Scott McClellan: President used 'propaganda' to push war

[k4kyv]

Another former Bush-ite has decided to come clean.

In excerpts from a 341-page book to be released Monday, the spokesman who defended President Bush's policies through Hurricane Katrina and the early years of the Iraq war is now blasting his former employers, saying the Bush administration became mired in propaganda and political spin and at times played loose with the truth.

Former White House adviser Karl Rove said Tuesday that the excerpts from the book he's read sound more like they were written by a "left-wing blogger" than by his former colleague, but McClellan made clear that he stands behind the accuracy of his book.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/27/mcclellan.book/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

--

[w2amr]

Too bad this little snake didn't come forward with this information when it mattered. Instead , he chose to stand at a podium each day acting as a war cheer leader and lying his ass off. Now he is trying to make money off of it. Scum

[kc7jty]

Too bad this little snake didn't come forward with this information when it mattered. Instead , he chose to stand at a podium each day acting as a war cheer leader and lying his ass off. Now he is trying to make money off of it. Scum
BEE-EYE-EN-GEE-OH! :mad:

[W3MIV]

Nothing new in this. EVERY president uses propaganda to promote EVERY war. The failure is not so much Bush's, as it is the Congress's. Bush does not have the authority to declare war; that power resides solely in the Congress. The Constitution envisions a very limited authority on the part of the executive -- only such authority needed to perform his duties as chief magistrate and cominch during an actual emergency. It is the Congress that has failed utterly to rein in the executive during these recent military embroglios (starting with the "police action" in Korea).

Because the primary mission of every member of Congress has evolved into nothing more than a continual campaign for re-election, and the predominate purpose of every act is to avoid any semblance of responsibility for any act that might jeopardize the quest for permanent incumbency, the Congress has turned itself into a feckless debating society, and has abandoned the ship of state to Captain Ahab.

The problem antedates Bush.

[w2amr]

Nothing new in this. EVERY president uses propaganda to promote EVERY war. The failure is not so much Bush's, as it is the Congress's.


Wrong.Take bush out of the equation and there is no war.

[W3MIV]

Wrong.Take bush out of the equation and there is no war.


Wrong, not surprisingly. Bush is president. Put the Congress IN the equation and there is no war.

That is the issue. Not the propaganda. Just because you hate Bush to the point of an inability to reason does not mean you will not be called on it.

[n7wr]

Ya think maybe, just maybe he might be saying things to help sell his book? Nah--nobody does that!

[k9kxq]

Wrong, not surprisingly. Bush is president. Put the Congress IN the equation and there is no war.

That is the issue. Not the propaganda. Just because you hate Bush to the point of an inability to reason does not mean you will not be called on it.

Albert, didn't GWB come before congress with information that led congress to believe and vote on giving GWB the authority to act, then GWB being the cowboy he is gave Saddam until noon to get out of Dodge and was not the congress majority republican and should not all who voted to give the President this authority be accountable not excluding democrats who stood by and allowed this with a vote to give the cowboy a green light.

kxq

[N4VGB]

Wrong.Take bush out of the equation and there is no war.


Yes indeed, and Oliver North ran the whole Iran-Contra affair himself.:rolleyes:

Bush must be one sharp cookie indeed. Fooled the whole Congress. You must immediately remove your Reps and Senators from NJ, obvious fools. ;)

[N4VGB]

Albert, didn't GWB come before congress with information that led congress to believe and vote on giving GWB the authority to act, then GWB being the cowboy he is gave Saddam until noon to get out of Dodge and was not the congress majority republican and should not all who voted to give the President this authority be accountable not excluding democrats who stood by and allowed this with a vote to give the cowboy a green light.

kxq

Wouldn't that be the same Congress that has been majority Dumbocrat for some time now? Yet nothing changes? :eek:

[k9kxq]

Wouldn't that be the same Congress that has been majority Dumbocrat for some time now? Yet nothing changes? :eek:

Same old drum roll from the republitards...

kxq

[k9kxq]

Wouldn't that be the same Congress that has been majority Dumbocrat for some time now? Yet nothing changes? :eek:

FYI Dilly,"The Democratic Party secured control of the US Congress in the November 7 midterm elections, winning at least 230 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives and holding a 51-49 margin in the Senate."

"For some time", give it up OM you are making a fool out of yourself once again and again...

kxq

[N4VGB]

FYI Dilly,"The Democratic Party secured control of the US Congress in the November 7 midterm elections, winning at least 230 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives and holding a 51-49 margin in the Senate."

"For some time", give it up OM you are making a fool out of yourself once again and again...

kxq

OH. Nov. '07 to May '08. 6 months and business as usual there? Guess you Dumbocrats are just slow??? :confused:

I guess somebody besides McCain jumps the aisle there also??? Must be several Dumbocrats voting Republican on bills there??? :confused:

[k9kxq]

OH. Nov. '07 to May '08. 6 months and business as usual there? Guess you Dumbocrats are just slow??? :confused:

I guess somebody besides McCain jumps the aisle there also??? Must be several Dumbocrats voting Republican on bills there??? :confused:

"Clueless in Tennessee" are you the star of that new movie OM... :D

kxq

[KV1M]

McClellan is pulling the Repug play of releasing some ambiguously damaging tidbits just before release then when all you rubes buy the book it actually praises shrub and says he is so wonderful he makes Jesus look evil.

We've seen this before, don't be a bunch of suckers already.

[N9MOQ]

. .

[n2ize]

Too bad this little snake didn't come forward with this information when it mattered. Instead , he chose to stand at a podium each day acting as a war cheer leader and lying his ass off. Now he is trying to make money off of it. Scum

Very true. And just the fact thatit'sbeen done by others and it's "nothing new" sure as heck doesn't make it right or make the guilty parties anyless responsible for their actions.

[n2ize]

"Clueless in Tennessee" are you the star of that new movie OM... :D

kxq

As far as the republican neocons are concerned Bush did no wrong in initiating the campaign of misinformation and deception thatled to this corrupt war. there is not amount of facts or admissions that will change their minds. Why ? because to admit to it would mean that they have to admit to being wrong. And that is something they simply cannot do. If Bush himseld admittedto them that this is corrupt and was s based on deception they would find some excuse and tell you that Bush is wrong. They cannot admit to being wrong, even if they have to lie to themselves.

[N4VGB]

"Clueless in Tennessee" are you the star of that new movie OM... :D
kxq

Not really. I'm one of those that got a laugh out of the testimony presented on national TV to justify the first Gulf War to oust Saddam from Kuwait. That was a show and staged purely for those like yourself. Saddam just needed to be ousted from Kuwait, plain and simple, but people like you needed some contrived atrocities to justify the move, I didn't. :rolleyes:

Same was needed again for your consumption. :rolleyes:

Clueless can be viewed by you at any time, all that's needed is a mirror. :rolleyes:

[W0MT]

Nothing new in this. EVERY president uses propaganda to promote EVERY war. The failure is not so much Bush's, as it is the Congress's. Bush does not have the authority to declare war; that power resides solely in the Congress. The Constitution envisions a very limited authority on the part of the executive -- only such authority needed to perform his duties as chief magistrate and cominch during an actual emergency. It is the Congress that has failed utterly to rein in the executive during these recent military embroglios (starting with the "police action" in Korea).

Because the primary mission of every member of Congress has evolved into nothing more than a continual campaign for re-election, and the predominate purpose of every act is to avoid any semblance of responsibility for any act that might jeopardize the quest for permanent incumbency, the Congress has turned itself into a feckless debating society, and has abandoned the ship of state to Captain Ahab.

The problem antedates Bush.

Albert,

While I often agree with your comments, I don't agree to this one. The POTUS has hugh resources to gather and process intelligence data--Congress has very little. The POTUS can announce a press conference and get national press and real-time TV coverage--It is very unusual for any member of Congress to get that kind of attention of the American public unless it is after doing something unusual in a public toilet. The POTUS represents the voice of the entire executive branch--any one member of Congress represents one voice out of 535 for the legislative branch.

I do agree that Congress has surrendered its power to declare war (dating back to at least the Korean War) but in matters such as this the POTUS is holding the far greater power. Added to this are the factors that he invaded Iraq when the Republicans had a clear majority in Congress (most of whom fawned over GWB like he was a diety) and for better or worse, the public in this country support the military regardless of what they do. All Bush had to do was to accuse any member of Congress of being soft on protecting the homeland and opposition quickly faded.

[w2amr]

Wrong, not surprisingly. Bush is president. Put the Congress IN the equation and there is no war.

That is the issue. Not the propaganda. Just because you hate Bush to the point of an inability to reason does not mean you will not be called on it.

Congress was told that there was evidence, that the country was in imitate danger as a result of Saddam Hussein having WMD. At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. For a time, even a cynic like me bought into it. I doubt that many people even considered the possibility that the president of the United States could be lying about such a thing, We were wrong. Chew on that Mr know it all.

[K3XR]

"Selective amnesia"....

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/print/mcclellans-selective-amnesia/

[w2amr]

FYI Dilly,"The Democratic Party secured control of the US Congress in the November 7 midterm elections, winning at least 230 out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives and holding a 51-49 margin in the Senate."

"For some time", give it up OM you are making a fool out of yourself once again and again...

kxq
A man has to stick with what he does best.

[W3MIV]

Congress was told that there was evidence, that the country was in imitate danger as a result of Saddam Hussein having WMD. At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. For a time, even a cynic like me bought into it.

Which is to say you abdicated your responsibility as a citizen just as readily as the Congress abdicated its responsibility as the governing body where war is concerned. The GAO seems to love nothing more than digging into anything it can justify digging into. That the Congress let Bush march rough-shod over them (and you) speaks more about them (and you) than it does about Bush.

I doubt that many people even considered the possibility that the president of the United States could be lying about such a thing, We were wrong. Chew on that Mr know it all.

After the performances of Nixon and Clinton -- to name but two exemplary liars who equivocated truth and fiction to their own purposes, both personal and official, that is a laughably weak riposte. Mere pablum to "chew on."

As I have posted on many prior occasions, I carry no candles for Bush; neither do I feel the need to invent reasons to justify an unhealthy hatred as do so many of you misanthrops.

[k9kxq]

Which is to say you abdicated your responsibility as a citizen just as readily as the Congress abdicated its responsibility as the governing body where war is concerned. The GAO seems to love nothing more than digging into anything it can justify digging into. That the Congress let Bush march rough-shod over them (and you) speaks more about them (and you) than it does about Bush.



After the performances of Nixon and Clinton -- to name but two exemplary liars who equivocated truth and fiction to their own purposes, both personal and official, that is a laughably weak riposte. Mere pablum to "chew on."

As I have posted on many prior occasions, I carry no candles for Bush; neither do I feel the need to invent reasons to justify an unhealthy hatred as do so many of you misanthrops.

I think that's over reaching on your part "misanthrops'." really, George does not hate humankind, just Bush... :rolleyes:

kxq

[w2amr]

Which is to say you abdicated your responsibility as a citizen just as readily as the Congress abdicated its responsibility as the governing body where war is concerned. The GAO seems to love nothing more than digging into anything it can justify digging into. That the Congress let Bush march rough-shod over them (and you) speaks more about them (and you) than it does about Bush.



After the performances of Nixon and Clinton -- to name but two exemplary liars who equivocated truth and fiction to their own purposes, both personal and official, that is a laughably weak riposte. Mere pablum to "chew on."

As I have posted on many prior occasions, I carry no candles for Bush; neither do I feel the need to invent reasons to justify an unhealthy hatred as do so many of you misanthrops.
This war belongs to bush. He invented it, he put it into motion, it's his. If you want to talk about congress acting as enablers to help keep it going, I'm sure we have some common ground.

[w2amr]

I think that's over reaching on your part "misanthrops'." really, George does not hate humankind, just Bush... :rolleyes:

kxq
Ya gotta love Albie. Sometime I think he uses words that even he doesn't understand. :D

[w2amr]

"Selective amnesia"....

http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/print/mcclellans-selective-amnesia/
We now interrupt this discussion with .............

[W3MIV]

I think that's over reaching on your part "misanthrops'." really, George does not hate humankind, just Bush... :rolleyes:

kxq


Sorry for the misspelling. My addled fingers dropped the "e."

Anyone who can so intensely hate a man whom he has never met, and about whom he knows nothing more than what he has read in the press or on internet blogs or in the electronic media is clearly a man who is suffering a form of misanthropy. It is an aberration, though quite a common one on these (and other political blogs) threads.

[k9kxq]

Sorry for the misspelling. My addled fingers dropped the "e."

Anyone who can so intensely hate a man whom he has never met, and about whom he knows nothing more than what he has read in the press or on internet blogs or in the electronic media is clearly a man who is suffering a form of misanthropy. It is an aberration, though quite a common one on these (and other political blogs) threads.

Not a problem Albert, you keep me on the edge of my seat most days... But what do we know about GWB other than what we read, as far as the media, I can take or leave it, the only way to know President Bush is to have close ties and none of us do, his actions as our President speak loud enough, America can do better...

kxq

[W1GUH]

Congress was told that there was evidence, that the country was in imitate danger as a result of Saddam Hussein having WMD. At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. For a time, even a cynic like me bought into it. I doubt that many people even considered the possibility that the president of the United States could be lying about such a thing, We were wrong. Chew on that Mr know it all.

"At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. "

There was. If you followed the presentation at the UN, you saw nothing that was any kind of "proof" that there were WMD's in Iraq. Moreover, the fact that two of our long time allies, France and Germany, refused to buy into the BS is a very strong indication that any case the FM had was hopelessly flawed. I'm sure that if we had had a picture of the proverbial "smoking gun", but it was classified, they would have showed it to France and Germany in a closed-door session to get them on board.

It was so painfully obvious during that whole process in the run-up to the war that the most probable outcome was going to be NO WMD"s.

But there were extenuating circumstances. The US was in a total state of extreme "Shock and Awe" and it seems to me that's a very, very good reason for the mis-judgements that happened concerning the FM's war. In those days it was extremely difficult to avoid lashing out in any direction to "get back at" whoever or whatever caused such deep trauma, and the FM's people knew that they could totally get away with starting a useless, tragic, very dangerous war.

I gotta give Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama a pass for voting for the war, just like I give anybody a pass for clouded judgement in those dark days. (Not that the current days are any less dark.)


[edit]

An as for the book this thread was started for, this whole situation where policy people personally believe one thing and say just the opposite is political SOP. Mr Ellsberg has illustrated that perfectly in his memoirs. Someone like the author has a job where he's on the top guy's team, and is paid to support that.

[K0RGR]

Like millions of others, I agreed that we should invade Iraq based on the presentation made by Colin Powell at the U.N.. Colin Powell now regrets making that speech, and feels that he, too, was misled. Joe Wilson's refutation of the charge that Iraq was buying uranium for nuclear weapons was just the first of many clues that the W.M.D. charges were bogus.

Yes, I suffer from Bush derangement syndrome. After nearly 8 years of lies on top of lies, outright thievery, unjustified war, unprecedented waste and endless rounds of generous corporate welfare for the wealthiest corporations, the mention of his name causes me to twitch uncontrollably. I fear the condition will be permanent, and will cause me to always mark ballots for the Democrats, no matter what stinkers they may be. I honestly believe they will steal less.

[n2ize]

"At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. "

There was. If you followed the presentation at the UN, you saw nothing that was any kind of "proof" that there were WMD's in Iraq. Moreover, the fact that two of our long time allies, France and Germany, refused to buy into the BS is a very strong indication that any case the FM had was hopelessly flawed. I'm sure that if we had had a picture of the proverbial "smoking gun", but it was classified, they would have showed it to France and Germany in a closed-door session to get them on board.

It was so painfully obvious during that whole process in the run-up to the war that the most probable outcome was going to be NO WMD"s.

But there were extenuating circumstances. The US was in a total state of extreme "Shock and Awe" and it seems to me that's a very, very good reason for the mis-judgements that happened concerning the FM's war. In those days it was extremely difficult to avoid lashing out in any direction to "get back at" whoever or whatever caused such deep trauma, and the FM's people knew that they could totally get away with starting a useless, tragic, very dangerous war.

I gotta give Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama a pass for voting for the war, just like I give anybody a pass for clouded judgement in those dark days. (Not that the current days are any less dark.)


[edit]

An as for the book this thread was started for, this whole situation where policy people personally believe one thing and say just the opposite is political SOP. Mr Ellsberg has illustrated that perfectly in his memoirs. Someone like the author has a job where he's on the top guy's team, and is paid to support that.

Excellent synopsis Paul. You are correct, there were plenty of obvious clues to indicate that the Bush admin was feeding us a load of BS propaganda.

Now, of course it's hard to hold it against anyone for giving the "benefit of doubt", particularly in the wake of the terror attacks. However, it was no surprise that there were no WMD's, just as there is no surprise that bin Laden was never captured.

[w2amr]

Sorry for the misspelling. My addled fingers dropped the "e."

Anyone who can so intensely hate a man whom he has never met, and about whom he knows nothing more than what he has read in the press or on internet blogs or in the electronic media is clearly a man who is suffering a form of misanthropy. It is an aberration, though quite a common one on these (and other political blogs) threads.
My mistake, for getting involved with self-absorbed , self-centered , arrogant , egotistical , narcissistic, egocentric , wind bag. Not bad, huh Albie? :p

[w2amr]

"At the time there was nothing to refute this evidence. "

There was. If you followed the presentation at the UN, you saw nothing that was any kind of "proof" that there were WMD's in Iraq. Moreover, the fact that two of our long time allies, France and Germany, refused to buy into the BS is a very strong indication that any case the FM had was hopelessly flawed. I'm sure that if we had had a picture of the proverbial "smoking gun", but it was classified, they would have showed it to France and Germany in a closed-door session to get them on board.

It was so painfully obvious during that whole process in the run-up to the war that the most probable outcome was going to be NO WMD"s.

But there were extenuating circumstances. The US was in a total state of extreme "Shock and Awe" and it seems to me that's a very, very good reason for the mis-judgements that happened concerning the FM's war. In those days it was extremely difficult to avoid lashing out in any direction to "get back at" whoever or whatever caused such deep trauma, and the FM's people knew that they could totally get away with starting a useless, tragic, very dangerous war.

I gotta give Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama a pass for voting for the war, just like I give anybody a pass for clouded judgement in those dark days. (Not that the current days are any less dark.)


[edit]

An as for the book this thread was started for, this whole situation where policy people personally believe one thing and say just the opposite is political SOP. Mr Ellsberg has illustrated that perfectly in his memoirs. Someone like the author has a job where he's on the top guy's team, and is paid to support that.
Like many others, my mistake was in trusting the president. It won't happen again.

[N4VGB]

My mistake, for getting involved with self-absorbed , self-centered , arrogant , egotistical , narcissistic, egocentric , wind bag. Not bad, huh Albie? :p

You are obviously a masochist and will probably receive the verbal frailing that you so obviously desire! :eek:

[N4VGB]

Like many others, my mistake was in trusting the president. It won't happen again.

Thank GOD! :)

[w2amr]

You are obviously a masochist and will probably receive the verbal frailing that you so obviously desire! :eek:

Todd's going to be pissed when sees that you got out of the yard again.

[W1GUH]

Which is to say you abdicated your responsibility as a citizen just as readily as the Congress abdicated its responsibility as the governing body where war is concerned. The GAO seems to love nothing more than digging into anything it can justify digging into. That the Congress let Bush march rough-shod over them (and you) speaks more about them (and you) than it does about Bush.



After the performances of Nixon and Clinton -- to name but two exemplary liars who equivocated truth and fiction to their own purposes, both personal and official, that is a laughably weak riposte. Mere pablum to "chew on."

As I have posted on many prior occasions, I carry no candles for Bush; neither do I feel the need to invent reasons to justify an unhealthy hatred as do so many of you misanthrops.



"Which is to say you abdicated your responsibility as a citizen just as readily as the Congress abdicated its responsibility as the governing body where war is concerned. "

Ya gotta give 'em a break on this one. The "Shock and Awe" was a very powerful ingredient in the run-up to the Iraq war.


"neither do I feel the need to invent reasons to justify an unhealthy hatred as do so many of you misanthrops."

That's a pretty obtuse statment (do you ever just say what's on your mind, using words that the masses will understand, directly? :confused:) but are you referring to our hatred of the FM? (That's (gag) GWB.) Why, exactly, is it "unhealthy" to viscerally hate a person who has single-handedly trashed all aspects of life here in the U.S.? And then laughs about it? Why is it unhealthy to hate a system that actually elected this man to the (or used to be, anyway) most powerful political office in the world?

Or are you one of those who has successfully learned to repress all emotions and never feels anything anymore? I'd say that's much more unhealthy than hating a man who has done as much damage as the FM has.

[N4VGB]

Todd's going to be pissed when sees that you got out of the yard again.

Todd's pissed when he gets out of bed in the morning! :D

[wa6ccw]

Too bad this little snake didn't come forward with this information when it mattered. Instead , he chose to stand at a podium each day acting as a war cheer leader and lying his ass off. Now he is trying to make money off of it.

OR...

He could be NOW be choosing to stand behind/cheerlead for a book by lying his ass off... trying to make money off of it.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0083.gif

[k9kxq]

OR...

He could be NOW be choosing to stand behind/cheerlead for a book by lying his ass off... trying to make money off of it.

CYA OM, as Rove and others will do, CYA...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

CYA OM, as Rove and others will do, CYA...

kxq

Uh... I have nothing to "CYA" for (nor do I know what this "OM" thing is in reference to).

But your participation IS appreciated. :)

[K2WH]

The only one to blame for this war, is Saddam himself. He is the one who continued the charade that he had WMD's. He is the one that used them on his neighbors, he is the one that invaded Kuwait and most importantly he is the one that ignored and thumbed his nose at the U.N. resolutions. Remember those? Remember the burning oil fields?

Yes, Saddam is to blame and he basked in his hoax and his joke that he played on the world even as US troops were invading his country. Even his own Army thought he had them. It wasn't just Bush, the entire world believed he had these weapons and the reason they believed? It was spoon fed by Saddam just enough to keep em guessing and keep him in power.

Oh, the book? Just another one of the series. Seems the only way to make money these days is to publish a book full of lies and half truths. No one cares except the rabid left. I can hear the panting now.

K2WH

[W1GUH]

The only one to blame for this war, is Saddam himself. He is the one who continued the charade that he had WMD's. He is the one that used them on his neighbors, he is the one that invaded Kuwait and most importantly he is the one that ignored and thumbed his nose at the U.N. resolutions. Remember those? Remember the burning oil fields?

Yes, Saddam is to blame and he basked in his hoax and his joke that he played on the world even as US troops were invading his country. Even his own Army thought he had them. It wasn't just Bush, the entire world believed he had these weapons and the reason they believed? It was spoon fed by Saddam just enough to keep em guessing and keep him in power.

Oh, the book? Just another one of the series. Seems the only way to make money these days is to publish a book full of lies and half truths. No one cares except the rabid left. I can hear the panting now.

K2WH

And look what Saddam got for his posturing and eventual demise. A very, very weakened US, impending chaos in the middle east (hopefully) or a massive war (hope not). If he's up there with his 72 virgins watching what's going on, he knows he did not die in vain. He snookered the FM into damaging the US far more than anyone ever has. He was a brutal dictator, to be sure, but he was brilliant in how he's brought us down.

No, the entire world did not believe Iraq had WMD's. France and Germany, for starters called the FM on his hallucinations. I have a feeling that Britain, too, had deep doubts, but they also had the FM's lover, Tony Blair was it?, and the strong ties of friendship so they were obligated to go along, but they don't anymore. And their support, in terms of personnel, was little above the "token" level.

No, the "entire world" did NOT believe there were WMD's. I didn't. A bunch of us here didn't, and many nations in the UN didn't.

[N4VGB]

And their support, in terms of personnel, was little above the "token" level.


You're way off base in regards to the Brits aid in Iraq & Afghanistan. Far beyond token aid.

Many of the NATO countries never came through with the troops that they pledged to Afghanistan.

[W4DFW]

No, the "entire world" did NOT believe there were WMD's. I didn't. A bunch of us here didn't, and many nations in the UN didn't.

An amazing statement, though completely understandable in the world infested by leftwing lunacy hell-bent on achieving through lies and distortion what they can't achieve through simple democracy.

A Democrat as POTUS.

While the policy of the Bush Administration to push "stockpiles" of WMD to the public in order to garnish support for removing Saddam proved "unfortunate" at best, it was far from the real reasons for ridding the world of this tyrant.

Did not Congress have something to say about this?

I quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 (Just WHO was POTUS then?) Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Read the rest here! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
==================================

That leftwingnuts have chosen to pounce on the failure to find "stockpiles" of WMD is as much an indication of their substantive failure as a party as of their psychotic flailing of all rational thought upon the mere mention of Bush.

Saddam sealed his fate when he underestimated the resolve of the American people, who overwhelmingly supported his overthrow . . . and for good reason.

It remains a most interesting quandary when you consider Saddam feigned the "stockpiles" of WMD in order to fend off his arch enemy, the Iranians, in the mistaken belief that the US of A would never attack him. He firmly believed the US was a mere "paper tiger," devoid of any backbone to put up where the UN so graciously left off. It is, after all, those who belittle Bush today that Saddam was so hoping would infect the rest of us with the appeasement principles so long ago shown to fail us, but which so many have forgotten.

Thankfully for us, Saddam was wrong.

"An appeaser is one who feeds the alligator hoping he will be the last one eaten."

GUH, why someone of your obvious intelligence wastes time here and is not advising the POTUS is most curious indeed. Your clear intellect and ability to know what others with direct access to our intelligence agencies do not is most revealing. I commend you, if for nothing other than your ability to play Monday Morning Quarterback in a fashion that certainly places you head and shoulders above my miniature dachshund.

For that you should feel proud. I've yet to house train my dog, and you both seem to have much in common.

Toodles. :p

[n2ize]

No, the entire world did not believe Iraq had WMD's. France and Germany, for starters called the FM on his hallucinations. I have a feeling that Britain, too, had deep doubts, but they also had the FM's lover, Tony Blair was it?, and the strong ties of friendship so they were obligated to go along, but they don't anymore. And their support, in terms of personnel, was little above the "token" level.

No, the "entire world" did NOT believe there were WMD's. I didn't. A bunch of us here didn't, and many nations in the UN didn't.


yeah, but it doesn't matter if there were or were not weapons. Nor does it matter if McClellan, Cheney or e3ven Bush admits that it was all a load of bull. You have the neokons who have to convince themselves that they are right and this war is just. You might as well talk to a fence post than to a neokon.

[W4DFW]

yeah, but it doesn't matter if there were or were not weapons. Nor does it matter if McClellan, Cheney or e3ven Bush admits that it was all a load of bull. You have the neokons who have to convince themselves that they are right and this war is just. You might as well talk to a fence post than to a neokon.

I wonder, was it a "fence post" that found stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, or was that just a group of no-good UN folks up to more no-good??

Why, I bet you don't even KNOW that UN inspectors actually DID find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq at one point. And it goes without saying you have no idea when they did, OR who was POTUS at the time, OR that Iraq never provided documentation that they got rid of them. EVER.

Why do I feel like I'm telling you something you have NO IDEA about??

Such is the lib'rul lunacy infecting this nation . . .

[N4VGB]

Why, I bet you don't even KNOW that UN inspectors actually DID find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq at one point. And it goes without saying you have no idea when they did, OR who was POTUS at the time, OR that Iraq never provided documentation that they got rid of them. EVER.


John was busy burning a good bowl of weed when it all happened. Either that or he just pays little attention to the news, short memory, whatever? I especially loved the satellite videos of UN inspectors being held at the front gates of suspect facilities while trucks left by the back gate! But Iraq had nothing to hide!? Yeah sure. :rolleyes:

[n2ize]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

[W4DFW]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

BBWWWAAAHHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

I rest my case.

Sorry, the salon propoganda wanted me to register in order to read.

Man, I gotta ask. WHERE did you get that weed?? That must be some really good stuff!!

HINT: The stockpiles were found BEFORE BUSH was POTUS! Only a true ignoramus would ignore that fact.

Try again, IZE. We're all rootin' for 'ya!! ;)

[N4VGB]

BBWWWAAAHHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!
I rest my case.
Man, I gotta ask. WHERE did you get that weed?? That must be some really good stuff!!
HINT: The stockpiles were found BEFORE BUSH was POTUS! Only a true ignoramus would ignore that fact.
Try again, IZE. We're all rootin' for 'ya!! ;)


Looks like excessive pot smoking does lead to long term memory loss after all! :eek:

[W4DFW]

Oh . . . now I can read the link from Salon. My GOODNESS!!

==========================================
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

By Sidney Blumenthal

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

===============================================

Well now, ain't that special. Two former CIA officers said so, so it must be correct!! Too bad they don't have the guts to stand behind what they say.

This is the sort of trash that gives journalists a bad name. But I digress.

So I guess this "secret intelligence" apparently believes that the chemical weapons used by Saddam against his own people and the Iranian army came from secret UFO's circling the Earth. Oh, did I forget to mention that Saddam is/was the only person to use nerve gas on innocent folks? Not that there is anything wrong with that, of course, since lib'rul lunes don't seem to think so.

Someone please remind me. Wasn't it Tenet who said that WMDs in Iraq was a slam-dunk?? I could be wrong . . .

And if Tenet claimed there were no WMDs in Iraq, wouldn't he have said so in his book?

I'm so confused.

...........Bob <------- thinkin' lunes who post this stuff have a problem with Fox news?? JESUS!! We're ******!!

[KB9YCO]

After the continued track record of this administration I really don't see how anyone is surprised by yet another admission of distortion and lies by a political insider about this administration's conduct. From the complete lies of the Pat Tillman case and Jessica Lynch, to the numerous statements from former officials and others that this war was part of a huge propaganda blitz which was largely predicated on bad and intentionally misleading information. I don't understand how anyone can be surprised by more confirmations of their dishonesty that borders on criminality.

Regardless of what your political ideology is, what you think Clinton did or didn't do, which party you like or want to compare (they all share a burden of guilt, but the Bush administration was the main impetus behind this war), or who voted for what when, I just don't see how anyone can trust much of anything that comes out of the mouth's of this administration in relation to the war. (Including the turncoat McClellan who is now doing a 360 on everything, though much of what he's saying now was being said at the time by quite a few.) There was really no reliable justification for how and why this war was started, all the rationalizing, comparisons to Democrats, and blame games will not change the fact that this war was largely based on a previously existing agenda of this administration coupled with some really bad/distorted/spun/untruthful information. Much of what McClellan is now saying was well known before the war and after, but largely dismissed in a furor of patriotic bashing of anybody that supposedly put our country 'at risk' by not agreeing.

Anyone with a clue knows that Iraq's leaders were not innocent in creating the overall situation, nor are the Democrats innocent for going along with it, but anyone that thinks that the Bush administration was completely within their rights to do what they did with this war, or that they've been completely honest about it all, just isn't being realistic or objective.

Hate who you want to hate, compare all the parties and their candidates all you want to and blame who you choose, none of it changes the fact that this poorly executed plan was a huge mistake and the main people putting emphasis on it's necessity were indeed the people of the Bush administration and their political partners. That's just a fact.

(Have fun playing the partisan politics game with all your pointless comparisons to other situations and politicians, it's good for a laugh, but still doesn't change the fact the Bush administration, mostly, as well as congress and others, screwed up quite severely with this whole situation.)

[N4VGB]

"information from the Iraqi foreign minister", if that's all the intelligence that Tenet could develop, he should have been shot and then fired. ;)

I'm sure asking Adolph or his staff about where all the Jews were during WWII in Germany would have gotten an honest answer also! :D

[W4DFW]

After the continued track record of this administration I really don't see how anyone is surprised by yet another admission of distortion and lies by a political insider about this administration's conduct. From the complete lies of the Pat Tillman case and Jessica Lynch, to the numerous statements from former officials and others that this war was part of a huge propaganda blitz which was largely predicated on bad and intentionally misleading information. I don't understand how anyone can be surprised by more confirmations of their dishonesty that borders on criminality.

Regardless of what your political ideology is, what you think Clinton did or didn't do, which party you like or want to compare (they all share a burden of guilt, but the Bush administration was the main impetus behind this war), or who voted for what when, I just don't see how anyone can trust much of anything that comes out of the mouth's of this administration in relation to the war. (Including the turncoat McClellan who is now doing a 360 on everything, though much of what he's saying now was being said at the time by quite a few.) There was really no reliable justification for how and why this war was started, all the rationalizing, comparisons to Democrats, and blame games will not change the fact that this war was largely based on a previously existing agenda of this administration coupled with some really bad/distorted/spun/untruthful information. Much of what McClellan is now saying was well known before the war and after, but largely dismissed in a furor of patriotic bashing of anybody that supposedly put our country 'at risk' by not agreeing.

Anyone with a clue knows that Iraq's leaders were not innocent in creating the overall situation, nor are the Democrats innocent for going along with it, but anyone that thinks that the Bush administration was completely within their rights to do what they did with this war, or that they've been completely honest about it all, just isn't being realistic or objective.

Hate who you want to hate, compare all the parties and their candidates all you want to and blame who you choose, none of it changes the fact that this poorly executed plan was a huge mistake and the main people putting emphasis on it's necessity were indeed the people of the Bush administration and their political partners. That's just a fact.

(Have fun playing the partisan politics game with all your pointless comparisons to other situations and politicians, it's good for a laugh, but still doesn't change the fact the Bush administration, mostly, as well as congress and others, screwed up quite severely with this whole situation.)

Based on that "intelligent" post, I'd say you think Saddam was no threat to anyone and it would just be honky-dory if he was still in power.

If I'm wrong, prove it. If you're wrong, we're dead. You choose.

I'd still like to see you post an intelligent reason NOT to take out Saddam.

If you can, of course. No pressure. I won't hold it against you if you can't.

Gosh. I'm sure there are some really cool Orchid farms over there. I like Orchids. All the reason to have left Saddam in power, don'cha think??

I'm just askin'!! You got the knowledge so prove me wrong. It should be easy.

Saddam. You just gotta love him!! Now I swear I've heard that before . . . something about Lib'ruls. Could they love Saddam?? NAW, couldn't be!!

:p:p

[n2ize]

After the continued track record of this administration I really don't see how anyone is surprised by yet another admission of distortion and lies by a political insider about this administration's conduct. From the complete lies of the Pat Tillman case and Jessica Lynch, to the numerous statements from former officials and others that this war was part of a huge propaganda blitz which was largely predicated on bad and intentionally misleading information. I don't understand how anyone can be surprised by more confirmations of their dishonesty that borders on criminality.


Probably some of the people who are surprised by this are heroin addicts. Lulled into an opiated state where nothing affects them. Drugs will do that. But then , stupid will do that too.

[w2amr]

OR...

He could be NOW be choosing to stand behind/cheerlead for a book by lying his ass off... trying to make money off of it.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/confused/confused0083.gif
I like mine better. :D

[w2amr]

BBWWWAAAHHHHAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

I rest my case.

Sorry, the salon propoganda wanted me to register in order to read.

Man, I gotta ask. WHERE did you get that weed?? That must be some really good stuff!!

HINT: The stockpiles were found BEFORE BUSH was POTUS! Only a true ignoramus would ignore that fact.

Try again, IZE. We're all rootin' for 'ya!! ;)
Prove them wrong and the name calling starts. Typical, especially for a hannity groupie.

[w2amr]

Uh... I have nothing to "CYA" for (nor do I know what this "OM" thing is in reference to).

But your participation IS appreciated. :)
It's OK. OM is an HF thing.

[W3MIV]

Hate who you want to hate, compare all the parties and their candidates all you want to and blame who you choose, none of it changes the fact that this poorly executed plan was a huge mistake and the main people putting emphasis on it's necessity were indeed the people of the Bush administration and their political partners. That's just a fact.

I agree. The problem with the excess of hate in this case is that the extreme polarization hampers the sort of dialog that is beneficial to a recognition of the problems of the modern presidency versus the modern legislature. Without that recognition, no "cure" is possible since the only means of changing this deteriorating situation is public pressure.

I don't believe the nation has seen this level of "hate politics" since the Truman years, if not before. It is thoroughly counterproductive since it is a prime engine in dissuading better men or women from running for high office; the current campaign year is a testiment to this problem.

[k9kxq]

It's OK. OM is an HF thing.

I looked up his call and found he (jeeze Louise) is a tech, got a real hoot from your post...

kxq

[KV1M]

Uh... I have nothing to "CYA" for (nor do I know what this "OM" thing is in reference to).

But your participation IS appreciated. :)

Zoom! Right over your head.
(You didn't even catch the context)

[K2WH]

No, the "entire world" did NOT believe there were WMD's. I didn't. A bunch of us here didn't, and many nations in the UN didn't.

Are you for real ? You say you didn't along with "a bunch us here didn't" so I and others would like to know how you knew this, and how the others did ? Were you privy to some meetings with Bush ?

Please name the nations in the U.N. that did not believe this. They wouldn't happen to be in the middle east and neighbors of Saddam would they?

K2WH

[W8EFA]

This is hilarious as the Neocons on here try to spin the facts,

The fact is anyone that can't see (now with all the evidence revealed of what happened) that Bush used 911 as an excuse to lie and manipulate Congress and the American People to preemptively invade Iraq to attempt to establish a democracy in the middle east per the written PNAC plans is a Dilmus.

He then was totally unprepared to accomplish his stated goal and he and his administration (a bunch of bumbling idiots) completely unable to manage it.

That is why Iraq is the worst US foreign Policy disaster in our history and Bush our worst President in history.

And by the way- 62% of House Democrats voted against the Iraq resolution, and 42% voted against it in the Senate. The slight majority in the Senate voted for it only after a special session they attended the day before where this devious administration promised them they had the facts (a lie) that there were WMD's. Their crime was to beleive their new President was not a liar. Republicans of couse were 100% for it with only one senator voting against it.

[k8wpj]

Like many others, my mistake was in trusting the president. It won't happen again.


Seconded...

As I mentioned before, Bush is the top dog, the big kahuna, the big cheese... Congress can make as much noise as they want, but the fact is,. we would never have gone to war without the idiot in chief's approval.

This is something the entire Boosh clan wanted, hoped for and dreamed about since Senor Boosh pulled out early without toppling Saddam in the early 90's...

Junior invented and marketed this whole mess as a way to avenge daddy's name, and make a few bucks off the oil futures market in the process...

"The Buck stops here..." Had Bush not wanted the war, and said whatever he had to to make it happen, we would not be there now...

Carried one step farther, I honestly think McCain's comment that he would '...stay in Iraq as long as it takes' will be his downfall.... Because it was in that one moment, he confirmed to the masses, the facts do not matter to him, he's only concerned about the same tired Bush policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

[W5GA]

Congress can make as much noise as they want, but the fact is,. we would never have gone to war without the idiot in chief's approval.

And if there was any real disagreement with it in the hallowed halls of our Capitol, our troops would be home now because Congress would have defunded it long ago. Or has everyone forgotten that this is the ultimate veto power over Presidential action?

[K2WH]

And if there was any real disagreement with it in the hallowed halls of our Capitol, our troops would be home now because Congress would have defunded it long ago.

Yes it is the ultimate veto power over the President. Defunding the troops will never happen, because Congress is inept and the American people hate war but they hate losing more.

K2WH

[N4VGB]

I agree. The problem with the excess of hate in this case is that the extreme polarization hampers the sort of dialog that is beneficial to a recognition of the problems of the modern presidency versus the modern legislature. Without that recognition, no "cure" is possible since the only means of changing this deteriorating situation is public pressure.

I don't believe the nation has seen this level of "hate politics" since the Truman years, if not before. It is thoroughly counterproductive since it is a prime engine in dissuading better men or women from running for high office; the current campaign year is a testiment to this problem.


As long as Americans keep voting for the candidate that promises them the most freebies from government, nothing will change. :(

[k8wpj]

What do the following presidential candidates all have in common?

Hillary Clinton - Democrat
John McCain - Republican
Bob Barr - Libertarian

THEY ALL SUPPORTED GEORGE BUSH'S CALL FOR THE WAR.




There...

Fixed that for ya...

[k8wpj]

And if there was any real disagreement with it in the hallowed halls of our Capitol, our troops would be home now because Congress would have defunded it long ago. Or has everyone forgotten that this is the ultimate veto power over Presidential action?

this is true... but, now comes the PR hot potato ( or is it potatoe?) of how exactly do we get out of this mess...? Congress 'could' defund the war effort, but, no one wants to be the first one in either house to introduce such an action, for fear of the inevitable snowstorm of PR calling them cowards, for suggesting what is essentially a cowards way out...

Until a new top dog is elected, and willing to put forth a plan to to get us out, (and take the inevitable heat for such a plan..) nothing will change..

GWB's war has us with our foot stuck in a beartrap over there, and no one wants to be the one to suggest between cutting off the foot (cutting and running and loking like cowards) or a plan to disengage the trap from our foot, ( using some form of reconstruction, PR, and slow coordinated withdrawal) that may take years, each has drawbacks and no one wants to be the bearer of bad news, and sacrifice their carreers.

Remember Vietnam? That war killed whatever legacy LBJ had, and he agonized over it. It didn't do Nixon any favors either.

[KV1M]

Are you for real ? You say you didn't along with "a bunch us here didn't" so I and others would like to know how you knew this, and how the others did ? Were you privy to some meetings with Bush ?

Please name the nations in the U.N. that did not believe this. They wouldn't happen to be in the middle east and neighbors of Saddam would they?

K2WH

France, Germany, the UK (but they went anyway) Italy, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Finland, shall I go on?

I didn't buy it for a second, and neither did anyone I know. It was obvious to anyone who was paying attention to what was going on in the slightest degree.
You bought it though. Hook line and sinker from the sounds of it.

[KV1M]

As long as Americans keep voting for the candidate that promises them the most freebies from government, nothing will change. :(

You mean like tax breaks?

Yeah, among other things I am sure. Sound bite politics, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

[N4VGB]

no one wants to be the one to suggest between cutting off the foot (cutting and running and loking like cowards) or a plan to disengage the trap from our foot, ( using some form of reconstruction, PR, and slow coordinated withdrawal) that may take years, each has drawbacks and no one wants to be the bearer of bad news, and sacrifice their carreers.


The UN authorization for foreign troops to be in Iraq expires in Dec. '08. Yeah, I know, few on here even realize that there is UN authorization involved. The current talks between the U.S. and the Iraqi government only call for a two year extension of the current situation, with a cancellation clause for either party. With permanent bases already in several Gulf states that will probably be there for many years to come, it looks like the end is approaching, regardless of who the U.S. president might be.

[N4VGB]

You mean like tax breaks?

Yeah, among other things I am sure. Sound bite politics, all sound and fury signifying nothing.

DOH! You mean Obama is just trying to buy votes by promising to double the tax rebate next year, if elected!!! :eek:

I never would have thought the candidate of "change and hope" would do such a thing!!! :eek:

[KV1M]

The UN authorization for foreign troops to be in Iraq expires in Dec. '08. Yeah, I know, few on here even realize that there is UN authorization involved.

Yup sure was. The fact that the US threatened to veto everything else if they didn't go along had no influence on that decision did it?
Please, get the US out of the UN.

[N4VGB]

Yup sure was. The fact that the US threatened to veto everything else if they didn't go along had no influence on that decision did it?
Please, get the US out of the UN.

If you can get the Brits to build a new building on their dime and pay most of the UN costs, as the U.S. does now, I'm all for it! :D

[W1GUH]

Are you for real ? You say you didn't along with "a bunch us here didn't" so I and others would like to know how you knew this, and how the others did ? Were you privy to some meetings with Bush ?

Please name the nations in the U.N. that did not believe this. They wouldn't happen to be in the middle east and neighbors of Saddam would they?

K2WH


For starters, if you had paid any attention at all to the 2000 election, and what the FM was trying to say, you'd know that he simply was not presidential material. Spin it all you want, but he was put up there as the easily manipulable person who would do all that his backers wanted him to do. For cryin' out loud, the man can't even speak one coherent sentence. He displayed no ability at all to comprehend the subtleties of what the office of President of the United States entails. He partied through high school and college, just barely graduated with the help of his daddy's money, failed multiple businesses, deserted the Air Force, was a drunken coke-head, and as Govenor of Texas managed to conveniently "forget" that a 12-month program needs 12 months of financing, not 11.

And when he got up to speak all those negatives were completely obvious to anyone who paid any attention at all to the campaign that year.

So, OK, now the FM wants to play with the guns that daddy bought him ( when he bought the election in '00), and he's given the golden opportunity to do just that when 911 hit. So he gets out his revenge hat, and starts sabre-rattling against Saddam. His agents go before the UN with a completely inadequate presentation of so-called "proof" of WMD in Iraq, which don't actually prove anything, and two long-time, respected allies called him on the bluff. What did the FM do? Did he try harder to put together a better package of information to try to show them that there were WMD's? (Something, by the way, that a COMPETENT president would have done.)

NO...he starts calling them names and putting them down.

That is the mark of a very, very small and weak man trying to prove that he's got the biggest one.

There were inspectors there in Iraq in the lead-up to the war and had free reign to go anywhere to look for WMD's. They hadn't found anything when the FM got just too darn trigger-happy and kicked them out so he could get off on letting the bombs fly.

That's what you would have seen if you would have paid careful attention to what was going on with the FM. But you obviously think he's the end-all and be-all, and could never do any wrong, so if he said we gotta start a stupid, dangerous and immoral war, you went right along. When he said we gotta put down France for crossing us, you went right along.

Now, I doubt that even if your nose were rubbed in information that says you were dead wrong about WMD's you'd never, ever accept it.

[N4VGB]

His agents go before the UN with a completely inadequate presentation of so-called "proof" of WMD in Iraq, which don't actually prove anything, and two long-time, respected allies called him on the bluff.

Now, I doubt that even if your nose were rubbed in information that says you were dead wrong about WMD's you'd never, ever accept it.


I'm going to ask the same question that I've ask before and always goes unanswered on here. During the period that UN inspectors were touring Iraq, they were many times stalled at the gates of facilities of interest. During this period there were repeated instances of large trucks leaving these facilities by another gate, recorded on satellite and aerial recon flights video cameras and played on American TV regularly. No banned materials you say!? Then what was Saddam hiding and shuffling around Iraq in all those trucks!? I won't hold my breath for your reply. :rolleyes::p

[N4VGB]

Yup sure was. The fact that the US threatened to veto everything else if they didn't go along had no influence on that decision did it?
Please, get the US out of the UN.

OH, we act exactly like Russia, China and all the other members of the Security Council, I see. :rolleyes::p

[k9kxq]

Well it seems that Scott McClellan's hunting trip with Dick Cheney is off now, too bad Scott is a good shot, especially the shot he fired in Washington... :D

kxq

[w2amr]

For starters, if you had paid any attention at all to the 2000 election, and what the FM was trying to say, you'd know that he simply was not presidential material. Spin it all you want, but he was put up there as the easily manipulable person who would do all that his backers wanted him to do. For cryin' out loud, the man can't even speak one coherent sentence. He displayed no ability at all to comprehend the subtleties of what the office of President of the United States entails. He partied through high school and college, just barely graduated with the help of his daddy's money, failed multiple businesses, deserted the Air Force, was a drunken coke-head, and as Govenor of Texas managed to conveniently "forget" that a 12-month program needs 12 months of financing, not 11.

And when he got up to speak all those negatives were completely obvious to anyone who paid any attention at all to the campaign that year.

So, OK, now the FM wants to play with the guns that daddy bought him ( when he bought the election in '00), and he's given the golden opportunity to do just that when 911 hit. So he gets out his revenge hat, and starts sabre-rattling against Saddam. His agents go before the UN with a completely inadequate presentation of so-called "proof" of WMD in Iraq, which don't actually prove anything, and two long-time, respected allies called him on the bluff. What did the FM do? Did he try harder to put together a better package of information to try to show them that there were WMD's? (Something, by the way, that a COMPETENT president would have done.)

NO...he starts calling them names and putting them down.

That is the mark of a very, very small and weak man trying to prove that he's got the biggest one.

There were inspectors there in Iraq in the lead-up to the war and had free reign to go anywhere to look for WMD's. They hadn't found anything when the FM got just too darn trigger-happy and kicked them out so he could get off on letting the bombs fly.

That's what you would have seen if you would have paid careful attention to what was going on with the FM. But you obviously think he's the end-all and be-all, and could never do any wrong, so if he said we gotta start a stupid, dangerous and immoral war, you went right along. When he said we gotta put down France for crossing us, you went right along.

Now, I doubt that even if your nose were rubbed in information that says you were dead wrong about WMD's you'd never, ever accept it.

Happens Every time Willie wanders out of the rag chew section, you know an ass kicking is sure to follow. :D

[k8wpj]

The UN authorization for foreign troops to be in Iraq expires in Dec. '08.... regardless of who the U.S. president might be.

You actually believe the folks in washington actually care about what the UN thinks?

Wow...

[wa6ccw]

I like mine better. :D

Somehow... I knew you would. :rolleyes:

[wa6ccw]

It's OK. OM is an HF thing.

1). Who/what is "OM"?

2). I couldn't care less if it were even a "UHF thing"... Ham Radio isn't one of my interests.

:)

[wa6ccw]

I looked up his call and found he (jeeze Louise) is a tech, got a real hoot from your post...

kxq

Ah yes, when all else FAILS: point out the license class.

If were a Jesus fan, I would probably have to quote him:

"Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing".

:D

[w2amr]

1). Who/what is "OM"?

2). I couldn't care less if it were even a "UHF thing"... Ham Radio isn't one of my interests.

:)
FBOM on the UHF thing. :D

[wa6ccw]

An amazing statement, though completely understandable in the world infested by leftwing lunacy hell-bent on achieving through lies and distortion what they can't achieve through simple democracy.

A Democrat as POTUS.

While the policy of the Bush Administration to push "stockpiles" of WMD to the public in order to garnish support for removing Saddam proved "unfortunate" at best, it was far from the real reasons for ridding the world of this tyrant.

Did not Congress have something to say about this?

I quote:

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 (Just WHO was POTUS then?) Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Read the rest here! (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html)
==================================

That leftwingnuts have chosen to pounce on the failure to find "stockpiles" of WMD is as much an indication of their substantive failure as a party as of their psychotic flailing of all rational thought upon the mere mention of Bush.

Saddam sealed his fate when he underestimated the resolve of the American people, who overwhelmingly supported his overthrow . . . and for good reason.

It remains a most interesting quandary when you consider Saddam feigned the "stockpiles" of WMD in order to fend off his arch enemy, the Iranians, in the mistaken belief that the US of A would never attack him. He firmly believed the US was a mere "paper tiger," devoid of any backbone to put up where the UN so graciously left off. It is, after all, those who belittle Bush today that Saddam was so hoping would infect the rest of us with the appeasement principles so long ago shown to fail us, but which so many have forgotten.

Thankfully for us, Saddam was wrong.

"An appeaser is one who feeds the alligator hoping he will be the last one eaten."

GUH, why someone of your obvious intelligence wastes time here and is not advising the POTUS is most curious indeed. Your clear intellect and ability to know what others with direct access to our intelligence agencies do not is most revealing. I commend you, if for nothing other than your ability to play Monday Morning Quarterback in a fashion that certainly places you head and shoulders above my miniature dachshund.

For that you should feel proud. I've yet to house train my dog, and you both seem to have much in common.

Toodles. :p

Ya gotta love W4DFW... he cuts through the left-wing BS like few others I know.

My favorite part:

That leftwingnuts have chosen to pounce on the failure to find "stockpiles" of WMD is as much an indication of their substantive failure as a party as of their psychotic flailing of all rational thought upon the mere mention of Bush.

[n2ize]

FBOM on the UHF thing. :D

Heh... maybe it's a SHF thing. I can't beleive anyone on a ham forum doesn'rt know what "OM" is. How aboud LID ?

[k9kxq]

Ya gotta love W4DFW... he cuts through the left-wing BS like few others I know.

My favorite part:

Rightwingnuts are in denial, I see dead republicans...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

FBOM on the UHF thing. :D

What is it with you and the text-message-ese?

Can't you just express your unhappiness with me in english? :rolleyes:

[n2ize]

What is it with you and the text-message-ese?

Can't you just express your unhappiness with me in english? :rolleyes:

Hah... you think it's "text messaging" langauge ? Or are you simply playing dumb.

[wa6ccw]

I can't beleive anyone on a ham forum doesn'rt know what "OM" is.

And I can't believe that you would spell that word... like that. :D

[K3XR]

Suprise, suprise....

http://newsbusters.org/node/21576/print

[wa6ccw]

Hah... you think it's "text messaging" langauge ? Or are you simply playing dumb.

Hah... do you not understand that I'm not interested in Ham Radio?
Or do you just knee-jerk when you think you see something you can use to your advantage?

[K3XR]

What is Soros up to??

http://newsbusters.org/node/21578/print

[wa6ccw]

Heh... maybe it's a SHF thing. I can't beleive anyone on a ham forum doesn'rt know what "OM" is. How aboud LID ?

Hey bud... has RF fried your cognitive abilities... "doesn'rt" you know how to spell?

:D

[wa6ccw]

Heh... maybe it's a SHF thing. I can't beleive anyone on a ham forum doesn'rt know what "OM" is. How aboud LID ?

I don't know... how aboud that..?

:D

[K3XR]

It gets better....

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/05/mcclellan-book-publisher-has-anti.html

[n2ize]

Hah... do you not understand that I'm not interested in Ham Radio?
Or do you just knee-jerk when you think you see something you can use to your advantage?

No, you were just named WA6CCW at birth.

[K3XR]

Who "tweaked" your book Scott??

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13288

[n2ize]

Who tweaked you brain bot... :D:D:D

[wa6ccw]

No, you were just named WA6CCW at birth.

My goodness...

Now we get to the (expected) playground taunts.

"Nanny-nanny-boo-boo" to you, too.

:D

[k9kxq]

Hah... do you not understand that I'm not interested in Ham Radio?
Or do you just knee-jerk when you think you see something you can use to your advantage?

Well then go play with your Glock, be careful and don't shoot your foot off OM...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

Well then go play with your Glock, be careful and don't shoot your foot off OM...

kxq

Later...

Right now, I'd rather continue to get your goat.

:D

[wa6ccw]

Who "tweaked" your book Scott??

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13288

A lot of these Republicans defections are predictable and self-inflicted: a Republican administration, seeking to curry favor with the press, brings in a liberal Republican or semi-conservative Democrat (like Dilulio) and then lo and behold this person finds he objects to that administration and later criticizes it. In this case, the Bush administration's self-inflicted wound was to hire a stooge who it first manipulated and then released into the world to be manipulated by others. They handed him talking points and he read them to millions; then his new masters handed him talking points and he wrote them up into a bestselling book.

This is the McClellan they knew.

Doncha just love it?

:D

[w2amr]

Later...

Right now, I'd rather continue to get your goat.

:D
I was wondering where that damn thing went.

[k9kxq]

Later...

Right now, I'd rather continue to get your goat.

:D

:rolleyes: you can have all the goat you want, just don't mess with my beef...

kxq

[wa6ccw]

:rolleyes: you can have all the goat you want, just don't mess with my beef...

kxq


Ah...

So THAT is what he was chewing on.

:D

[K2WH]

What is it with you and the text-message-ese?

Can't you just express your unhappiness with me in english? :rolleyes:

I have to agree. What is FBOM? I don't text msg and don't know anyone who does.

K2WH

[N4VGB]

I was wondering where that damn thing went.

Now why does the mental picture of you and a goat not surprise me at all. :p

[w2amr]

I have to agree. What is FBOM? I don't text msg and don't know anyone who does.

K2WHText msg, I love it! :D

[N4VGB]

Text msg, I love it! :D

Sarcasm or a troll. Not suprised at all that you missed it! :p

[W1GUH]

Ahem.....recess if over. Well, one last "ca-ca poo poo on you, too." OK, now it's over!

I'm going to ask the same question that I've ask before and always goes unanswered on here. During the period that UN inspectors were touring Iraq, they were many times stalled at the gates of facilities of interest. During this period there were repeated instances of large trucks leaving these facilities by another gate, recorded on satellite and aerial recon flights video cameras and played on American TV regularly. No banned materials you say!? Then what was Saddam hiding and shuffling around Iraq in all those trucks!? I won't hold my breath for your reply. :rolleyes::p

And pictures of large trucks "prove" the existance of WMD how? If they were caught on satellite, those satellites could've followed 'em and would have known where the went. Why weren't any of them found to have WMD's when our troops on the ground went to inspect them?

Sure, they coulda had bad stuff in them...but the fact is, rather than speculation about their contents, nothing has been found by our troops.

[N9XR]

Ahem.....recess if over. Well, one last "ca-ca poo poo on you, too." OK, now it's over!



And pictures of large trucks "prove" the existance of WMD how? If they were caught on satellite, those satellites could've followed 'em and would have known where the went. Why weren't any of them found to have WMD's when our troops on the ground went to inspect them?

Sure, they coulda had bad stuff in them...but the fact is, rather than speculation about their contents, nothing has been found by our troops.

Even Saddam wanted to try to keep some marmalade for himself. Jams and jellies without some UN weapons inspectors pawing through the jars.

So many Frequency Modulators out there who have been duped and they want to blame others who were not duped. How stupid is that?

Hold your breath. You were duped and you use Frequency Modulation on VHF probably too.

You were duped. You were duped. You fell for lies. Thousands died from the lies. Get over it and stop blaming others for you being so gullible.

Sheesh. Gawoe up.

EDIT: Not you GUH. The others who are so danged gullible.

[N4VGB]

Ahem.....recess if over. Well, one last "ca-ca poo poo on you, too." OK, now it's over!

And pictures of large trucks "prove" the existance of WMD how? If they were caught on satellite, those satellites could've followed 'em and would have known where the went. Why weren't any of them found to have WMD's when our troops on the ground went to inspect them?

Sure, they coulda had bad stuff in them...but the fact is, rather than speculation about their contents, nothing has been found by our troops.

I know that this is a lot for you to try and remember or grasp, but try to keep up OM. If there wasn't any banned material being moved about to keep it out of UN inspectors sight, what was all the shuffle about? You do recall that Saddam sent all his planes to Iran to avoid destruction, don't you? I doubt it, Dumbocrats have very short memories. Massive stockpiles of the raw chemicals needed to produce many types of poison gas were found, but you lefties covered Saddam's butt by claiming it was probably for the other industrial uses that these chemicals could be used for. You do recall that most of Saddam's underground hangers were hit by British planes and blown to hell? None were dug up to see what was in them, all covered by bulldozers later, let the Iraqi EPA worry about what might be there! Lots of sand in Iraq, very easy to dig a hole and bury a lot of things in all that desert. Saddam and his family were no dummies in some ways, very stupid in others. :rolleyes:

[N4VGB]

The others who are so danged gullible.


YEP, pretty gullible alright. Saddam said he didn't have any, so it's true. Tell a Kurd and see what reaction you get. :rolleyes:

[W1GUH]

I know that this is a lot for you to try and remember or grasp, but try to keep up OM. If there wasn't any banned material being moved about to keep it out of UN inspectors sight, what was all the shuffle about? You do recall that Saddam sent all his planes to Iran to avoid destruction, don't you? I doubt it, Dumbocrats have very short memories. Massive stockpiles of the raw chemicals needed to produce many types of poison gas were found, but you lefties covered Saddam's butt by claiming it was probably for the other industrial uses that these chemicals could be used for. You do recall that most of Saddam's underground hangers were hit by British planes and blown to hell? None were dug up to see what was in them, all covered by bulldozers later, let the Iraqi EPA worry about what might be there! Lots of sand in Iraq, very easy to dig a hole and bury a lot of things in all that desert. Saddam and his family were no dummies in some ways, very stupid in others. :rolleyes:

Anyone else remember this history? I don't. And sure as heck know that, given the supreme importance of finding an WMD's, or the stuff that makes 'em, this history would not have been buried on page 89.

[N9XR]

If there wasn't any banned material being moved about to keep it out of UN inspectors sight, what was all the shuffle about? :rolleyes:

If Dubya didn't ever take cocaine, why didn't he outright deny it?

The fact remains. There were no WMD. You are in denial, but get it through your numb skull. There were no WMD no matter how you spin it. You were lied to about the trucks. Get a grip on it. You were lied to.

How can anyone explain about these fictitious truck you keep babbling about? They were lies. Get a grip.

Okay okay. They were transporting the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus in those trucks.

Does that make you feel better?

Urine denial.

[N4VGB]

Anyone else remember this history? I don't. And sure as heck know that, given the supreme importance of finding an WMD's, or the stuff that makes 'em, this history would not have been buried on page 89.

Nothing was buried on page 89, all on the news regularly. You have leftie selective memory. Or are poorly informed? :eek:

[W4DFW]

Prove them wrong and the name calling starts. Typical, especially for a hannity groupie.

AMR, I just gotta love 'ya!! You DO try so hard, but you keep flailing away like an 811A with a shorted filament. Prove them wrong?? Surely you jest!!
=========================================

UNSCOM inspections 1991-1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction)

The United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) was set up after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait to inspect Iraqi weapons facilities. It was headed first by Rolf Ekéus and later by Richard Butler. During several visits to Iraq by UNSCOM, weapons inspectors interviewed British-educated Iraqi biologist Rihab Rashid Taha. According to a 1999 report from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the normally mild-mannered Taha exploded into violent rages whenever UNSCOM questioned her about al-Hakam, shouting, screaming and, on one occasion, smashing a chair, while insisting that al-Hakam was a chicken-feed plant.[34] "There were a few things that were peculiar about this animal-feed production plant", Charles Duelfer, UNSCOM's deputy executive chairman, later told reporters, "beginning with the extensive air defenses surrounding it." The facility was destroyed by UNSCOM in 1996.[35]

In 1995, UNSCOM's principal weapons inspector, Dr. Rod Barton from Australia, showed Taha documents obtained by UNSCOM that showed the Iraqi government had just purchased 10 tons of growth medium from a British company called Oxoid. Growth media is a mixture of sugars, proteins and minerals that provides nutrients for microorganisms to grow. It can be used in hospitals and microbiology/molecular biology research laboratories. In hospitals, swabs from patients are placed in dishes containing growth medium for diagnostic purposes. Iraq's hospital consumption of growth medium was just 200 kg a year; yet in 1988, Iraq imported 39 tons of it. Shown this evidence by UNSCOM, Taha admitted to the inspectors that she had grown 19,000 litres of botulism toxin;[36] 8,000 litres of anthrax; 2,000 litres of aflatoxins, which can cause liver failure; Clostridium perfringens, a bacterium that can cause gas gangrene; and ricin, a castor-bean derivative which can kill by impeding circulation. She also admitted conducting research into cholera, salmonella, foot and mouth disease, and camel pox, a disease that uses the same growth techniques as smallpox, but which is safer for researchers to work with. It was because of the discovery of Taha's work with camel pox that the U.S. and British intelligence services feared Saddam Hussein may have been planning to weaponize the smallpox virus. Iraq had a smallpox outbreak in 1971 and the Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) believed the Iraqi government retained contaminated material.[23]

UNSCOM also learned that, in August 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, Taha's team was ordered to set up a program to weaponize the biological agents. By January 1991, a team of 100 scientists and support staff had filled 157 bombs and 16 missile warheads with botulin toxin, and 50 bombs and five missile warheads with anthrax. In an interview with the BBC, Taha denied the Iraqi government had weaponized the bacteria. "We never intended to use it", she told journalist Jane Corbin of the BBC's Panorama program. "We never wanted to cause harm or damage to anybody." However, UNSCOM found the munitions dumped in a river near al-Hakam. UNSCOM also discovered that Taha's team had conducted inhalation experiments on donkeys from England and on beagles from Germany. The inspectors seized photographs showing beagles having convulsions inside sealed containers.[citation needed]

The inspectors feared that Taha's team had experimented on human beings. During one inspection, they discovered two primate-sized inhalation chambers, one measuring 5 cubic meters, though there was no evidence the Iraqis had used large primates in their experiments. According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter in his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Crisis, UNSCOM learned that, between July 1 and August 15, 1995, 50 prisoners from the Abu Ghraib prison were transferred to a military post in al-Haditha, in the northwest of Iraq.[citation needed] Iraqi opposition groups say that scientists sprayed the prisoners with anthrax, though no evidence was produced to support these allegations. During one experiment, the inspectors were told, 12 prisoners were tied to posts while shells loaded with anthrax were blown up nearby. Ritter's team demanded to see documents from Abu Ghraib prison showing a prisoner count. Ritter writes that they discovered the records for July and August 1995 were missing. Asked to explain the missing documents, the Iraqi government charged that Ritter was working for the CIA and refused UNSCOM access to certain sites like Baath Party headquarters.[37] Although Ekéus has said that he resisted attempts at such espionage, many allegations have since been made against the agency commission under Butler, charges which Butler has denied [2][3].

In August 1998, Ritter resigned his position as UN weapons inspector and sharply criticized the Clinton administration and the U.N. Security Council for not being vigorous enough about insisting that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be destroyed. Ritter also accused U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan of assisting Iraqi efforts at impeding UNSCOM's work. "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." In 1998 the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. They were not expelled from the country by Iraq as has often been reported (and as George W. Bush alleged in his infamous "axis of evil" speech). Rather, according to Butler himself in his book Saddam Defiant, it was U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh, acting on instructions from Washington, who suggested Butler pull his team from Iraq in order to protect them from the forthcoming U.S. and British airstrikes which eventually took place from December 16-December 19, 1998.

==================================================

The only thing you have proved is your inane ability to ignore reality in your quest to bash all things Bush.

Take an aspirin. The BDS fever is affecting your mind and leading to mental instability. But I am not surprised . . . such things affect Lib'rul lunes on a daily basis.

Cheers!! :p

[N4VGB]

The fact remains. There were no WMD. You are in denial, but get it through your numb skull. There were no WMD no matter how you spin it. You were lied to about the trucks. Get a grip on it. You were lied to.

How can anyone explain about these fictitious truck you keep babbling about? They were lies. Get a grip.


Know what else! I'm also so dumb that after watching the Hezbollah vehicle mounted rocket launchers roll out from under apartment buildings and fire rockets at Israel, that I felt little sympathy for the Hezbollah supporter inhabitants moments later when the whole building was hit and destroyed by the Israelis. Yeah, I know, poor civilians! :p

[N9XR]

Good post DFW. Clinton did rid Iraq of WMD while he was in office. That negated Dubya's reason to invade.

[N9XR]

Know what else! I'm also so dumb that after watching the Hezbollah vehicle mounted rocket launchers roll out from under apartment buildings and fire rockets at Israel, that I felt little sympathy for the Hezbollah supporter inhabitants moments later when the whole building was hit and destroyed by the Israelis. Yeah, I know, poor civilians! :p

Oh. I see. Does this help your juvenile denial problem?

Hezbollah gets blown away. What's your point? I thought we were talking about WMD in Iraq?

[N4VGB]

The only thing you have proved is your inane ability to ignore reality in your quest to bash all things Bush.

Take an aspirin. The BDS fever is affecting your mind and leading to mental instability. But I am not surprised . . . such things affect Lib'rul lunes on a daily basis.

Cheers!! :p

You wasted your time and effort. The lefties have selective memory, very short memory and/or refuse to keep up with the news. They'll claim it's all from some right wing website. ;)

[N4VGB]

Oh. I see. Does this help your juvenile denial problem?

Hezbollah gets blown away. What's your point? I thought we were talking about WMD in Iraq?

Hezbollah denies taking any such actions! It played on my TV many times! There was plenty of material and apparatus for producing assorted WMDs found in Iraq but the Iraqis denied it. You stick with Hezbollah and the Baath Party-sucker! :p

[W4DFW]

Good post DFW. Clinton did rid Iraq of WMD while he was in office. That negated Dubya's reason to invade.

Gosh, I'm a little slow tonight. WHAT exactly were those reasons for invading Iraq again? Can you tell me?? :confused:

[N4VGB]

Good post DFW. Clinton did rid Iraq of WMD while he was in office. That negated Dubya's reason to invade.

LOL!!! Thanks, big laughs are always appreciated here. The only thing Clinton ever rid anyone of was his own cases of social diseases. The reason no medical records were ever released on him, very embarrassing. :D:D:D

You must be really drunk tonight! :p

[k4kyv]

McClellan is pulling the Repug play of releasing some ambiguously damaging tidbits just before release then when all you rubes buy the book it actually praises shrub and says he is so wonderful he makes Jesus look evil.

We've seen this before, don't be a bunch of suckers already.

Yep. Click on the "Listen Now [1 min 58 sec]" button.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90958131

[N4VGB]

Yep. Click on the "Listen Now [1 min 58 sec]" button.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90958131

Too, too funny! Now what did you have to say N9XR? I wouldn't give 50 cents for this guys book. :)

[NL7W]

Too, too funny! Now what did you have to say N9XR? I wouldn't give 50 cents for this guys book. :)

Are you sure 'bout that? :D:D:D

I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. :eek:

[K3XR]

Tell it like it is, Chris....
http://newsbusters.org/node/21606/print

[N9XR]

Hezbollah denies taking any such actions! It played on my TV many times! There was plenty of material and apparatus for producing assorted WMDs found in Iraq but the Iraqis denied it. You stick with Hezbollah and the Baath Party-sucker! :p

Whatever you are smoking, I am sure it is not legal in most states.

Let me get this straight. Hezbollah lied about their actions, and this forces you to believe all lies from the Bush administration?

Time to turn yourself in to the loony home for the Jethro rejects.

EDIT: Also we had the TV playing pictures of Saddam's skate board ramp and Colin Powell was telling us it was WMD.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf-16.jpg

Oooo. I'm skeered of a truck mounted crane. I'm skeered mommie.

[N9XR]

LOL!!! Thanks, big laughs are always appreciated here. The only thing Clinton ever rid anyone of was his own cases of social diseases. The reason no medical records were ever released on him, very embarrassing. :D:D:D

You must be really drunk tonight! :p

It was DFW's post that showed there was WMD suspicion during Clinton's presidency. During Dumbya's presidency, we know that there are no WMD. We also know that there was no WMD shipped out or it would have been used on US or Israel by now.

But, oh. I forget you believe lies. Of course there were WMD in Iraq. That's why our military can find nothing. The military has no capability to look inside buildings or turn on detectors that track traces of WMD. Our military is a bumbling bunch of idiots like the Bush administration tells us all the time.

[K3XR]

Sell those books, Scott...

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NGVhY2JjMzkzNDc5OGMwMzdlYzY1NmQzNzAyYzZhODA=

[K3XR]

Whatever you are smoking, I am
sure it is not legal in most states.

Let me get this straight. Hezbollah lied about their actions, and this forces you to believe all lies from the Bush administration?

Time to turn yourself in to the loony home for the Jethro rejects.

EDIT: Also we had the TV playing pictures of Saddam's skate board ramp and Colin Powell was telling us it was WMD.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf-16.jpg

Oooo. I'm skeered of a truck mounted crane. I'm skeered mommie.

Speculation vs Fact....
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

[N9XR]

Sell those books, Scott...

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NGVhY2JjMzkzNDc5OGMwMzdlYzY1NmQzNzAyYzZhODA=

I have not read the book. I will once I finish eating the contents of my sock drawer

So this is what the author does in his spare time?

Longstanding Bush critics like McClellan’s use of the “P” word because they think it proves they were right all along

You mean "Puffy McMoonface?"

Excellent article Danno. It left out one statement that is key to the debate;

This book is based on lies.

But we just can't say that can we?

[N9XR]

Speculation vs Fact....
http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

Yup Danno. You can believe who you want to believe. There still ain't no WMD in Iraq no matter how many quotes you post.

You are in denial. Nothing you can do about that. Keep believing in the sugar plum faerie and the Easter Bunny and WMD in Iraq.

Keep believing in those lies and keep posting idiotic quotes and irrelevant garbage. Still ain't no WMD in Iraq. You can blame the military all day long like the military haters you guys are. There still ain't no WMD in Iraq.

[K3XR]

"Closing the book on McClellan"

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ODdiMzcxZTc5YWQ2NjgwNjJkNDA0YmZhZWUzZTc0YWM=

[N9XR]

That's right Danno. No one can deny the allegations because we all know they are true. Certified.

Bush and Cheney are criminals and there is no other thing to say.

[K3XR]

"Trusted by no one"....

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YWQ0OWMxZGUwMzE2N2ExMDQ4OGUyYzc2MzJjMmUwYTU=

[N4VGB]

We also know that there was no WMD shipped out or it would have been used on US or Israel by now.


There's simple minded and then there's you. :)

[N9XR]

There's simple minded and then there's you. :)

You are not the first to imply that I am a mental giant.

[K3XR]

Like mom like son...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/30/texans-say-mcclellans-turn-started-at-home-with-mo/

[N4VGB]

You are not the first to imply that I am a mental giant.

I guess post #130 by K4KYV with the link to the NPR interview with your hero Scottie kind of shot that BS down. No more talk of Scottie? Sounded like he would have kissed Bush and called him Daddy on the NPR set, if Bush had showed up there. Must be embarrassing for you? :)

[N9XR]

I guess post #130 by K4KYV with the link to the NPR interview with your hero Scottie kind of shot that BS down. No more talk of Scottie? Sounded like he would have kissed Bush and called him Daddy on the NPR set, if Bush had showed up there. Must be embarrassing for you? :)

I do not choose criminals as heroes. That is your job.

No it's not embarrassing to not have criminals as heroes. Not really. You have to have values.

[N4VGB]

I do not choose criminals as heroes. That is your job.
No it's not embarrassing to not have criminals as heroes. Not really. You have to have values.

OH! You quote Scottie like Gospel but after listening to his real opinion and words, he's a criminal also!? :p

You're a priceless piece of entertainment, I'm moving you up to numero uno here! :D

[N9XR]

OH! You quote Scottie like Gospel but after listening to his real opinion and words, he's a criminal also!? :p

You're a priceless piece of entertainment, I'm moving you up to numero uno here! :D

I suppose you think I am as entertaining as Sir Ento.

[KB9YCO]

Based on that "intelligent" post, I'd say you think Saddam was no threat to anyone and it would just be honky-dory if he was still in power.

If I'm wrong, prove it. If you're wrong, we're dead. You choose.

I'd still like to see you post an intelligent reason NOT to take out Saddam.

If you can, of course. No pressure. I won't hold it against you if you can't.

Gosh. I'm sure there are some really cool Orchid farms over there. I like Orchids. All the reason to have left Saddam in power, don'cha think??

I'm just askin'!! You got the knowledge so prove me wrong. It should be easy.

Saddam. You just gotta love him!! Now I swear I've heard that before . . . something about Lib'ruls. Could they love Saddam?? NAW, couldn't be!!

:p:p

Wow, that's a whole lotta assumption going on there. Did you even read what I said? I was pretty clear, as I have been on all of these threads, in stating that most people know that Hussein wasn't exactly innocent, and certainly didn't do anything to help the situation. This thread, as well as McClellan's comments, are directed at the fact that the Iraq war was sold on a connection to 9-11 and Iraq being a direct threat to the US, both of which are untrue. The fact is that invading Iraq under the banner of 9-11 was just not truthful or accurate, many people stated just that prior to the invasion. There has n