolton as far as this appointment goes? Not to mention Colin Powell.""
what documents?....you`re kidding...right?...
i can`t print all this stuff...here`s another link....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7775160/
have fun..
gardenweasel said:i
..mccain`s angling for a run at hillary in 2008...and he just flexed his muscles...
...
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.