Weapons Of Mass Disappearance

[Doomstone]

Several current and former military officers who saw all the relevant data through this spring charge that the Pentagon took the raw data from the CIA and consistently overinterpreted the threat posed by Iraq's stockpiles. "There was a predisposition in this Administration to assume the worst about Saddam," a senior military officer told TIME. This official, recently retired, was deeply involved in planning the war with Iraq but left the service after concluding that the U.S. was going to war based on bum intelligence. "They were inclined to see and interpret evidence a particular way to support a very deeply held conviction," the officer says. "I just think they felt there needed to be some sort of rallying point for the American people. I think they said it sincerely, but I also think that at the end of the day, we'll find out their interpretations of the intelligence were wrong." Another official, an Army intelligence officer, singled out Rumsfeld for massaging the facts. "Rumsfeld was deeply, almost pathologically distorting the intelligence," says the officer. Rumsfeld told a radio audience last week that the "war was not waged under any false pretense." And an aide flat-out rejects the idea that intelligence was hyped to support the invasion. "We'd disagree very strongly with that," said Victoria Clarke, the chief Pentagon spokeswoman.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030609-455828,00.html?cnn=yes

[Death Metal Moe]

Well then charge the UN with lying too, because the entire UN knew about the real threat of WMD's just a few years ago.

Only thing is they were more content to write fruity little threats that they weren't willing to back up.

Hell, even Immoral Clinton knew about the threat and launced Missles into Baghdad. Sure he did it to get Monica off the front pages, but that's besides the point.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Doomstone]

Well then charge the UN with lying too, because the entire UN knew about the real threat of WMD's just a few years ago.

Only thing is they were more content to write fruity little threats that they weren't willing to back up.

Hell, even Immoral Clinton knew about the threat and launced Missles into Baghdad. Sure he did it to get Monica off the front pages, but that's besides the point.



Huh?

[Death Metal Moe]

I'm saying that if you want to call Bush a liar, you have to call Clinton and the UN liars too. Because all of those people indentified Iraq as a threat many times.

To think ALL of these people were lying is irrational.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Doomstone]

WTF does "immoral Clinton" have to do with any of this?

Deflection?

[FiveB247]

Moe why must you blame the UN? First you say the UN was not capable to find or know of such weapons. Now that the US has found a shaky trail of misnomers, you find it ok to say it's the UN's fault as well? The UN successfully took apart Iraq's nuclear program previously. What the hell has the US does to remove WMD from Iraq? (they can't find any!) Allowed for looting of such facilities? Found a few trucks which "may have" been used for making items? The US and Bush talked of massive stockpiles of chemical, biological and other WMD...where are they? Did they get up and disappear...or was that the actual agenda of the US that disappeared cause it was an illusion they fed to the public? The truth is a lot closer to the ladder of those two.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Death Metal Moe]

Deflection? No sorry. It's just that when I think of Clinton all I see is a lying President who brought disgrace upon the office.

As for your "Spreading the Blame" accusation, I was doing no such thing. I was giving Clinton and the UN as examples of others that recognized the threat Iraq posed to show that with all these people thinking the same way about Iraq, it makes the idea that WMD reports being forged very slim.

And all the US did was liberate millions of people from rape and torture. What a bunch of assholes.

How did our torture chambers get under your land?

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[LiquidCourage]

What I find ironic is that before any of this happened, none of these people doubted whether there was any weapons. They just basically preached that this wasn't something worth going to war over. Now, however, they're trying to pretend that they knew there would be nothing there and are trying to rub it into peoples' faces.

[HBox]

Hell, even Immoral Clinton knew about the threat and launced Missles into Baghdad


He bombed them because they were firing on our planes in the no-fly zone. In other words, they actually attempted to attack us.

lying President


http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/rn37.gif

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/rr40.gif

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/jk35_1.gif

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/lj36.gif

[phixion]

It's just that when I think of Clinton all I see is a lying President who brought disgrace upon the office.



if getting a blowjob while working is disgraceful then i wanna b a disgraceful muthafucka!!!!!!!!

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[TheMojoPin]

What I find ironic is that before any of this happened, none of these people doubted whether there was any weapons. They just basically preached that this wasn't something worth going to war over. Now, however, they're trying to pretend that they knew there would be nothing there and are trying to rub it into peoples' faces.

Kinda like how pro-war supporters try really, super-hard to make it sound like they honestly cared about the plight of the miserable Iraqi people before Bush threw it on the table. "Oh, we wanted to liberate them all along! Shame on the rest of YOU!" Pshaw. Nice try, Schleprock.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

Now, however, they're trying to pretend that they knew there would be nothing there and are trying to rub it into peoples' faces


No. It is simply pointing out that this assumption seems, at this point, wrong. However, this does prove what I believed; that Iraq wasn't a serious threat.

[LiquidCourage]

He bombed them because they were firing on our planes in the no-fly zone. In other words, they actually attempted to attack us.



They've done that many times, including right before the war. But now someone will say that it was just some Bush/Rumsfeld/ Pentagon conspiracy to build support for the war.

[HBox]

But now someone will say that it was just some Bush/Rumsfeld/ Pentagon conspiracy to build support for the war.


I've heard no one say that. Quit sticking words in people's mouths. And it was never offered by Bush as a justification for war.

[Doomstone]

I'm just surprised that I link to an article about US Intelligence and Iraq's WMD's (or lack thereof), and like robots, some people try to turn this into a discussion about our previous president's penis.

Did you even read the article?

[Yerdaddy]

What I find ironic is that before any of this happened, none of these people doubted whether there was any weapons. They just basically preached that this wasn't something worth going to war over. Now, however, they're trying to pretend that they knew there would be nothing there and are trying to rub it into peoples' faces.
Bullshit. Members of the military, the intelligence community, Congress, the international relations policy community, and mainstream anti-war movement assumed that Saddam retained a small capacity for WMD, but nothing on the scale that the Bush administration was claiming in order to sell this war, and not enough to be a legitimate threat to the US. To claim that we were all on the same page before the war but now the critics have simply flip-flopped is laughable. And to prove it, I laughed my ass off when I read this. Same goes for Moe's new theory that the UN made the same claims as the Bush administration. LMFAO!<--- first time I've ever typed this.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[LiquidCourage]

To claim that we were all on the same page before the war but now the critics have simply flip-flopped is laughable.



Well, that's what many people did.
I remember hearing all of these people saying stuff like, "Who are we to say who can and cannot have certain weapons!?"

[Bergalad]

Your quoted selection Doomstone really pisses me off (not at you). Using unnamed sources to prove a point proves nothing at all. And Intel officers don't talk like that anyway.
For all you bashing Bush and Co about the WMD intelligence, how do you explain Blair's alleged mistakes in this? He had independant intelligence at his disposal, yet said he believes 100% that there are WMD there. This is how I know you who are attacking Bush here are sinking to partisan politics, because you have said nothing about the other nation's intelligence "failures". What member of Congress said there were no WMD in Iraq before the war? Yet all the Dems are shouting for Bush's head for lack of proof. Whatever. According to Doom's own article, we have searched about 300 of the 900 known sites in Iraq. How 'bout a little more time there attackers?
And another thing. How many of you after Gulf War I said we failed because we didn't go and "finish the job"? Well, guess what...it's finished now. How about relaxing on the "Bush is a liar" bullshit mantra you have and wait a bit more, eh? If nothing is ever found, I am right there with you all being pissed at Bush. If stuff is found though, then you can all punch yourselves in the mouth for calling him a liar. Fair?

[golfcourseguy]

It might be time to call in master illusionist Ricky Jay.

http://www.magicdirectory.com/jay/images/book.jpg


" editing posts since day one"

[Death Metal Moe]

Same goes for Moe's new theory that the UN made the same claims as the Bush administration


Really? Why were there 17 resolutions, sanctions and inspectors? For shits and giggles? They KNEW about the weapons Bush and Powell spoke about, they just wanted to try to get rid of them a different way. That was didn't work for 12 years, so when Bush saw a potential threat building, he acted. Acting must not be in the UN Charter.

And if you want me to forget about Clinton, make sure he gets himself out of the public eye and stops all these media stunts. He is a media WHORE who can't stay out of the public eye for very long. What happened to presidents fading away? They keep their dignity and just speak here and there as they continue to work for their beliefs. He will never go away. He's political AIDS.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Doomstone]

Really? Why were there 17 resolutions, sanctions and inspectors? For shits and giggles? They KNEW about the weapons Bush and Powell spoke about, they just wanted to try to get rid of them a different way. That was didn't work for 12 years, so when Bush saw a potential threat building, he acted. Acting must not be in the UN Charter.

If UN sanctions and inspections didn't work, then Iraq would have had those huge stockpiles of WMD's that Bush and Powell spoke about. And it's likely that they would've used them to, you know, defend their country against an invading army.

But that didn't happen...

[Death Metal Moe]

Well the jury's not out yet........

Just Libs looking for any reason to torpedo Bush.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Doomstone]

Sorry Bergalad, didn't see your response before. Must be that subconcious thing where I see your name and immediately skip to the next post....

And another thing. How many of you after Gulf War I said we failed because we didn't go and "finish the job"? Well, guess what...it's finished now. How about relaxing on the "Bush is a liar" bullshit mantra you have and wait a bit more, eh?


Well, let's use an analogy. Let's say I'm attacked on the street by some scumbag drunk with a knife. I fight him off, but I don't kill him, even though legally I could kill him and not face repercussions because it was in self defense.

Now, a few years later, I see the same drunk scumbag and decide to "finish the job" and kill him, despite the fact that this time, he didn't attack me. Am I a murderer? Yes.

As for the Blair question, honestly, I don't know. I'm more concerned with America's Intel, since I am, you know, American. Good question though, I'd like to know the answer.

[HBox]

Just Libs looking for any reason to torpedo Bush.


No, it's people asking legitimate questions that they deserve answers to.

[A.J.]

If this doesn't seal George Tenet's fate I don't know what does.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FUNKMAN]

Well, let's use an analogy. Let's say I'm attacked on the street by some scumbag drunk with a knife. I fight him off, but I don't kill him, even though legally I could kill him and not face repercussions because it was in self defense.

Now, a few years later, I see the same drunk scumbag and decide to "finish the job" and kill him, despite the fact that this time, he didn't attack me. Am I a murderer? Yes


even someone with my intellectual prowess enjoyed this analogy...

kudos to you DOOMS...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[DarkHippie]

What happened to presidents fading away? They keep their dignity and just speak here and there as they continue to work for their beliefs.
Like bush the elder becoming a broker for THE FUCKIN CARLYLE GROUP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! outrage. . . . overwhelming . . . fingers . . . . can only . . . . type . . . ellipses . . . .

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"And there are times when you are walking/ and looking and seeing/ everything in a brand new light/ Like trees with three trunks wrapped around each other tight/ Like her legs 'round my body in the middle of the night" --"Colleen's Song", <a href=http://www.Osvaldooyolaortega.com>Osvaldo Oyola Ortega</a>
</marquee>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Bergalad]

I fight him off, but I don't kill him, even though legally I could kill him and not face repercussions because it was in self defense.

Here is where you analogy falls apart completely. You don't have the right to kill him if you can fight him off. It's like shooting a guy who has a knife...you can be charged with manslaughter for that (not that I agree with that). Also, if you had fought the guy off, but he kept coming back and swiping at you for 10+ years, then it would be a more similar analogy. Nice try though. And still doesn't change the fact that many (were you one of them?) said Bush I failed for not taking out Saddam years ago but now blast Bush II for doing exactly what they wanted his father to do. Rough sentance I know.
As for the Blair question, honestly, I don't know. I'm more concerned with America's Intel, since I am, you know, American. Good question though, I'd like to know the answer.
Exactly.

[phixion]

What I find ironic is that before any of this happened, none of these people doubted whether there was any weapons. They just basically preached that this wasn't something worth going to war over. Now, however, they're trying to pretend that they knew there would be nothing there and are trying to rub it into peoples' faces.


sorry friend, i never believed a third world country had WMD's. im sorry i dont accept the presidents word on face value only...

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[Bergalad]

sorry friend, i never believed a third world country had WMD's. im sorry i dont accept the presidents word on face value only...
Iraq was not a third-world country, just so you know. And of course they had WMD, how can you say they didn't? The UN inspectors in 1998 knew they had tons of the shit unaccounted for when they pulled out, and you think Saddam just stopped producing it in their absence? Do you really think that?

[Death Metal Moe]

I couldn't think of a "snotty" response that attempts to "one-up" another poster, so I just thought I'd put another post in my count.

:)

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[FiveB247]

Let's lay the basis for this war. President Bush said we need disarmament. Then he said we need regime change. One of these occurred and it wasn't the reason that was given for invasion. (And not finding a supposed huge stockpile of weaponry does not classify as disarmament.) Do you feel you were lied to whether the situation was just or not? You should, cause you were.

And Of course we removed an awful regime..but I highly doubt our reasons were so honorable or just. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise.

And as for Britain...they follow the US's lead like a dog. If the US didn't take the initiative in "operation iraqi freedom", Britain is not doing a thing but bargaining for more inspections in the UN. Blair is left to suffer his own fate in Britain, except probably there, the citizens will actually care or be responsive enough to hold an official responsible for their action and policies.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[LiquidCourage]

sorry friend, i never believed a third world country had WMD's.



China's basically a third world country, except for maybe Hong Kong now that they've taken it. Same with North Korea.

[Death Metal Moe]

And Of course we removed an awful regime..but I highly doubt our reasons were so honorable or just. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise.

And as for Britain...they follow the US's lead like a dog.


2 very bad points. You just don't like Bush, so of course you think his intentions are less than honorable. That's your problem.

And Blair did what he thought was right at the expense of his popularity. He caught a lot of shit, and some stupic International organization wants to bring him up on war crime charges.

Gay.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Bergalad]

President Bush said we need disarmament. Then he said we need regime change.
He said disarm or you will be disarmed by force. Get it right Revisionist.
Do you feel you were lied to whether the situation was just or not? You should, cause you were.
The jury is still out on whether we will find WMD. Five, you honestly believe that he destroyed his unaccounted-for stockpiles (that the UN knew he had) after the inspectors left in '98? You're not that stupid I hope.
And Of course we removed an awful regime..but I highly doubt our reasons were so honorable or just. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise.
Double-talk by the Left. It's the problem you have: both praise and curse at the same time what Bush did in Iraq. You want it both ways but it won't happen.
And as for Britain...they follow the US's lead like a dog. If the US didn't take the initiative in "operation iraqi freedom", Britain is not doing a thing but bargaining for more inspections in the UN.
Where's your answer to my question about Brittish intelligence backing up what the US said? You can't argue it, so you belittle them. Typical. Belgian!
Blair is left to suffer his own fate in Britain, except probably there, the citizens will actually care or be responsive enough to hold an official responsible for their action and policies.
Oh, we hold officials here accountable for their actions. If they lie to the citizens of the country, they will be punished for it. Forget Nixon already? Oh yes, and didn't we IMPEACH your beloved Slick Willy? If Bush lied, he will be held accountable as well, and I will be first in line to vote him out of office; don't hold your breath that I will have to do that though.

[TheMojoPin]

But what about those of us who assumed Iraq had or was trying to develop WMD's, but were very skeptical of the lack of evidence coming from our leaders, who had this attitude of "we need to move in now, NOW, NOW!!! Or the world is DOOMED!!!" I quite frankly don't give a good goddamn about what we did for the Iraqi people. Iraq provides us with two things...oil (Oh no! Bad word! Suck it up, it's business. We'd be stupid not to) and a millitary staging ground from which to "lean" on other countries in the region. What bothers me is how we alienated so many of our FAR more useful allies in Asia and Europe. Sure, it's cute to flick off the French, but these countries are just as petty as we are. Like it or not, Iraq was the exception. We normally need or desire the support/vote/aid of our allied nations, and there's a good chance we've pooped a good portion of that support away for the forseeable future.

Again, what about those of us who WANTED to go in to Iraq (Since it seemed like we were going to do it no matter what), but thought it insanely retarded to rush in with the support of Spain, Britian, Japan (Kinda) and several dozen other little nothing (Be honest now) countries? Is it because we knew we didn't really have shit to go on? Why else would we rush in, everyone else be damned? France probably was a lost cause, but we've had excellent relations with Russia and Germany in recent years, and probably could have gotten them on the boat had we made a convincing argument.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

It's funny how both Bergalad and Moe care to call me either "leftist", "revisionist" or "anti-bush/ pro-willy"?

The US's initial policy in Iraq when coming to the UN was of disarmament! Not a mention of regime change. Don't change or confuse the facts to obtain a more righteous view of occurrences. Will this maybe help my case if I mention 9-11? It seems to work for our government. Bush, Powell, Chaney and others all originally talked and mentioned disarmament.

Secondly, I never claim ignorant bipartisan ways. Don't accompany me with such ideas simply due to my disagreement with the current party in power's action. In my opinion, one party is no better than the other.

Ps..I never claimed Saddam didn't hold any items they shouldn't have. But after whipping the citizens into a war frenzy over massive stockpiles of weaponry, it was more unnecessary alarmist action than containment of a threat. If you don't think so...consider the lack of US force against Iraq in between the 2 gulf wars. Obviously, such massive stock piles didn't disappear then ..Ehh?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Death Metal Moe]

I remember Bush's speech talking about WMD's too. But I also remember things like Regeim change. I remember libiration. I remember upholding UN resolution. I remeber stopping Human Rights violations. I remember breaking up whatever Al Queda was in that country.

All these signals were coming out of the administration. I think certian people in the press (not just the Libs) concentrated on the WMD's more than the administration was.

Just my observation. But Bush DID outline 5 or 6 different reasons for going into Iraq.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[HBox]

Just my observation. But Bush DID outline 5 or 6 different reasons for going into Iraq.


My impression that those were just offered as support, that they the biggest and most pressing reason we fought was to rid them of WMDs. I would ask you this. Would you support this war if you knew there were no WMDs in Iraq? I certainly would not. And that's the reason for the criticism. It seems that the administration ignored reasonable doubts about the WMD intelligence. They pushed evidence they knew was questionable put presented it as fact. And now it seems they might be wrong.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[TheMojoPin]

But I also remember things like Regeim change. I remember libiration.

Yeah, it's all well and good, but it just doesn't cut it in the real world. I wish we could just be this altruistic and goodhearted, but we can't. The world simply doesn't work like that. And if these are going to become signifcant reasons for invading, it'll make us look insanely hypocritical for not doing it in at least two dozen other countries that are just as bad, if not worse.

Ultimately, yes, it IS a good thing we have "liberated" these people thus far, but we have to be honest and realize that these simply cannot be the main reasons now that this was done. The world is so twisted that it would actually make us look worse for only deeming "those people" as worthy of our help.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

Well, that's the respectful diffrencece we have met at.

You don't believe Bush, I do. I don't know WHY I believe a politician, but I do. The way some will back Clinton until the end of time, I think Bush is an honest, moral man.

We can't argue opinions and that seems to be what this has come back to.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Doomstone]

Here is where you analogy falls apart completely. You don't have the right to kill him if you can fight him off. It's like shooting a guy who has a knife...you can be charged with manslaughter for that (not that I agree with that).

My understanding is that legally, you are allowed to use deadly force when someone uses deadly force against you. I think a knife qualifies as a deadly weapon, but fine, substitute knife with gun. That's not the point anyway. You said "How many of you after Gulf War I said we failed because we didn't go and 'finish the job'", I merely attemped to illustrate the mindset - the rationale - behind that line of thinking. And yes, I'm one of those who feels that we probably should have taken out Saddam back in Gulf War I, but was (and am) firmly against Gulf War II (sequels never live up to the original...). Times change, different circumstances, this dead horse is starting to stink...

I will however, since I'm a swell guy, link to an article that may help answer your question about British Intelligence. You'll probably write it off as Leftist Agitprop...whatever.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=411300

Mr Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, seized on the Unmovic working document of 6 March entitled "Unresolved Disarmament Issues",about matters that are still unclear. Although Mr Blix acknowledged Iraqi efforts to resolve these questions, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary repeatedly claimed that the document showed Iraq still had prohibited weapons, a claim the report never made. They relied on the presumption - probably accurate - that few MPs would have time to go through its 173 pages, and would accept the Government's misleading pr‚cis.

Mr Blair quoted from the report in his speech to the Commons two days before the war began, to the effect that Iraq "had had far-reaching plans to weaponise" the deadly nerve agent VX. Note the tense: that quotation was from a "background" section of the report, on Iraq's policy before 1991.

US and British leaders repeatedly referred to the UN inspectors' estimate that Iraq produced 1.5 tonnes of VX before 1990. But in March Unmovic reported that Iraq's production method created nerve agent that lasted only six to eight weeks. Mr Blair's "evidence" was about a substance the inspectors consider to have been no threat since early 1991. The Prime Minister didn't mention that.





Edit: here's another from the same site

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=411301

This message was edited by Doomstone on 6-4-03 @ 7:59 AM

[Recyclerz]

As usual, Tom Friedman in the NYTimes should be required reading for everyone eligible to vote (and especially for those of us posting on a topic like this).

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04FRIE.html


Carry on.



[b]You're only young once but you can be immature forever[b]

[TheMojoPin]

You don't believe Bush, I do. I don't know WHY I believe a politician, but I do. The way some will back Clinton until the end of time, I think Bush is an honest, moral man.

Actually, the recent "Pax America" discussions and "revelations" indicate that this invasion was probably on the books to go down before Bush even wandered into office...ultimately I think this would have happened anyways, no matter who was the president...the timing may have been different, and the reasoning altered, but the result would have been just the same. Bush just messed it up for himself by not timing it closer to 9/11. He assumed it had given us a "free pass" for quite some time, but he was wrong.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

Actually, the recent "Pax America" discussions and "revelations" indicate that this invasion was probably on the books to go down before Bush even wandered into office


I don't buy that at all.

I mean we all KNOW that we should have marched to Baghdad back in the 1st Gulf War, and that the military has probably wanted to finish the job since then too.

But I really do not believe that if Gore was in office, that he would have comitted troops to a war. His kind are UN backers, and would have gone with them forever. We'd have just stood there and tried to sweet talk France and Germany and Russia forever as the mass graves continued to fill. And that makes me sick to think about. People like Gore would have let the UN tell the US what it's policies would be. Not what I want from my leaders.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

But Moe, there are "mass graves" filling all over the world as we speak for a whole host of horrible, horrible reasons...doesn't THAT make you sick? NOBODY, pro or anti-war was sitting around pinning for the Iraqi people except when it was politcally convenient for them, and that's no different now. It is a good thing Saddam is gone, but you can't honestly think that "liberating the people" was the main focus or has become it...it's a coincidence. Or at least it'll forever seem that way unless we somehow start backing up our words by leanign on despots elsewhere arund the world. I'm not making these "rules", it's just how the world works and how our words and actions are going to be perceived...

And keep pretending like Gore and his ilk are "so different" from Republicans. Like you've said several times, Clinton had no problem bombing Iraq again and again. The invasion itself is really just a hop, skip and a jump above that...other than that, Bush bombed the heck out of Afghanistan, and shit, NADER would have bombed Afghanistan...

The simple fact is that the administration built up the imminent and unstoppable threat of Saddam's WMD (To who is still unclear...Israel was implied, sure, but there was that implication that he somehow was an immediate and massive threat to "us" and "the world") as the reason for us going in, and whether that was true or not, it's what we're going to have to hold up to because THAT'S what we held up in everyone's face. WE made it the focus and the crux of the invasion, and we can't just start complaining when people start calling us on that very issue.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

I don't buy that at all.

I mean we all KNOW that we should have marched to Baghdad back in the 1st Gulf War, and that the military has probably wanted to finish the job since then too.

But I really do not believe that if Gore was in office, that he would have comitted troops to a war. His kind are UN backers, and would have gone with them forever. We'd have just stood there and tried to sweet talk France and Germany and Russia forever as the mass graves continued to fill. And that makes me sick to think about. People like Gore would have let the UN tell the US what it's policies would be. Not what I want from my leaders.


People like Gore? In Bush's campaign he stated "The US is not in the business of nation building". And he talked similiarly in foreign policies. But I guess Afganistan and Iraq are separate..huh. You may like Bush over Gore...but you can't hold it against someone for something that didn't occur. Who knows what would occur if Gore would have won. Things could be worse off or they could be better, who knows?. There's no definate correlation to fact...it's an assumption based on your believe. No more than that.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Death Metal Moe]

Well, all we really have are our opinions. I speak about mine, you speak about yours.

We all take what we get from the news and process it ourselves.

I saw Gore's record with Clinton, and I look at what the Libs stand for and a chill runs up my spine thinking about what we'd be doing in Iraq and here at home in a post 9/11 world.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[FiveB247]

a chill runs up my spine

Like you have one of those...haha Yer Yella' hehe

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Death Metal Moe]

And you know, there are other conservative voices on the board. And they NEED to speak up more often!!

It always ends up that Moe is the lone voice against 2-5 Liberal opinions. I can't respond to every issue! And more than one view point helps any debate.

GET YOUR ASSES BACK ON THE BOARD!!

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

I saw Gore's record with Clinton

You mean the most centrist president we've ever had, who moved the Democratic party closest to the Republicans it had ever been? Hmmm, might want to find a wicker man that's a little more burnable and not ridiculous.

And Moe, you're right, I think the invasion of Iraq WOULD be different under Gore...but you honestly think that all of our kneejerk reactions after 9/11 would have been different? It still would probably have been a Republican congress/senate! You somehow think Bush's reactions to 9/11 domestically and in Afghanistan are somehow "radical" and "brave"? HE WAS TOWING THE LINE. He did his damn job, pure and simple. Gore would have done the same damn thing. Stop giving Superman credit for opening a jar of pickles.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

No Mojo. I think a president like Gore would have asked the UN for help in Afghanistan. They're not men of action. They're people that calculate every move on how other will perceive them. We SHOULD try to be diplomatic, but not at the expense of doing what the US NEEDS to do. I think Gore would have waited for the UN on a topic like that.

And why are we arguing about POSSIBLE scenaios? Don' we have enough to debate on actuall history? I mean, no ammount of debate is gonig to make me NOT think Gore would have been one of the worst presidents since his boss.

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

This message was edited by Death_Metal Moe on 6-4-03 @ 1:12 PM

[A.J.]

You somehow think Bush's reactions to 9/11 domestically and in Afghanistan are somehow "radical" and "brave"?


I found his post-9/11 expansion of government quite "radical" for a Republican who wanted to reduce government.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[TooCute]

HE WAS TOWING THE LINE

What line was he dragging behind him, Mojo?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[Death Metal Moe]

http://members.aol.com/nilescrne/pictures/WLIIA.jpg

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[TheMojoPin]

I found his post-9/11 expansion of government quite "radical" for a Republican who wanted to reduce government.

Not given the situation. When it comes to Afghanistan and 9/11, "Republican" and "Democrat" are tossed right out the window...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[A.J.]

When it comes to Afghanistan and 9/11, "Republican" and "Democrat" are tossed right out the window...

I know what you're saying but it's funny -- you hate using that as an excuse for military action, I hate it for spending/government expansion.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[A.J.]

Damn -- second double post today!

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

This message was edited by AJinDC on 6-4-03 @ 3:23 PM

[TheMojoPin]

I know what you're saying but it's funny -- you hate using that as an excuse for military action, I hate it for spending/government expansion.

So do I. I'm not saying he made the right choices or decisions, but the actions are clearly just based on people REACTING, period. No party rhetoric or anything like that...

Up until Iraq, Gore/Clinton would have done the same thing. Nobody even hinted we should have gone to the UN over Afghanistan, and it's absurd that Gore would have dragged his feet like that mere weeks after 9/11. He's not an idiot and the public wouldn't have stood for it. Moe, you're giving him the compliment of convictions, which the man simply does not have.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

Afghanistan and the Taliban were done as soon as 9/11 happened. No President would have been able to get away with not doing anything agaisnt a ocuntry that was harboring our biggest terrorist enemy, not only harboring but flaunting him. Maybe Gore would have gone to the UN, I don't think it would matter. There weren't many who had a problem with what we did in Afgahnistan.

I doubt Gore would have bothered with Iraq simply because the whole idea of invading Iraq came from within the administration. Very few outside considered Iraq a problem; rather, this administration had to convince everybody that Iraq was a threat, and they failed to do that outside this country. Frankly, I don't know what Gore would have done after Afgahnistan if he was President. One thing I kinda agree with is that if he wanted to do something, I think he would probably go to the UN, and if they didn't agree, I doubt he'd do it anyway. In the case of Iraq, I think Bush was wrong, but at the same time we can't let the UN stop us from doing what we need to do, and that is where I have some doubts if Gore was President.

But I would still rather have Gore as President.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Death Metal Moe]

http://www.kayaksandpaddles.co.uk/canoe/kayak/uk/shop/productpages/equipmnt/pro_towline.jpg

I'm not trying to break anyone's balls with the picks. I just think Tow the Line is a funny saying.

tee hee hee

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Death Metal Moe]

Moe, you're giving him the compliment of convictions


Speaking of convictions...

http://www.sillyhumor.com/martha/images/martha_04.jpg

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[Bergalad]

And you know, there are other conservative voices on the board. And they NEED to speak up more often!!

It always ends up that Moe is the lone voice against 2-5 Liberal opinions. I can't respond to every issue! And more than one view point helps any debate.

GET YOUR ASSES BACK ON THE BOARD!!
Don't get all worked up there Moe. Now you know how I feel half the time on here when you disappear. I just don't have anything to refute (or care to) at the moment. Mojo's position is understandable, and Five I just don't feel like goofing with today. You are right Moe when you say Gore would not have acted in the same way as Bush has, meaning Gore would have wavered, polled, and committeed everything to death and then do what Bill did to fix the terrorist situation: lob a few missiles at 'em. No, Gore doesn't get the benefit of the doubt from me on this issue. He never showed much backbone as VP or a candidate. Don't give me the "he was a war veteran" crap either, because he was a journalist there and nothing more. Bush changed from 911 (he was weak before), and now he is absolutely the right guy for the job. Look no further than the peace process news from today to see how effective he is.

[Yerdaddy]

No Mojo. I think a president like Gore would have asked the UN for help in Afghanistan. They're not men of action.
The problem with straw-man arguments is that they make you lazy and they make you wrong. The UN reaffirmed the right of the US to conduct the Afghan war on September 12 with <a href="http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/othr/2001/4899.htm" target="_blank">UN Security Council Resolution 1368</a>. Why do you "conservatives" keep working Clinton or Gore into every thread anyway? 1) 9-11 didn't happen on their watch, so it's moot. 2) I don't think there's a single politics poster who has expressed support for Clinton/Gore. I think most of us "liberals" think of them as only slightly less bad than Bush. So you're not even using the right straw-men in your fallacies. 3) How can you keep making up fake hypotheticals about Clinton/Gore while trying to dismiss every argument you don't like as Bush-bashing? Do you not see the absurdity of it all? Here's a suggestion: know what you're talking about. It takes a little effort, but it's helps make you sound like a big person.

This is not meant to be a personal attack on you, Moe, but more like a general disappointment with the quality of debate here lately.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!



This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 6-4-03 @ 7:54 PM

[HBox]

meaning Gore would have wavered, polled, and committeed everything to death and then do what Bill did to fix the terrorist situation: lob a few missiles at 'em.


You are assuming Gore would have viewed Iraq as a threat. I don't think that's a given. If he believed like Bush that Iraq was a threat and then let himself be bogged down in the UN, there would be a problem. And that might be a possiblity.

But we'll never know.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Bergalad]

You are assuming Gore would have viewed Iraq as a threat.
Actually I am referring more to Afghanistan.

[FiveB247]

One of the funniest quotes I've heard regarding the US's invasion of Afghanistan was by Gore Vidal. He said something to the effect of "The US bombing of Afghanistan as a return action for 9-11 is about as close as bombing Palermo in an attempt to get the Mafia."

As for a crisis and leaders stepping up to the plate. You don't have to look further than Gulliani to find someone who was not well liked and made a crisis situation easier due to being a good leader. No one will ever know how Gore would have reacted to such actions.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

One of the funniest quotes I've heard regarding the US's invasion of Afghanistan was by Gore Vidal. He said something to the effect of "The US bombing of Afghanistan as a return action for 9-11 is about as close as bombing Palermo in an attempt to get the Mafia."
So because you find this shit's quote humorous, you therefore agree with it? You're right, you can't always tell how someone would react to a crisis such as 911, but you certainly have given us enough evidence to let us know what you would have done Five.

[TheMojoPin]

Actually I am referring more to Afghanistan.

I just don't see it. Afghanistan was such a necessary, knee-jerk reaction, I think it would be nearly impossible for a president to NOT have done what Bush did. And like you said he is, someone as poll-addled as Gore would have realized that he would have HAD to go in, ASAP, just based on what the country was demanding almost as a whole.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

So because you find this shit's quote humorous, you therefore agree with it? You're right, you can't always tell how someone would react to a crisis such as 911, but you certainly have given us enough evidence to let us know what you would have done Five.

What does that even mean? Where did I say what I would do? And for your info, "this shit" happens to be a well respected, award winning writer. Look him up sometime.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bigden]

this shit" happens to be a well respected, award winning writer. Look him up sometime.

I shit no less. I can't believe that you actually bring up such an idiot- who is next Sean Penn. Sean Penn would be good he is such a "gangstar Playa" carrying a gun in his car. I wish he would have brought that to Iraq with him he could have done one thing for his country and killed Saddam. No he would rather take out full page ads in the times and whine.

"What an idiot"
fez

[A.J.]

Interesting question asked by Arnold Beichman of The Hoover Institute:

So here is my thus-far unasked question: If there never were WMDs in Iraq then why didn't Saddam Hussein invite the U.N. inspectors into Iraq a month before, a week before, a day before hostilities broke out? Why didn't he tell the U.N. convincingly that he was opening up the country to show he had no WMDs? Had he made so compelling an offer to the U.N. weeks before war broke out, he would have stopped the American attack before it began because Saddam would then have been in compliance with the appropriate U.N. resolutions. And more importantly, Saddam would still be sitting on his throne.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-beichman060403.asp

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[TheMojoPin]

That's an excellent, excellent point. And if that's the case, who's got them now? I doubt they're just lying around waiting to be discovered...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[travis151]

Once again I hear where's the WMD? Its funny how the same people who wanted to give Hans Blix months to years to look for WMD are ranting that the the weapons should of been found already. Iraq is the size of California the weapons could be anywhere. There is evidence already hmmm... two trailers set up at chemical labs where found. Oh I guess those trailers were for making Mircle - Grow. Another example is that Saddam can't be found eitheir but does that mean he never exsisted. I think not. You people are really close minded and use your hate for Pres. Bush to blind you for what good this war has had on the whole world. Help destroy terroist camps inside Iraq, free and yes librate Iraqi people, and give Isreal secrurity that the U.S. is committed in keeping peace in Middle East which has lead to the start of a Free Palistinine State. This whould of never of happen if we did not invade Iraq. Finally if Gore had been President he would of took action against the Taliban just as Bush. But I doubt he would of invaded Iraq.

Red Sox=More Better

[HBox]

is the size of California the weapons could be anywhere


Well, Saddam didn't have full control of the Northern part of Iraq, so we can ignore that part. We have the benefit of satellite photography, so we can rule out large portions of desert in whihc there is nothing but sand. How do you think we are searching? We aren't combing the desert Spaceballs-style. It will take time, but we probably should have found something already, if Bush's claim were completely true.

Those trailers are only suspected of producing bioweapons. The trailers, by themselves are not capable of creating bioweapons. To make biopweapons there would need to be two other trailers to grow and cultivate the weapons. And we haven't found those yet. It has been speculated that the purpose for the trailers was for making hydrogen for weather balloons. I'm not sure I believe that. But who knows.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[phixion]

im sorry if he had the WMD's he wouldve used them on us already. he wouldnt just stock pile them and jerk off in front of it everyday. we were invading his country he wouldve attacked used them then. heres an analogy:
i live in my house. i have a gun locked in my attic. u let me know your gonna break into my house and kick me out, but im sitting there thinking 'no he wont, he's bluffing.' then u finally so break in, but you've gotta get upstairs to kick me out. im running into my attic, getting my gun, and shooting your ass. im not gonna let you kick me out of my house that pillaged so wonderfully for all these years. but if i didnt have a gun, then i would just run and hide......

i know its oversimplified, but it gets my point across.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[TheMojoPin]

Once again I hear where's the WMD? Its funny how the same people who wanted to give Hans Blix months to years to look for WMD are ranting that the the weapons should of been found already.

Why is this always used as such an inspid, "ah-HAH! I'll show YOU!"-kind of notion? It's easily flipped around to say, "it's funny how the people who were so determined to NOT give the UN more time and support to find WMD are now pratically begging for the US to have more time themselves before ANY judgement is passed."

It's a petty, pointless and futile argument either way.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

Bigden..Gore Vidal is an idiot? Do you always think this of well respected writers?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TooCute]

I'm not trying to break anyone's balls with the picks. I just think Tow the Line is a funny saying.


That's because this is the proper phrase: <img src="http://www.bobhowe.com/images/cds/toe_the_line_4.jpg">

Bigden..Gore Vidal is an idiot? Do you always think this of well respected writers
Let him have his opinion and just shut the fuck up. Your petty bickering is the most retarded thing is this forum.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[TheMojoPin]

That's because this is the proper phrase

Damn you.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

Let him have his opinion and just shut the fuck up. Your petty bickering is the most retarded thing is this forum.

He didn't state why he didn't like him so I questioned him on it. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.

Btw, did your "friendly visitor" arrive? Is this the reason for your comment towards me out of left field? (Quite un-civil as well.)

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TheMojoPin]

Btw, did your "friendly visitor" arrive? Is this the reason for your comment towards me out of left field? (Quite un-civil as well.)

That's it. Don't consider that maybe there was even just a shred of truth to what she said. It's never you, it's all of us...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

This in today: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030606/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_intelligence.

DIA analysis apparently never pinpointed Iraqi chem facilities, but did believe that they existed. I heard the news earlier and they made it sound like DIA never said there were WMD at all, so I add this as a clarification and a concern. My concern is that, if I remember correctly, the Administration was saying they knew exactly where these weapons were, and if this 2002 DIA analysis was the basis for that erroneous claim, then that is a problem. It's possible they used another source to give weight to their claim of knowing locations, but this wasn't a positive step for them here. The good news is that DIA did agree that the WMD's were still there, so this could explain why we are so convinced the stuff is out there, yet having so hard a time finding it all.



This message was edited by Bergalad on 6-6-03 @ 7:31 PM

[Tall_James]

Bigden..Gore Vidal is an idiot? Do you always think this of well respected writers?
Gotta tell ya, he hasn't been well respected since 1975. What has he written lately? I think he has been doing Mad-Libs.

<img src=http://users.rcn.com/jamespatton/PLATE.jpg>

[Tall_James]

Btw, did your "friendly visitor" arrive? Is this the reason for your comment towards me out of left field? (Quite un-civil as well.)
For someone so "enlightened" that was a pretty neanderthal and sexist comment.

<img src=http://users.rcn.com/jamespatton/PLATE.jpg>

[TheMojoPin]

DIA analysis apparently never pinpointed Iraqi chem facilities, but did believe that they existed. I heard the news earlier and they made it sound like DIA never said there were WMD at all, so I add this as a clarification and a concern. My concern is that, if I remember correctly, the Administration was saying they knew exactly where these weapons were, and if this 2002 DIA analysis was the basis for that erroneous claim, then that is a problem. It's possible they used another source to give weight to their claim of knowing locations, but this wasn't a positive step for them here. The good news is that DIA did agree that the WMD's were still there, so this could explain why we are so convinced the stuff is out there, yet having so hard a time finding it all.

This is all so weird.

I honestly thought the guy had at least some, or was trying to develop them. If that wasn't the case, why the hell wouldn't he just fess up and show everyone he didn't have everything?

But why bother destroying the stuff? If someone's gonna go for a "desperate last move", you'd think he'd actually use them. It's kind of a stretch to think he would destroy them just to spite us, given that all he would get in return is ending up dead. He MUST have moved the stuff...but where?

Maybe it's more diabolical than we thought and Saddam not only has WMD...but also a cloaking device.

Sonuvabitch.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

I never made a comment in TooCute's direction or even remotely said anything in the manner to ask for to be cursed at or get a response to what she gave me. So don't attempt to turn this on me.

As for being 'enlightened' or 'neanderthal' ....when someone throws crap at you...you throw back the same. I don't consider myself or my opinion any more important than anyone else's. All I ask is that if you say something, say why you believe it to be. He said something of Vidal and didn't say why, so I questioned him of it.

As for 'it being just me'? I'm not the only one on this board who argues and disagrees with people. If my opinion or comments don't follow suit with someone else's, it's commonplace and don't deserve to be pointed out as a trouble maker or such. There are plenty of people on here that simply post crap to get a rise out of people and start arguments. There are also people who curse, mock, degrade and act uncivil to others. I only attack someone after I've been attacked. And as you can see in this instance with Toocute, she came out of left field and said something lackluster of me. I don't hear any of you complaining about her in such a manner.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 6-6-03 @ 9:20 PM

[CYYYFYYY]

I always find it funny that people go on that there were no weapons of mass
destrutcion. Many of you may have not noticed this but on 9/11 there were no
weapons of mass destruction!!!!!!!!!!!


Everyone Loves CYYYFYYY
I am just a Simple jewish Boy
from the Lower east Side
I am the CYYYFYYY
Party Harty!!!!!!

[Bergalad]

I don't hear any of you complaining about her in such a manner.
What can I say? I have a soft spot for Tolkien fans. And a female fan at that? How hot is that?!

[TooCute]

Oh come on, FiveB. Why can't you admit that you try to pick fights with Bergalad (and vice versa. You're not blameless either, Bergy-boy) just for the sake of picking fights.

I mean really, who gives a shit how well respected Gore Vidal is. Does that mean that you can't speak poorly of him?

Just as bad as all those Bush-backers you hate so much. "Do you always speak so poorly of the leader of the free world?"

And btw that comment was not out of left field. You know that other people besides Bergalad try to read this forum, too, right? Y'all make it very distracting to do so because I always have to wade through all the pettiness that you're spewing at each other to figure out what, if anything, you're actually trying to say.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

This message was edited by TooCute on 6-6-03 @ 10:56 PM

[FiveB247]

TooCute...I can honestly say, although I disagree with a many, I never go out of my way to pick fights. Sometimes I do write things to get under people's skin...but no more than that. And if someone says they dislike a person...and I question why, it doesn't make me a dick, I just want to know why you feel that way. And if you don't like what I have to say, or Bergalad, or anyone, in order for you to know what we're arguing for, against or about, I can't really say I give a shit. This isn't TooCute's political forum.....it's R/F Political Forum...and I'll be damned if I have to curb my perspective or view due to your enjoyment or view on a situation or item.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 6-7-03 @ 3:25 AM

[TooCute]

Nobody told you to curb your perspective, FiveB.

Sometimes I do write things to get under people's skin

Exactly. It's like you don't think every single other person reading the forum see that. It's annoying and out of place when people are trying to have mature discussions.

Do it every once in a while; everyone does. But you do it in every single thread. Just cut out the petty shit and stick to the arguing politics in the politics forum, okay?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[FiveB247]

I do that on occasion when someone pokes at me or says something similar in my direction. I don't shock post or do it as typically as you care to make it seem.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TooCute]

No? Try reading your own posts some day!

It's okay. I'm hopping on the ignore-FiveB's pettiness bandwagon anyhow.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[travis151]

Mojo I agree that many people including myself did not want to give the U.N. more time
to search for weapons, only because the U.N. would not have the complete access to search and interview whom ever they wanted. And who wrote that and thinks that the two-trailers were not for making Bio weapons is living in a very small bubble. Even if they once contained chemicals and produced weapons the vechiles should of been destroyed.

Red Sox=More Better

[HBox]

And who wrote that and thinks that the two-trailers were not for making Bio weapons is living in a very small bubble. Even if they once contained chemicals and produced weapons the vechiles should of been destroyed.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said we don't know for sure because the trailers, BY THEMSELVES, were not capable of producing weapons. So, we can't say 100% what those trailers did in absence of both the other trailers needed to produce bioweapons and actual bioweapons.

Of course the Bush administration has no problem saying that they are becuase, as we have found out, they have little need for proof and little problem with misleading the public. If you take everything they say as 100% truth, YOU are the one living in a small bubble.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Yerdaddy]

Even if they once contained chemicals and produced weapons
They didn't. Let's put it this way: someone mailed anthrax to the Hart Senate Office Building, Daschle's office, and the building was shut down. The CDC sterilized the building at least twice, and reopening was delayed, when traces were found after initial cleanings.

In order for there to have been pathogens in those trailers that were missed by US crews, Saddam would have to have done a better job of cleaning them up than the US did of cleaning the offices of 50 US Senators. One of three things is true about these trailers: 1) They were designed to produce chemical or biological weapons but were never used, 2) They were not designed for chemical or biological weapons, or 3) Saddam had some mysterious pathogen that was infinitely harder to detect than anthrax.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[TooCute]

3) Saddam had some mysterious pathogen that was infinitely harder to detect than anthrax.


Biological weapons, I suspect would be much harder to erase traces of than chemical weapons, however. At least that's what I gleaned from reading Nelson Demille.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[FiveB247]

It's okay. I'm hopping on the ignore-FiveB's pettiness bandwagon anyhow.

Is there an actual wagon? If so, in the words of Otto and George...crash into a pole and taste your own blood. :)

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[phixion]

crash into a pole and taste your own blood. Smile


everyone needs to calm down and smoke a blunt damnit!!!!

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/phixion.gif">
"smoking weed, smoking weed doing coke, drinking beers
drinking beers, beers, beersrolling fatties, smoking bluntswho smokes the blunts?we smoke the blunts." -Jay

[Bergalad]

One of three things is true about these trailers: 1) They were designed to produce chemical or biological weapons but were never used, 2) They were not designed for chemical or biological weapons, or 3) Saddam had some mysterious pathogen that was infinitely harder to detect than anthrax.

Absolutely. The most likely is that he had built the trailers to produce B/C weapons, but never got around to doing it. This is all part of the strange paradox which surrounds Saddam's Iraq. If he had the WMD, where the hell are they? If he didn't, then why not open the country to inspections and humiliate the US?

[TheMojoPin]

If he had the WMD, where the hell are they? If he didn't, then why not open the country to inspections and humiliate the US?

Color me baffled. Maybe we gave this guy too much credit, and he was just a power-hungry moron?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

This is all part of the strange paradox which surrounds Saddam's Iraq. If he had the WMD, where the hell are they? If he didn't, then why not open the country to inspections and humiliate the US?

There still remains the possibility that the vast majority of Saddam's WMD were destroyed during the inspection process, but that Saddam wasn't willing to reveal that fact because he wanted to retain the ambiguity over whether or not he had them. The primary purpose of Saddam's WMD programs was to deter his neighbors from invading and the Iraqi Kurds and Shiia from rebelling. Leading up to the war, Saddam faced more than just the threat of an invasion by US forces, but by a renewed effort by the Iraqi opposition groups to rebel with US support, as they did twice since the first Gulf War, (without our direct support). So Saddam was damned if he did and damned if he didn't offer full disclosure.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[Bergalad]

There still remains the possibility that the vast majority of Saddam's WMD were destroyed during the inspection process, but that Saddam wasn't willing to reveal that fact because he wanted to retain the ambiguity over whether or not he had them.

Very true. Much of Saddam's power in the region was derived from the belief that he could strike with WMD. A similar case exists with Israel, an non-declared nuclear power. The threat (and common belief) that Israel not only posesses, but would use, nuclear weapons helps hold the rest of the ME at bay. If Saddam was to be exposed as not having WMD, then he would be in danger of attack from Iran or even Saudi Arabia. Still, with the imminent threat of destruction by the United States, one would almost assume that Saddam would have decided a possible defeat from revealing his lack of WMD would outweigh the certain defeat by the US.

[HBox]

Nobody ever accused Saddam of being a particularly smart man. Was invading Kuwait and starting Gulf War 1 a smart thing to do?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[FiveB247]

Saddam could have also wanted to push the US into a military situation in which they would be defamed and viewed as aggressive, war monger whose intentions are to hurt those who don't align with US interests. Saddam didn't care for the suffering of his people or his armies, his intentions were to shame the US and to show them to the world as he wished to see them (evil imperials). So if they don't actually find WMD, it could be that they were destroyed by inspectors and he wasn't willing to negotiate in order to rile the US and lead them where they wanted to go.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[CaptClown]

Saddam could have also wanted to push the US into a military situation in which they would be defamed and viewed as aggressive, war monger whose intentions are to hurt those who don't align with US interests. Saddam didn't care for the suffering of his people or his armies, his intentions were to shame the US and to show them to the world as he wished to see them (evil imperials). So if they don't actually find WMD, it could be that they were destroyed by inspectors and he wasn't willing to negotiate in order to rile the US and lead them where they wanted to go.

Very insightful!!!!! I am suprised! I might add that he thought the war would have gone on longer and had more casualties than there actually were.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
http://f3.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gHziPrdda_ieKeg30-1ayffGgAlHeP985EAqEWH0Iyqg28QLjsGVjyjlZ7dzcF-H7-_uFGSAeKVnT_fAVAXIBMYbQUs/CaptClow_still.gif

This message was edited by CaptClown on 6-7-03 @ 8:10 PM

[Yerdaddy]

Saddam could have also wanted to push the US into a military situation in which they would be defamed and viewed as aggressive, war monger whose intentions are to hurt those who don't align with US interests. Saddam didn't care for the suffering of his people or his armies, his intentions were to shame the US and to show them to the world as he wished to see them (evil imperials). So if they don't actually find WMD, it could be that they were destroyed by inspectors and he wasn't willing to negotiate in order to rile the US and lead them where they wanted to go.

So Saddam wanted us to invade Iraq, possibly killing him and certainly destroying his regime and chasing him out of power, in order to make us look bad? And this makes sense to you?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[FiveB247]

It's not a matter his regime falling. In some respects he believed they could withstand invasion using guerilla tactics making the US population go through Vietnam syndrome and thus removal of US engagements for invasion. Saddam knew his days were numbered and his insistence on not leaving his home nation which he felt to heart for was proof of this. He represents a Pan-Arab unification against the US. Saddam (the same with Bin Laden) felt that he could draw international attention of US brutality and evil imperial ways by fighting against them. I've said it before, these types draw cheers from Palestinians, anti-Americans, amongst others not simply for their actions or beliefs, but simply cause they fight against the US.

Ps...Capt Clown..that is one scary f'in clown.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TheMojoPin]

That would imply that Saddam was fully willing to give up his life just at the chance of somewhat kindasortamyabe embarassing the US. And his history does not show him to be an extremist along those lines.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

It's not a matter his regime falling. In some respects he believed they could withstand invasion using guerilla tactics making the US population go through Vietnam syndrome and thus removal of US engagements for invasion. Saddam knew his days were numbered and his insistence on not leaving his home nation which he felt to heart for was proof of this. He represents a Pan-Arab unification against the US. Saddam (the same with Bin Laden) felt that he could draw international attention of US brutality and evil imperial ways by fighting against them. I've said it before, these types draw cheers from Palestinians, anti-Americans, amongst others not simply for their actions or beliefs, but simply cause they fight against the US.
http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/story.sahaf.mon.jpg
Iraqi Minister of Crazy-Talk Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf says: "I was just going to say that!"

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[NewYorkDragons80]

Yeah, Saddam isn't exactly a candidate for MENSA. If I were him, I would have invaded only the Kuwaiti oil fields in the north and left the rest of the country alone. I would've claimed some historical bullshit and it DEFINITELY would have been about oil. Then, it is possible that the US would not have gotten invlolved.

In regards to WMDs, I find it hard to believe that Saddam went to the trouble of building Nuclear Weapons, Anthrax, and Smallpox facilities just for shits and giggles. Those sites exist to make weapons and at some point they must have done their job. Is this a smoking gun? In my opinion, yes.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons - THE AFL'S EASTERN DIVISION CHAMPIONS!!! WATCH OUT ORLANDO</marquee>

[FiveB247]

Yerdaddy...what exactly is your point or reason for posting that picture? Do you not realize this is how Saddam acts? He doesn't simply burn oil fields for entertainment. He believes that is why the US is their; to obtain oil. You may laugh or want to poke fun at me or my views....but do you laugh as much at the still un-obtained Saddam and Bin Laden? So who exactly is kidding who?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/Al-Sahaf.alsahaf.jpg
Shhhhh! You and I know the mind of the great leader who has planned all of this. Everything is as planned. Bush will be so ashamed that he will invite Saddam to be president of Iraq again, and will in fact replace Cheney with Saddam as Vice President of America as well. The plan is going perfectly.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[FiveB247]

Grow up man. What I wrote is not my beliefs, but what Saddam felt and did in the situation. Don't confuse the two items.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Yerdaddy]

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/tz.sahaf.jpg
You wanna be Secretary of State?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE YERBOOBIES!

[FiveB247]

http://www.rockstarhq.com/stickers/images/stoolwrench.jpg

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TooCute]

<img src="http://www.thai-d.com/movie-english/nightmarechristmas/The%20Nightmare%20Before%20Christmas%20-%20The%20Script-p_files/9sc.jpg">

Nice work, bone-daddy.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!<font color=FBF2F7>

[TheMojoPin]

but what Saddam felt

"I KNOW this to be true, my X-men!"

<img src=http://galeon.hispavista.com/shi/professor_x.gif>

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Death Metal Moe]

http://www.fruitflygathering.com/Images/Homestar.jpg

<IMG SRC=http://www.unhallowed.com/sigs/Dutchboy.gif>
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<B>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</B>
666%

[NewYorkDragons80]

OK, you're weird

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>
DCPete walked me through how to FINALLY post a sig. FREE YERDADDY!!!
<marquee>New York Dragons - THE AFL'S EASTERN DIVISION CHAMPIONS!!! WATCH OUT ORLANDO</marquee>

[high fly]

What I find amusing is the way the administration keeps asking for more time to find the WMDs just like the UN inspectors did!

" and they ask me why I drink"

[A.J.]

What I find amusing is the way the administration keeps asking for more time to find the WMDs just like the UN inspectors did!


True, but then again the UN inspectors didn't also have to quell civil unrest, restore power and water and safeguard museums, banks, power plants, oil fields, labs, etc. etc...

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[high fly]

Yeah, they were so busy with that other stuff, they somehow forgot to guard tons of nuke material for 2 weeks while the place was being looted daily.
They were also don't seemed to have figured on the amount of resistance after the defeat of the Iraqi army. My prediction of a "California-sized West Bank of our very own" seems to be materializing as our guys are getting attacked daily with no end to it in sight.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bestinshow]

I think Five makes perfect sense. After the first gulf war saddam was convinced we couldn`t defeat him. I think he would do practically anything to deface Bush. He could see the countries lining up against us when we challenged him. What is so surprising about him egging us on only to find no WMD, knowing that would do maximum damage to us. He had nothing to lose, only to gain. The whole world was watching. If he had WMD, the world would come down on him. If he destroyed them, and we attacked and then retreated like the first gulf war, he probably figured we would do ourselves severe political harm, and he would be in the catbird seat.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Cybersoldier]

Well, it looks like if Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction he would not keep it in Iraq. More than likely they are in another country, and Bush is looking like a tool; since we can't find none of saddam's WOMD. Who know maybe saddam did get destory his weapons, but made sure the scientists that can re-make them around as fooling the UN. Have all the scientists in Saddam's weapon's research have been found?

<IMG SRC="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/6aa81170/bc/sig+pics/cybersoldier.gif?bc2655.AwAREut7R">
thank czn
SAVE RON AND FEZ
WRITE YOUR LETTER TO SUPPORT RON AND FEZ TODAY!!!!!!!
Mel Karmazin
President and Chief Operating Officer C/O Viacom 1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 258-6000

This message was edited by Cybersoldier on 6-11-03 @ 6:01 PM

[HBox]

who know maybe saddam did get destory his weapons but made should the scientists that can re-make them as fooling the UN


Congrats. You just made my brain explode.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Cybersoldier]

Quote:

who know maybe saddam did get destory his weapons but made should the scientists that can re-make them as fooling the UN




Congrats. You just made my brain explode.

My job here is done, would like some tylenol

<IMG SRC="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/6aa81170/bc/sig+pics/cybersoldier.gif?bc2655.AwAREut7R">
thank czn
SAVE RON AND FEZ
WRITE YOUR LETTER TO SUPPORT RON AND FEZ TODAY!!!!!!!
Mel Karmazin
President and Chief Operating Officer C/O Viacom 1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
(212) 258-6000

This message was edited by Cybersoldier on 6-11-03 @ 6:22 PM

[high fly]

The talk and implications before the war indicated that the administration had all kinds of intelligence on Iraqi WMDs. They revealed a little bit but implied that there was much more and that if we could only invade, they'd go right to them and remove this threat to the US.
Part of the argument was that these WMDs posed an imminent threat. We couldn't wait a coupla more months, we had to go in RIGHT THEN, because Saddam was about to give them to terrorists or something.
While I'm willing to give Bush a little more time to find the WMDs, there are still a number of as yet unanswered questions on just what the intelligence said at the time and whether it was handled responsibly.
Those who claim to support our troops ought to be mighty pissed at Bush if he got a bunch of them killed, wounded, and mired in an occupation where they get attacked daily, if it turns out that Bush lied and stretched the truth to get this war.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 6-15-03 @ 2:32 PM

[Bergalad]

Those who claim to support our troops ought to be mighty pissed at Bush if he got a bunch of them killed, wounded, and mired in an occupation where they get attacked daily, if it turns out that Bush lied and stretched the truth to get this war.
Why do you have to bring the military into this? Going for the sympathy vote now? I can't wait until your diatribe on the Iraqi children's increased suffering...
*edit*
and another thing
Those who claim to support our troops

By your condescending tone, I'll assume that you don't count yourself in this group. Otherwise you would have said "Those of uswho claim to support...". Nice.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 6-15-03 @ 9:00 PM

[FiveB247]

Well Bergalad it is actually relevant to the issue at hand. It puts American soliders' lives in risk....and it's not playing some emotional card or simpathy vote. Everyone in favor of the invasion of Iraq is quickly to point for lack of support towards the military and servicemen from anti-war people, so why shouldn't it go the other way as well? If Bush and others risked American soliders under false pretences, it should be noted and all should be bothered by such actions.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[Bestinshow]

If Bush risked our soldiers under false pretenses, he must have gotten Saddam to believe the allegations. Hussein certainly didn`t act like he had nothing to hide.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[Yerdaddy]

The unnamed former ambassador in these two articles, who headed the investigative delegation to Niger in 2002, told me that he reported his findings, that the documents were bogus, to Dick Cheney's office. He and the 27 year CIA intelligence analyst I also spoke with were of the opinion that the Bush administration set up the Office of Special Plans in the Defense Intelligence Agency to filter out only information that made the case against Iraq while ignoring contrary evidence, and that it has damaged the credibility of the US intelligence agencies, US foreign policy in general, the war on terrorism, etc. These guys and others are speaking out and there's lots more to come.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46957-2003Jun11?language=printer&content=article

CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01

A key component of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.

The CIA's failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA's uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration's policy goals.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a candidate for president, yesterday described the case as "part of the agency's standard operating procedure when it wants to advance the information that supported their [the administration's] position and bury that which didn't."

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false,

[TheMojoPin]

I'd add something...but I'm a bit dumbstruck.

Wow.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

**EDIT**

Took out the whole post to protect the source of YD's above articles. Ah well.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 6-18-03 @ 3:14 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Yeah, but what did you think about the info itself? If it holds up, it's pretty sensational...and important.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

I have a problem with "anonymous" sources, from both inside and outside any Administration. It's pretty easy to badmouth someone if they don't know who you are. And I think we can see the problem with these "sources" is that it's difficult verify what they say is accurate or not, especially when you don't know how or where he (or she, or he, or whatever...) gets the "information". I'm not saying the information in the article is correct or incorrect, I just have no way to know. I hope that Congress will have a truly bi-partisan investigation into the matter to ensure that the American public was not misled. I have problems with what much of both articles say, and again I repeat that Colin Powell reviewed, according to him, ALL of the intelligence about the Iraqi WMD's and supported the President's position. I don't believe, for even a second, that Powell lied to the UN and the world. I will believe his word over these "unnamed sources" any day.

[TheMojoPin]

But maybe that's what the administration WANTS the image to be. I don't doubt it was a calculated move to have Powell present the info, and it seems more and more likely that somehow behind the scenes was abusing and misusing Powell's well-deserved integrity and good public standing. More and more "anonymous sources" seem to indicate that Powell was railroaded into the presentation. Sure, I can't back them up, but it's an interesting possibility. One source even claims that Powell threw down the first draft of the report he was given and declared, "this is bullshit!" Dramatic and definitely doubtful, but who knows? He is sadly just one man, and would even he be enough to stand up to an administration running the opposite way? But until ANY of this can be proven, they're just that...possibilities.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 6-16-03 @ 12:21 AM

[Bergalad]

He is sadly just one man, and would even he be enough to stand up to an administration running the opposite way?
He would have resigned. It would seem all of these "ex-CIA analysts" who are now so readily blasting the government resigned or left their positions over it all. You think their integrity is greater than that of Powell's? I sure don't.

Everyone is so quick to say we over-reacted with Iraq; the intelligence wasn't read correctly; Bush was only hearing what he wanted to. Whatever. Intelligence is usually a scrap of information, a hypothetical. In many cases, several analysts reading the same report will come up with many different interpretations and courses of action. That's humanity. The fact is analysts are trained and expected to err on the side of caution, because failure to do so could lead to disaster. Which brings up another point...

After 911, the Bush/Clinton Presidencies are being accused of not putting the pieces of intel that existed together, that they didn't take the threats seriously. This is all true. Now though, many of those same people are pissed that Bush may have over-reacted to the threat posed by Iraq. While it is agreed that there are sketches of information which would support Bush's claims, they say it was not enough to justify the war. I think that there was much more factual, hard information about Iraq than there was about any pending al Queda operations, yet we decry the former for action and latter for inaction. I don't understand how this is acceptable. I don't understand how people can say "look, it was all there! The pilot lessons! They never bothered to learn to land! Of course they were going to fly planes into the WTC! How did you not figure that out!", yet when there was fairly universal acceptance about Iraq's WMD programs Bush is accused of lying to the world and killing innocent Iraqi babies. You can't have it both ways.

[silera]

The thing is, we didn't react to Iraq, we started it.

I get your point about many pointing fingers and attempting to imagine that 911 could have been prevented. I'm of the opinion that there was no way 911 was preventable.

I'm also of the opinion that the only way to thwart off future attacks, is by evaluating our weakest areas at home instead of depleting our resources abroad on half baked theories.

911 occurred because we weren't expecting it. This war hasn't lived up to its reasons thus far of WMD etc., but even if it had, it still wouldn't have prevented another attack on the US.



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[FiveB247]

Our attacks whether pre-emptive or not, are just cause and due to the recipiants...while others engage in terror and atrocities. Learn political lingo already.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[high fly]

I wonder if they've checked the lockers at the bus station. Maybe that's where the WMDs are stashed.
Or maybe there's a hollowed out book in one of Saddam's bookcases.
Or maybe there's a secret island somewhere....

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 6-17-03 @ 1:10 PM

[FiveB247]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20030616/amdf299578.jpg Here's what we have thus far.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

Why practice democratic values when you can practice capitalism?

[NewYorkDragons80]

The thing is, we didn't react to Iraq, we started it.
Saddam started it when he invaded Kuwait and subsequently disregarded his defeat in that nation.

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater

[high fly]

They need to check under some of them throw rugs in Saddam's palaces. Yeah, that's the ticket. Pull the rug aside and there it is! The secret trap door to the la-BOR-atory!
They also need to go through there pulling on wall sconces cuz we all know that's how you unlock the hidden door behind the bookcase.....

" and they ask me why I drink"

[NewYorkDragons80]

CNN is reporting that nuclear weapon material has been found in Baghdad. Apparently, an Iraqi citizen was ordered 12 years ago to bury it under a rose bush. A CIA official said (paraphrasing) "If these were his methods of concealing the weapons, I don't see how any international teams would have found them."

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 6-25-03 @ 5:27 PM

[NewYorkDragons80]

Double fucking post

<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 6-25-03 @ 5:26 PM

[high fly]

Patience, please.
It's gonna take some time, but sooner or later they're gonna find a secret WMD "treasure map" with a great big 'X' marking the spot.....

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

The unnamed former ambassador in these two articles...
Well, he's been named.
Fmr Amb Joseph Wilson says nuclear intel was "twisted" by Bush (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=5&u=/nm/20030706/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc)
So now everyone knows what circles you run in Yerdaddy hehe. Anyway, as poorly as this looks for Bush, Mr. Wilson did say that it was only "highly doubtful" that Iraq had dealings with Niger, not that it never happened. Still not good for Bush. And of course Sen Levin has his nose in all this. What a partisan prick that guy is. I hate anyone from either side of the aisle who does this sort of thing.

[Yerdaddy]

BTW: The circle in which I met Ambassador Wilson was also the event that you branded "anti-American," meanwhile this is the same guy that Dick Cheney chose to send on the fact-finding mission to Africa. Oops.

In his Op-Ed, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html" target="_blank">What I Didn't Find in Africa - By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th</a>, in which he tells his story, Mr. Wilson also states, "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." And I stated earlier how partisanship is irrelevant to this issue bucause of the security implications of the damage this does to our credibility in the forseeable future. This is a deeply substantive iissue, and motives are secondary to the facts, which need to be aired publicly in order to retain our credibility in the face of the world. So a seperate question would be: do you hate the partisanship of the Republicans who are trying to divert attention from the evidence in order to protect the president out of party loyalty?

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[keithy_19]

Wow...You fella's use some big words. Myself, being a modest 15 year old, have this to say.

Saddam had plenty of time to move the WMD over to Syria. Plus, what Saddam did to his own people was enough to take him out of power.

Just my 2 cents.

http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Are you gunna bark all day little doggy? Or are you gonna bite"

[HBox]

Saddam had plenty of time to move the WMD over to Syria. Plus, what Saddam did to his own people was enough to take him out of power.


If he did have WMDs I have a bunch of questions. Where are they now? If they are in Syria, why aren't we going into Syria? If he did have them and they are now gone and we don't know where they are, how exactly are we safer?

As for what he did to his own people, well I could name a bunch of countries run by people who have commited worse or comparable atrocities. Why aren't we going after them, if that is enough to justify a war?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[keithy_19]

Why aren't we going into Syria? The Muslim world hates us enough as it is. If we go into Syria, which I personnally think we should do, the whole Muslim world would be up in arms saying we're just trying to eliminate their religion.



http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Are you gunna bark all day little doggy? Or are you gonna bite"

[keithy_19]

As for us not being safer, I agree. I don't think will ever be safe again. But at least we're trying to make it as safe as possible.

http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Are you gunna bark all day little doggy? Or are you gonna bite"

[HBox]

Why aren't we going into Syria? The Muslim world hates us enough as it is. If we go into Syria, which I personnally think we should do, the whole Muslim world would be up in arms saying we're just trying to eliminate their religion.


So the fact that we have no proof that Syria has them doesn't really matter? Well, it didn't matter before, so why should it now, right?


As for us not being safer, I agree. I don't think will ever be safe again. But at least we're trying to make it as safe as possible.


Yes, and we are failing. Let's say Iraq had WMDs, which is an if. At least before we knew they were in Iraq. Now we don't know where they are. Furthermore, we angered the Arab world, the Iraqi people are quickly resenting our presence there, a facility storing nuclear material was ransacked during the invasion, and our president is actually daring Iraqi resistance to attack our troops. Not only are we not safer, I believe we are making the world a more dangerous place for Americans, and all this hatred for us could eventually boil over into another attack on US soil.

So I don't give a shit that we are trying. Do, or do not.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[keithy_19]

They have actually seen trucks transport things out of Iraq.

http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Are you gunna bark all day little doggy? Or are you gonna bite"

[keithy_19]

Of course there going to attack us. They'll do anything to harm America and American lives. They were ready to attack us right after 9/11.

http://members.aol.com/thetoddsterlsp/sigpics/keithbobeefy1.gif

"Are you gunna bark all day little doggy? Or are you gonna bite"

[HBox]

They have actually seen trucks transport things out of Iraq.


1.Who are "they"?
2.Where did "they" see these trucks?
3.Where is the proof that these "things" are WMDs?
4.Where did you hear this?

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Melrapuo]

This all just goes to show you why politics in any form sucks. It doesn't get anything done. An when it does get stuff done it takes fuckin' forever.

No matter whether there are or aren't any WMD's, the war was justified, since Saddam has done enough (or rather too much) crap to justify his oust out of power (genicides, assassinations). The only reason Bush didn't stick to the "regime change" idea was because other countries felt that they needed a better reason for us to attack Iraq. The UN was reluctant to attack, no surprise there ::cough cough:: 12 years and 170-plus shit sanctions ::cough:: because they wanted to resolve things peacefully through negotiations. Most countries around the world (excluding Iraq's allies...whatever they were) knew that Iraq was a threat, they just didn't wanna do anything (or ddidn't have the means to do anything) about it.

I know people are gonna be against war and everything, but I'd rather be safe from a possible threat than having another 9/11 happen again.

As for the WMD's, I'm sure that they're there. Hell, Iraq had been illegally pumping oil to Syria without us knowing (yet another fault in those UN sanctions), and that's miles and miles of pipeline. If Saddam could've hidden that from us, do you think that the idea of the existence of WMD's in Iraq, something that we do have possible evidence for (as well as something that's easier to hide), is less likely?

And if there are no WMD's, and Bush really did lie to us, well then that sucks. It's not like no other politician has done so. And besides, Saddam has lied to the world plenty of times. It was only until the WORLD was threatened, and not the fact that Saddam had tortured and killed many of his people, as well a others, before anybody decided to do anything.

Fuckin' politics. It's probably gonna be our downfall.

I'm only here to disappoint. And bash the hell outta Infinity Broadcasting. That whore of a company...

[high fly]

If Saddam had gotten rid of most or all of his WMDs, then what threat did he pose to the rest of the world?
We had him neatly boxed in in the gulf for over a decade.
Now we have over half of our deployable troops over there.
This limits our ability to go into Syria, Iran, the Korean peninsula or anywhere else.
All the experts I've heard say we need more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan if we are to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
This is how you burn out a military and reduce reenlistment of experienced troops.
Perhaps that's the idea, what with Rumsfeld's plan to reduce the Army from 10 to 8 divisions still in the works.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

The circle in which I met Ambassador Wilson was also the event that you branded "anti-American," meanwhile this is the same guy that Dick Cheney chose to send on the fact-finding mission to Africa. Oops.
I post an article backing you up and you still feel the need to take a shot? Wow. The article says he was sent on behalf of the CIA, not Cheney. Not that it matters who sent him. I don't believe I branded the rally you attended as anti-American. I did say some of the backers of the rally were suspect and that people should look at who is behind ANY rally before throwing your hat in with them. Get it straight before you try to bust me.
And I stated earlier how partisanship is irrelevant to this issue bucause of the security implications of the damage this does to our credibility in the forseeable future...So a seperate question would be: do you hate the partisanship of the Republicans who are trying to divert attention from the evidence in order to protect the president out of party loyalty?
To answer your question, yes. Absolutely. I have said repeatedly that there should be an investigation, a non-partisan one. I don't know if the general public wants or cares about hearings though, and I fear the hearings would break down into attacks against the President, regardless of what the facts are. I don't think the Democrats could stop being vindictive for 10 minutes to get anything done at all. By the same token, the Republicans would delay and obstruct I am sure. There is way too much animosity in Congress right now to get normal business done, let alone something that could change the balance of political power in America for the next decade. You and I have already gone on about Levin, and whatever rose-colored glasses you wear which allows you to be blind to his overtly partisan attacks, well, I want to get a pair too. If a Republican does something I don't like I have (see my thread about Sen. Hatch)and will post about it. You might be a party-line guy, but don't try to paint me as one.

[high fly]

BERGALAD-- it is very important who sent him.
The administration has been saying that any info they had casting doubt on the Niger nuke deal existed way down at some lower level of the CIA, and that upper level officials hadn't heard.
The impetus for Wilson's mission was an inquiry by Cheney or his office.
Logically Wilson's findings would go ______[fill in the blank]
There was another article this weekend in the Post about it.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

I post an article backing you up and you still feel the need to take a shot?
It was meant to be in the tone of busting your balls, not as a shot. Sorry.

As for partisanship, I don't think it's any worse than it's ever been. It's always been a huge part of the American political system, as has been criticism of the President, beginning with Washington. I've met with about twenty offices in the last month and while this issue seems to be split on party lines, there is almost universal aknowledgement that the reconstruction process in Iraq, and especially the transition from the major war operations, were botched. I consider that an aknowlegement of the importance of the issues surrounding Iraq, beyond party loyalties, and a hopeful environment. Partisanship is a fact of life in this town, but things get done despite. You say Levin's motives are partisan, fine. If it's true that you want open and independent hearings, then I don't understand how he's partisan for asking for them too, but you can call him partisan. Truth is I don't care about political motives. I've been allied with Jesse Helms before, and I learned that it's the endproduct that counts. (I've actually come to feel that the partisanship of the public is a bigger burden on the political system than that of Congress.) This issue can be dealt with, and it is too important not to get done. Again, our credibility as a nation is at stake.

As for me being a party-line guy, I'd need a party for that. I'm more of a Conga-line guy.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

If it's true that you want open and independent hearings, then I don't understand how he's partisan for asking for them too, but you can call him partisan.
Not to go on about it any longer, but he has significantly changed his tune in the past 8 months. Where before he was absolutely certain about Iraq's WMD programs, now he is saying Bush lied to the public about it all. You may see his actions another way, but he is sickening to me.

If there are hearings, fine. I don't think they would be productive, but whatever. I agree that the rebuilding of Iraq has been a failure. There has been no clear plan, or any plan for that matter, and today there are reports that basic utilities are not up to pre-war levels yet. This is unacceptable. I do know that there is still mass looting of repaired sites, and that once the US fixes something looters rob the place. I can't figure out why an interim government is not in place, nor why elections aren't planned. The war was justified, and I will continue to stand behind that, but I am pissed that soldiers get killed each day and nothing has been done to make Iraq a country again.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 7-8-03 @ 11:34 AM

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23777-2003Jul7.html" target="_blank">White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy </a>

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/08/international/worldspecial/08PREX.html?hp" target="_blank">Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says</a>

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

Looks like we can say goodbye to George Tenent.
CIA approved Bush's Niger remarks. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20030711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq)

[high fly]

In the Bush White House, the buck stops at the CIA.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Doomstone]

Amazing how times have changed, reading this thread almost feels like looking through a history book. Hard to believe that it was only months ago.

But what has changed? Nothing, really. Still no WMD's, Iraq is still a mess, we still don't know when we're getting out and international support for our efforts are minimal.

I hope Bergalad's OK (he was military, right?).

[Yerdaddy]

Well, one thing that's happened is that the administration's tactic of shooting the messenger has been effective in distracting the public's attention from the fact that it lied to the public about the supposed Niger/uranium deal that was based on forged documents. Instead of the scandal being about the lies and the leaks, it's just about the leaks now.

<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030728ta_talk_remnick" target="_blank">FAITH-BASED INTELLIGENCE</a>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact" target="_blank">SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE</a>
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1" target="_blank">WHO LIED TO WHOM?
</a>

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35638-2003Oct2.html" target="_blank">Search in Iraq Finds No Banned Weapons</a>
After searching for nearly six months, U.S. forces and CIA experts have found no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq and have determined that Iraq's nuclear program was in only "the very most rudimentary" state, the Bush administration's chief investigator formally told Congress yesterday.

Before the war, the administration said Iraq had a well-developed nuclear program that presented a threat to the United States.

Now, "It clearly does not look like a massive, resurgent program, based on what we discovered," former U.N. weapons inspector David Kay, who heads the government's search, said yesterday after briefing House and Senate intelligence committees in a closed session on his interim report. He said he will need six to nine months to conclude his work, and congressional sources said the administration is requesting an additional $600 million toward the effort to find weapons of mass destruction.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/siggywo4.jpg">

[Recyclerz]

To supplement or pile on (depending on your perspective) here's a review of somebody who read the whole Kay report:

Slate: Fred Kaplan - The Iraq Sanctions Worked (http://slate.msn.com/id/2089471/)

You would think the Neocons would have had a Plan B to plant some evidence; maybe they should have hired an LA cop or two instead of all those eggheads. ;)



There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

[high fly]

No, wait. I've got it! Stop the presses,I've got it!!

Hide-A-Key.

That's right, Hide-A-Key!

Y'know, those little magnetic boxes that you put a spare car key in and put under your car somewhere just in case you lock your keys in there?
They're the perfect hiding place!

They need to go back and check all of those cars that Saddam had and I'll betcha that's where he's got the stuff stashed!

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 10-9-03 @ 8:45 PM