A development we surely will not read about in the Former Elite Media On The Skids Lefty-Moonbat Press:

12 hours of taped discussions between Saddam and his Court reveal that Saddam was gaming the UN inspections and engaged in a program to create weapons grade uranium.

'Bush Was Right'

Posted 2/21/2006

WMD: The quote above is that of a former UNSCOM member after translating and reviewing 12 hours of taped conversations between Saddam Hussein and his aides. So what's on the covers of Time and Newsweek?

Funny thing about dictators and tyrants: Very often they are meticulous record keepers. The fall of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq all produced treasure troves of information. In Iraq's case, there were so many documents and records that even now only a small fraction have been translated and analyzed.

Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers. They reveal, among other things, how Iraq was working on an advanced method of enriching uranium, how Iraq was conspiring to deceive U.N. inspectors regarding weapons of mass destruction and how these weapons might be used against the U.S.

The tapes were officially presented Sunday by former FBI translator Bill Tierney to a private conference of former weapons inspectors and intelligence experts in Arlington, Va. Tierney is an Arabic speaker who worked in the mid-1990s for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the agency responsible for overseeing Iraq's disarmament.

On one of the tapes, made in 2000, two years after Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, two Iraqi scientists can be heard briefing Hussein on their progress in enriching uranium using plasma separation. If successful, their work would have given Saddam the fissile material he needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The plasma process got a brief mention in the 2004 final report of CIA arms inspector Charles Duefer, but only as a legacy program the Iraqis allegedly abandoned in the 1980s. "This not only shows the capabilities the Iraqis had, but also the weakness of international arms inspection," Tierney believes.

Some highlights from the tapes were played last Wednesday night on ABC's "Nightline." The chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Pete Hoekstra, has listened to some of the tapes and said they were "authentic."

In one exchange taped in April or May 1995, Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamil al-Majid, briefed Saddam and his aides on his success at concealing Iraq's WMD from inspectors. "We did not reveal all that we have," he said. "They didn't know the extent of our work on missiles."

Of the information turned over to U.N. inspectors, Hussein Kamil told Saddam: "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of materials we imported, not the volume of production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct. They didn't know any of this." ....

http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=2&issue=20060221

Yes, we were all busy focusing on cheny's shootin' while we could be focusing on your pipedream that wmd's were moved to Syria.

Golly gee that there's proof!!:rolleyes:

^ The expected kneejerk response.

Thank you for not even bothering to read the article.

I did read the article. Seriously, give it up.

The Leftwing Moonbats have been whinging for proof - and yet reject it when offered.

Of course, this is all perfectly consistent with the Lefty Memes: Bush is Stupid, Rove is Devious, and Cheney is Evul.

Wait, Syria?

I thought it was Russia, with the aid of the chinese? Or was it just the chinese? Wait--It was Iran, I thought? God damn it--Where are those mystery weapons that no one can find a single chemical trace of no matter how much we search the areas that we knew had tons of chemicals on them?!?!?!

the early 1990s through 2000


So what happened to the five-to-fifteen-year-old work? When was it abandoned? When was it destroyed, and where?

Or will we never know, becuase some genius kicked the inspectors out and blew up all the evidence?

^ The expected kneejerk response.


Unlike the sane, level headed, and rational response:


Former Elite Media On The Skids Lefty-Moonbat Press:


:rolleyes:

Anything positive about Bush is just blackstrap molasses to the Moonbat Swarm.

They just can't wait to cluster around it and smear it with their little fly speck poo.

Fine. Let's talk about the "proof" mentioned in the article.

Tierney discovered that there were recorded conversations (why were they recorded?) between SH and his aides about how they were working on ways to enrich uranium and how they may be used against the US.

And Husseins son in law allegedly was taped telling Saddam that they didn't reveal everything to weapons inspectors back in 1995.

None of those are proof of him having WMD's, sorry.

oh, and

According to Georges Sada, Saddam's No. 2 Air Force officer, two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets were converted to cargo planes and moved the WMD to Syria in a total of 56 flights six weeks before the war. The flights were disguised as part of a relief effort after a Syrian dam collapsed in 2002.

Well if Saddam's No. 2 air force officer says so, it must be true according to you.

So in short, the article says nothing.

This is the most relevant passage:

On one of the tapes, made in 2000, two years after Saddam kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors, two Iraqi scientists can be heard briefing Hussein on their progress in enriching uranium using plasma separation. If successful, their work would have given Saddam the fissile material he needed to make a nuclear bomb.

Anyone who thinks Saddam was not engaged in efforts to develop a nuclear weapon is deluding himself.

This is just more insane blather from Bill Tierney ... who also claimed to know the exact coordinates of the entrance to a giant underground weapons facility next to the tigis river

Obviously this exists only in his imagination

Plasma Sepaparation is one of the most technical and difficult methods of unranium enrichment, the US and France were the only countries that had serious programs and these were abandoned many years ago.

Waaaaaaaa!!!! The Neo-Cons keep harshing my reality with FACTS! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bo, it's done. Stop now. You look retarded.

You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of your "arguments".

They consist of merely saying that any evidence presented doesn't exist. You ask for proof - and then fall into lockstep denial when it is offered. It's a regular thing.

Schiztoids think the voices in thier heads are "real"

Iraq: The Smoking Gun?
Bill Tierney, a former weapons inspector who worked with UNSCOM in Iraq in the late 1990s, was the guest for the first two hours of Friday night's show. He believes that Iraq has nuclear capability and the intention to use such weapons. Further, Tierney claims that he has pinpointed a hidden location in Iraq (map here) where there is a uranium enriching processing facility. "You can't put an underground chamber on the back of a truck," Tierney said, indicating that if an inspection were made in this suggested area, the Iraqis would not be able to haul off the evidence.

Tierney's methods of ascertaining this location were rather unconventional. "I would ask God and just get a sense if something was valid or not, and then know if I needed to pursue it," he said. His assessments through prayer were then confirmed to him by a friend's clairvoyant dream, where he was able to find the location on a map. "Everything she said lined up. This place meets the criteria," Tierney said of a power generator plant near the Tigris River that he believes is actually a cover for a secret uranium facility.


http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2003/02/14.html

This guy is a crackpot, he is ignored by the military as well as the MSM

You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of your "arguments".

They consist of merely saying that any evidence presented doesn't exist. You ask for proof - and then fall into lockstep denial when it is offered. It's a regular thing.

Rantings of a nutcase are not "Proof"

^ Yet more typical Character Assassination in place of a lucid argument.

You are grossly overestimating the effectiveness of your "arguments".

They consist of merely saying that any evidence presented doesn't exist. You ask for proof - and then fall into lockstep denial when it is offered. It's a regular thing.

What is there to argue about? You're posting meaningless drivel from a crackpot then resorting to childish rebuttals such as:

Waaaaaaaa!!!! The Neo-Cons keep harshing my reality with FACTS! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggest you refrain from any further debate. You cannot win this one. Give it up, take a nap, do whatever you need to do to calm down and come to your senses.

There is no contest here. The proof is in the article - and all any of you have done is to do the 3 year old equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying you don't hear anything.

^ Yet more typical Character Assassination in place of a lucid argument.

MY idea of proof would consist of American troops uncovering the alleged facilities

YOUR idea of "Proof" is a warmed over editorial about a quote from a proven crack-pot

Whatever. Saddam had a active program to enrich weapons grade uranium. This wasn't to power the generator on a safari.

Whatever. Saddam had a active program to enrich weapons grade uranium. This wasn't to power the generator on a safari.

whatever. This is not proved in your OP so the obvious conclusion, given the complete lack of tangible evidence, is Bush was wrong

Boed, You need to realize the futility of offering more evidence to these guys. They do nothing but demonstrate the reason why the terms moonbat and moron and lefty are interchangable.

Among them are 12 hours of conversations from the early 1990s through 2000 between Hussein and his top advisers
These tapes were probably spliced together by the neocons to take the heat away from the planned shooting by Cheney which was planned to send a message to Scooter to hold his tongue and take one for the team.


When CBS finishes making their tapes then i'll be convinced

Well gee Caddis, its a good thing that the whitehouse doesnt get its information from CBS or the CIA appearintly:

Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.

In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

From 2004.

Well gee Caddis, its a good thing that the whitehouse doesnt get its information from CBS or the CIA appearintly:



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

From 2004.

But they don't want to hear that, so it must be wrong. Instead, they'll stick their fingers in their ears and scream about moonbats.

There is an increasing amount of proof that the Iraqis moved the weapons to Syria. Starting with the book by Bill Gertz Treachery.

Further there was most definitely help from the Russians, they do not deny this.

The French, of course, are implicated too. There were found hundreds of pristine, non-forged, French passports that were used to help get the most evil of Saddam's scum out of the country.





Nice thread Boedicca.

It's strange to me they don't think there could possibly be wmds with all that desert to hide stuff in-regardless the issue is a red herring...

It's strange to me they don't think there could possibly be wmds with all that desert to hide stuff in-regardless the issue is a red herring...

You are a trip man. Cutting through all the bs. Probably the first self-described person of the left that I have ever gotten along with online.

I like you too,Jimmy...

So what happened to the five-to-fifteen-year-old work? When was it abandoned? When was it destroyed, and where?

Or will we never know, becuase some genius kicked the inspectors out and blew up all the evidence?



Unlike the sane, level headed, and rational response:



:rolleyes:
What happened to it? It just might have gotten itself blown to hell in either of the month long bombing campaigns. Most probably in the Gulf 1 bombing campaign. I suspect that possible WMD locations were very high on the target list. I dont know what tonnage of HE was dropped in those campaigns but it was esp significant in Gulf 1.

And that is right we will never know thanks to the genius of GWB and his rush to war. Now y'all are looking for excuses and are quite happy to hang on to any little thing like these tapes. Tapes that Cnn, CBC, BBC and just about any legitamate journalistic source I have heard all say they prove nothing other than provideing an interesting look inside Saddams regieme.

You should all give it up. There was only one person nutty enough to be right on this issue by believing Saddam Hussein, and that was CA.

The rest of the world, including me, including the French, the Russians, the CIA, Bill Clinton, the Chinese, and the United Nations believed Saddam was concealing WMD. While there was debate about the issue of nuclear material, there was virtually NO debate on biological or chemical weapons.

Now when we talk about it you guys conflate all those things. There were plenty of you arguing that Saddam didn't have a nuclear capability, or wouldn't any time soon atleast. There were few if ANY BUT ONE of you saying that Saddam wasn't hiding biological or chemical weapons. You guys simply said that wasn't worth going to war over.

Don't play "I told you so" when you didn't say it.

You should all give it up. There was only one person nutty enough to be right on this issue by believing Saddam Hussein, and that was CA.

The rest of the world, including me, including the French, the Russians, the CIA, Bill Clinton, the Chinese, and the United Nations believed Saddam was concealing WMD. While there was debate about the issue of nuclear material, there was virtually NO debate on biological or chemical weapons.

Now when we talk about it you guys conflate all those things. There were plenty of you arguing that Saddam didn't have a nuclear capability, or wouldn't any time soon atleast. There were few if ANY BUT ONE of you saying that Saddam wasn't hiding biological or chemical weapons. You guys simply said that wasn't worth going to war over.

Don't play "I told you so" when you didn't say it.

No, everyone except you dittoheads said Saddam "probably has" WMDs, and that's why we should continue with inspections to see if he does. You people insisted that you "knew for a fact" that he does have them, so inspections are worthless.

Don't try to rewrite history.

Now when we talk about it you guys conflate all those things. There were plenty of you arguing that Saddam didn't have a nuclear capability, or wouldn't any time soon atleast. There were few if ANY BUT ONE of you saying that Saddam wasn't hiding biological or chemical weapons. You guys simply said that wasn't worth going to war over.

Don't play "I told you so" when you didn't say it.


Awwwww...but that would spoil their favorite hobby: Rewriting History to suit their political pathologies.

Awwwww...but that would spoil their favorite hobby: Rewriting History to suit their political pathologies.

Are you the pot or the kettle? It's hard to tell.

You should all give it up. There was only one person nutty enough to be right on this issue by believing Saddam Hussein, and that was CA.

Pfft. Are you shitting me? No one believed Saddam entirely, hence the inspections. But a hunch is nothing to wage a war on, deepest apologies to the BA's policys. And on top of that, we had the CIA making an official statement saying they didnt have enough intel to go to war on, the largest world protests in history, and scientific organizations across the board blasting the shit out of the notion that Saddam could be doing the things the BA said he was.


The rest of the world, including me, including the French, the Russians, the CIA, Bill Clinton, the Chinese, and the United Nations believed Saddam was concealing WMD. While there was debate about the issue of nuclear material, there was virtually NO debate on biological or chemical weapons.

Yea, the only problem is most of his chemical weapons would be expired. You people dont ****ing get it--Chemical weapons dont have an infinite shelf life, nor can you just make them out of dirt by adding salt. Saddam didnt have the materials to make new ones, and his old ones were long since expired.

The left thinks they can garner votes by bashing or protesting everything the BA does or doesn't do. If we found out that SH was behind a bombing that killed thousands of people. It would become the BA's fault for not discovering the plot. If the BA stops a plot, the left will discount it and try to set the perpetrators free, since they were unsuccessful. There is no way to win with left. It's like playing catch with jello.

The left thinks they can garner votes by bashing or protesting everything the BA does or doesn't do. If we found out that SH was behind a bombing that killed thousands of people. It would become the BA's fault for not discovering the plot. If the BA stops a plot, the left will discount it and try to set the perpetrators free, since they were unsuccessful. There is no way to win with left. It's like playing catch with jello.

Execpt that you're making the whole thing up. Other than that, yeah, sure.

Execpt that you're making the whole thing up. Other than that, yeah, sure.Dittohead. :p

Pfft. Are you shitting me? No one believed Saddam entirely, hence the inspections. But a hunch is nothing to wage a war on, deepest apologies to the BA's policys. And on top of that, we had the CIA making an official statement saying they didnt have enough intel to go to war on, the largest world protests in history, and scientific organizations across the board blasting the shit out of the notion that Saddam could be doing the things the BA said he was.


What were you, 16 at the time? Spare me this BS. EVERYONE said that Saddam was not in compliance with the inspections. EVERYONE said that there were missing stockpiles and capabilities for biological and chemical weapons.

The disagreement was what should be done about it. It wasn't just a 'hunch', it was a recognized fact. By everyone. And while you were gabbing in the lunch room with your friends about how much you hate Bush inbetween your awkward gawking at some cheerleader's ass, you wern't participating in the national debate at all.


Yea, the only problem is most of his chemical weapons would be expired. You people dont ****ing get it


What you don't get is that the sanctions regime was KNOWN to be flawed. The capabilites for making chemical weapons was still posessed by Saddam. THAT is the part you seem to gloss over.

I don't like people who play "I told you so" when they wern't even participants in the debate.

Bo, it's done. Stop now. You look retarded.

You are so right, my friend.

If I read the word 'whinging' or 'moonbat' one more time :rolleyes:

But I'll give Bo this, she gets the honor of funniest title for a thread so far in 2006 :nice:

It wasn't just a 'hunch', it was a recognized fact.


Then where are they?

What were you, 16 at the time? Spare me this BS. EVERYONE said that Saddam was not in compliance with the inspections.

Hey, feel free to list this 'everyone'. Also, feel free to explain to me why the inspectors thought things were going generally well, and had no reason to believe Saddam a threat yet--Hence why they wanted to keep going on inspections.

Your everyone notion is bunk.


EVERYONE said that there were missing stockpiles and capabilities for biological and chemical weapons.

Iv explicetly seen several highly regarded scientific organizations detail why much of the BA's reasoning is absolutly impossible. Everyone from the obvious BS of the tube claim, to the fact that materials that the BA said they had cited as Saddams chemical weapons would have, as a fact, been expired.

Your everyone notion, is completly, completly bunk.


It wasn't just a 'hunch', it was a recognized fact. By everyone.

Besides those Democrats who were on the Select Board on Intelligence, who actually heard the case of the CIA and convinced a few other democrats to vote against the war, due to what the intelligence organizations had to say directly, rather then threw the BA?

Besides scientific organizations that said the BA's report was in many cases a scientific impossibility?

Besides the largest protests in the history of the earth?

This 'fact' claim is nothing but bullshit.


And while you were gabbing in the lunch room with your friends about how much you hate Bush inbetween your awkward gawking at some cheerleader's ass, you wern't participating in the national debate at all.

*sigh*

1. This is a pure ad hominem.
2. You voided any attempt you were making to make yourself seem more mature then me by actually degrading your points to this level of personal attack. Really, its very ironic.
3. My friends were huge conservatives, big into Rush, so no, me and my friends didnt typically bash Bush to much. Just thought I'd mention this to make it clear how pathetic your attempt to presume that you knew anything about what me and my friends were like in highschool at all.
4. I will give you this--My girlfriend was (and still is) a cheerleader. I guess I have looked at her ass a time or two? You win on that one player.



What you don't get is that the sanctions regime was KNOWN to be flawed. The capabilites for making chemical weapons was still posessed by Saddam. THAT is the part you seem to gloss over.

You seem all about spouting these 'knews', 'facts', 'knowns', with absolutly no substance except your word, which mentions nothing. Let me guess--You listen to a lot of Rush, where senseless repeating of nonsense made to look like fact, will eventually become fact?


I don't like people who play "I told you so" when they wern't even participants in the debate.

Pfft. Wow, a little over 2 years ago, I was appearintly 98% less able to comment on the situation as I am now it seems. Oh, but Im sure Im still not intelligent enough for you, what with my facts and actual ability to site sources for my claims, rather then making statements of facts based on absolutely nothing.

Dude, get the **** over the fact that your 7 years older then me, therefor somehow so intellectually superior to me. Your only proving the true ignorance you hide behind your age in making such pathetic stabs at me.

Well I'm sure glad we invaded Iraq to nab these vile tapes! I think we should destroy the tapes, as they are obviously evidence of WMD's, and those are highly dangerous. Perhaps there is room in the Yucca mountains of Nevada?

But I'm confused! If the tapes say they were working on WMD's, then where are the WMD's? I know! They must still be in Iraq, as tapes wouldn't lie, so I think we should stop all we are doing in Iraq and start looking for them again!
Perhaps we need more troops to look for them! Why haven't we tried torturing Saddam, so he'll cough them up!

While we are at it, Iran's leader says he'll destroy Israel. These "words" are clear indication that he's going to do it, so let's invade Iran, or better yet, in order to save man power, let's have Israel do it.:nice:

You can almost feel a twinge of pity for the few deadenders who still insist on making fools of themselves with laughers like:

"Bush was right."

Andrew Card: "From a marketing point of view you don't introduce new products in August."

New York Times, September 7, 2002

So Bush waited until October, when he said:

"Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."

I wonder if this fraud of a president anticipated the irony of this gem, from the same speech:

"This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States."

Hey, feel free to list this 'everyone'. Also, feel free to explain to me why the inspectors thought things were going generally well, and had no reason to believe Saddam a threat yet--Hence why they wanted to keep going on inspections.


Perhaps because they're inspectors, and they have a vested interest in continuing working? If they DIDN'T think Saddam was a threat, why continue the inpections in the first place? You can't have it both ways. Either they thought he was a danger and they just hadn't found the proof yet, or they didn't think he was a danger and were just wasting everyone's time.

If they DIDN'T think Saddam was a threat, why continue the inpections in the first place?


To verify their suspicions.


You can't have it both ways. Either they thought he was a danger and they just hadn't found the proof yet, or they didn't think he was a danger and were just wasting everyone's time.


This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

To verify their suspicions.

The point remains that you can't infer motive simply from action. To claim the inspectors as ideological fellow travelers simply because they wanted to continue their work is specious, at best. Hans Blix himself stated that they could not be certain that Saddam was not a danger after they were removed from Iraq.

The point remains that you can't infer motive simply from action. To claim the inspectors as ideological fellow travelers simply because they wanted to continue their work is specious, at best. Hans Blix himself stated that they could not be certain that Saddam was not a danger after they were removed from Iraq.

The point of the inspections was to fact find. Bush said they didn't need to fact find, because he already had the facts. It turns out his "facts" were actually "hunches", and he's spent a third of a trillion dollars to disprove his hunches, when the UN could have done it for a hell of a lot less, and without the human costs.

You're trying to claim that, because everyone on the planet wanted to search Iraq to see if there were weapons, they all agreed with you people that they knew for a fact that weapons were there. That's bogus and irrational, no matter how much you try to spin it.

You're trying to claim that, because everyone on the planet wanted to search Iraq to see if there were weapons, they all agreed with you people that they knew for a fact that weapons were there. That's bogus and irrational, no matter how much you try to spin it.

You're making a statement about me that I know is false. Show me where I have indicated the above or feel free to retract it. Keep in mind that you said the following words: "everyone", "all", "fact". And keep in mind as well that we DID know the weapons were there at one point, and we didn't have convincing evidence that they were gone when the war started, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

You're making a statement about me that I know is false. Show me where I have indicated the above or feel free to retract it. Keep in mind that you said the following words: "everyone", "all", "fact". And keep in mind as well that we DID know the weapons were there at one point, and we didn't have convincing evidence that they were gone when the war started, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

Then you agree that Bush was full of crap when he said he knew for a fact that weapons were there? That he was taking a hunch and claiming it to be a fact? If you think that, then you and I are in agreement.

Oh, "when the war started." I think you mean, "when we started the war."

You should all give it up. There was only one person nutty enough to be right on this issue by believing Saddam Hussein, and that was CA.


No, I did not believe Saddam Hussein, I believed the facts which were available to everyone (which I tried to show you but you and the rest of the gullible right wingers were blinded by propaganda and jingoism at the time). I believed logic, reason, and the U.N weapons inspector I personally talked to in Orange California back in March 2003 who I asked to tell me the absolute truth, off the record if Iraq posessed any kind of "WMD's". He personally destroyed any capability Iraq had of producing anything that could be considered a WMD starting after the 1991 Gulf war. Anybody who cared for the facts knew all the tall tales about Iraq's WMD capabilities was pure Bullshit. We knew about the Office of Special Plans which was created for the sole reason of fabricating intelligence to back the warmakers lies in order to scare people like you into supporting a illegal, aggressive, pre-emptive war.

:nonono:


The rest of the world, including me, including the French, the Russians, the CIA, Bill Clinton, the Chinese, and the United Nations believed Saddam was concealing WMD.


ROFL!!! You love making things up.

The rest of the world knew Iraq no longer had WMD's and was no threat to anybody.

Leading up to ther invasion of Iraq the world saw the largest protests in the history of the world in virtually every nation on earth except for places like China and North Korea. The whole world knew the facts, it was only right wing kool aid drinkers here in the states who believed otherwise.


While there was debate about the issue of nuclear material, there was virtually NO debate on biological or chemical weapons.


Actually there was no debate on any of them, except in the fantasy world you far right wingers live in.

"Trailers of mass destruction"!!

:bowrofl:


Now when we talk about it you guys conflate all those things. There were plenty of you arguing that Saddam didn't have a nuclear capability, or wouldn't any time soon atleast.

"Cheney said in the interview, broadcast Monday. "We know he has worked to and has succeeded in improving his biological weapons capability. And we're confident that he has also begun, once again, to try to acquire a nuclear weapon."

"The vice president said nuclear technicians are "still in Iraq" and that Saddam is working on what Cheney called "fissile material."

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=6837

"To those who say, we want more evidence that there's a real threat, the Administration says, we can't wait for a smoking gun to turn up. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice said on CNN's Late Edition recently."

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/12/schneider.iraq/

If that's not fear mongering at it's worst from the administration, nothing is.


There were few if ANY BUT ONE of you saying that Saddam wasn't hiding biological or chemical weapons. You guys simply said that wasn't worth going to war over.


Actually, here in drug free reality, the vast majority of people on this planet knew Saddam no longer had the WMD's Reagan sold him in the 80's.


Don't play "I told you so" when you didn't say it.


Oh we tried to tell you, but you were hooked on whatever the administration and their lapdogs said.

If we were wrong, we'd have found all these WMD's by now..

Perhaps because they're inspectors, and they have a vested interest in continuing working?

Which would explain why a few years earlier they evacuated and reported their findings--That they had found a location that Saddam was using to build WMD?


If they DIDN'T think Saddam was a threat, why continue the inpections in the first place?

There's a difference between thinking and knowing. If we attacked everyone who we should generally think of as a threat, we'd have no army at home.

Nah, not convinced.

IF and I mean IF Chavez uses oil as a weapon against us we should act militarily against him (bloackade, asset seizures) and see how his peasant constituency responds when they can't export any oil at all.

Having said that I don't see a good reason to interfere with his affairs unless he starts using oil as a weapon.

IF and I mean IF Chavez uses oil as a weapon against us we should act militarily against him (bloackade, asset seizures) and see how his peasant constituency responds when they can't export any oil at all.

Having said that I don't see a good reason to interfere with his affairs unless he starts using oil as a weapon.

IF and I mean IF Chavez uses oil as a weapon against us we should act militarily against him (bloackade, asset seizures) and see how his peasant constituency responds when they can't export any oil at all.

Having said that I don't see a good reason to interfere with his affairs unless he starts using oil as a weapon.

Oh lovely you want to attack Venezulea and Iran too. While the US may have the most powerful military on earth today it does have real finite limitations. (and the pocket books of the US taxpayer has finite limitations too) I am afraid we are fast approaching those limitations at least we seem to have been quite successfull in putting the belief out therre that we are streched to our limits. How in gods name is any country going to afraid of the US while we are bogged down in Iraq. About the only portion of our military with much excess capacity is the Navy and that isnt much.

One question why the hell does every discussion on this board come down to left and friggen right. Its like the US is politically a skipping LP that just cant get itself together to actually discuss issues without reverting to name calling.