Stop the lies

[zefrendylia]

I find it interesting how those who want to protect the Administration accuse those against the Occupation and Democrats of rewriting history. Don't get me wrong, mainstream media and the timidity and ignorance of some Democrats share the blame for taking us to war. Yet, the "right-wing scream machine" is constantly trying to rewrite the facts by repeating the same mantras over and over again. Sooner or later, everyone starts accepting these lies as if they were true.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03. This is in fact false. Saddam made every effort and even bent over backwards to allow weapons inspectors to scour every possible place. This is verified by the weapons inspectors and the news crews following them around the country. Our government unilaterally made the decision to kick them out by threatening an imminent attack. The inspectors were doing their job, Saddam was allowing them to do it, yet our administration didn't want the soon-to-be conclusions drawn from the fact that there were no WMD to interfere with the false pretenses for war. I think its troubling how the right-wingers continually beat misinformation into our heads. For the uninformed it can be very persuasive. I've heard it so many times, I almost subconciously believed it to be true.

How is this further relevant? Congress gave an authorization of force dependent on the White House insuring that Saddam was disarmed. It did not specifically imply going to war as the sole way to insure this. The facts of the matter are that the UN inspection teams were making progress in insuring disarmament (and frustrated over finding absolutely nothing). Of course, many of us now know, it didn't really matter for the administration. We were going to war, the war drums were beating, the profiteers were drooling, and the pundits were cheering. The administration is in direct violation of the legislation they say gives them the right to be in Iraq even today. Military action was granted only when it was ensured that Saddam refused to give up WMD (despite clandestine operations already in full-swing). One, there was no WMD to give up and two, the administration didn't want to give the inspectors any time to find NOTHING.

Thanks to the author of the following story for reminding the rest of us with an open mind to re-examine the truth. That is what we all should be doing instead of wasting our time airing our personal biases regarding liberals, Democrats, communism, and homosexuals. The links at the bottom support the fact that inspectors were given every opportunity to find WMD. Thanks for your time.

How George Tenet Lied By Ray McGovern
Consortium News
Monday 14 May 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507F.shtml


...Tenet was indeed useful to Cheney and Bush, but he is no idiot. Those who do not rely exclusively on the corporate media for their information know Tenet for what he is—a charlatan. A willing co-conspirator, he did for Bush and Cheney what propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels did for Hitler.
The key difference is that Goebbels and his Nazi collaborators, rather than writing books and taking sinecures to enrich themselves, were held accountable at Nuremberg...

...Tenet knew there were no WMD. Secret British documents reveal not only that Tenet told his British counterpart the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. They also show that Washington and London developed a scheme to “wrongfoot” Saddam Hussein by insisting on the kind of U.N. inspections they were sure he would reject, thus providing a convenient casus belli.
Saddam outfoxed them by allowing the most intrusive inspection regime in recent history. At the turn of 2002-03, U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Saddam’s palaces, interviewing his scientists, and pursuing every tip they could get from Tenet—and finding nothing...

...Who needs real evidence as opposed to allegations of WMD, when the name of the game is removing Saddam?
But how to explain the blather about WMD in the lead-up to the war, when not one piece of imagery or other intelligence could confirm the presence of such weapons? Easy. Apply the Rumsfeld dictum: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
And then explain further that the lack of evidence proves nothing but how clever the Iraqis have become at hiding their weapons. Don’t laugh; that’s what Rumsfeld and the neocons said.
That foolishness had run its course by March 2003 when, despite the best “leads” Tenet could provide and the intrusive inspection regime, the U.N. inspectors could find nothing. It was getting downright embarrassing for those bent on a belli without an ostensible casus, but by then enough troops were in place to conquer Iraq (or so thought Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).
At that point Bush told the U.N. to withdraw its inspectors promptly and let them watch the fireworks of shock and awe from a safer distance on TV. (What is really shocking is that President Bush continues to claim that Saddam threw out the inspectors. But, again, he has “catapulted” it so often that most Americans do not realize it is a lie.)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern's responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief. He was also an Infantry Captain in the U.S. Army

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

[Dilloduck]

I find it interesting how those who want to protect the Administration accuse those against the Occupation and Democrats of rewriting history. Don't get me wrong, mainstream media and the timidity and ignorance of some Democrats share the blame for taking us to war. Yet, the "right-wing scream machine" is constantly trying to rewrite the facts by repeating the same mantras over and over again. Sooner or later, everyone starts accepting these lies as if they were true.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03. This is in fact false. Saddam made every effort and even bent over backwards to allow weapons inspectors to scour every possible place. This is verified by the weapons inspectors and the news crews following them around the country. Our government unilaterally made the decision to kick them out by threatening an imminent attack. The inspectors were doing their job, Saddam was allowing them to do it, yet our administration didn't want the soon-to-be conclusions drawn from the fact that there were no WMD to interfere with the false pretenses for war. I think its troubling how the right-wingers continually beat misinformation into our heads. For the uninformed it can be very persuasive. I've heard it so many times, I almost subconciously believed it to be true.

How is this further relevant? Congress gave an authorization of force dependent on the White House insuring that Saddam was disarmed. It did not specifically imply going to war as the sole way to insure this. The facts of the matter are that the UN inspection teams were making progress in insuring disarmament (and frustrated over finding absolutely nothing). Of course, many of us now know, it didn't really matter for the administration. We were going to war, the war drums were beating, the profiteers were drooling, and the pundits were cheering. The administration is in direct violation of the legislation they say gives them the right to be in Iraq even today. Military action was granted only when it was ensured that Saddam refused to give up WMD (despite clandestine operations already in full-swing). One, there was no WMD to give up and two, the administration didn't want to give the inspectors any time to find NOTHING.

Thanks to the author of the following story for reminding the rest of us with an open mind to re-examine the truth. That is what we all should be doing instead of wasting our time airing our personal biases regarding liberals, Democrats, communism, and homosexuals. The links at the bottom support the fact that inspectors were given every opportunity to find WMD. Thanks for your time.

How George Tenet Lied By Ray McGovern
Consortium News
Monday 14 May 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507F.shtml


...Tenet was indeed useful to Cheney and Bush, but he is no idiot. Those who do not rely exclusively on the corporate media for their information know Tenet for what he is—a charlatan. A willing co-conspirator, he did for Bush and Cheney what propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels did for Hitler.
The key difference is that Goebbels and his Nazi collaborators, rather than writing books and taking sinecures to enrich themselves, were held accountable at Nuremberg...

...Tenet knew there were no WMD. Secret British documents reveal not only that Tenet told his British counterpart the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. They also show that Washington and London developed a scheme to “wrongfoot” Saddam Hussein by insisting on the kind of U.N. inspections they were sure he would reject, thus providing a convenient casus belli.
Saddam outfoxed them by allowing the most intrusive inspection regime in recent history. At the turn of 2002-03, U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Saddam’s palaces, interviewing his scientists, and pursuing every tip they could get from Tenet—and finding nothing...

...Who needs real evidence as opposed to allegations of WMD, when the name of the game is removing Saddam?
But how to explain the blather about WMD in the lead-up to the war, when not one piece of imagery or other intelligence could confirm the presence of such weapons? Easy. Apply the Rumsfeld dictum: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
And then explain further that the lack of evidence proves nothing but how clever the Iraqis have become at hiding their weapons. Don’t laugh; that’s what Rumsfeld and the neocons said.
That foolishness had run its course by March 2003 when, despite the best “leads” Tenet could provide and the intrusive inspection regime, the U.N. inspectors could find nothing. It was getting downright embarrassing for those bent on a belli without an ostensible casus, but by then enough troops were in place to conquer Iraq (or so thought Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).
At that point Bush told the U.N. to withdraw its inspectors promptly and let them watch the fireworks of shock and awe from a safer distance on TV. (What is really shocking is that President Bush continues to claim that Saddam threw out the inspectors. But, again, he has “catapulted” it so often that most Americans do not realize it is a lie.)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern's responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief. He was also an Infantry Captain in the U.S. Army

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

Hmmmmm let's see---maybe a fitting punishment would be to destroy America and anything else that Bush might even remotely be associated with.
Ya---that' the ticket. !

[Gunny]

I find it interesting how those who want to protect the Administration accuse those against the Occupation and Democrats of rewriting history. Don't get me wrong, mainstream media and the timidity and ignorance of some Democrats share the blame for taking us to war. Yet, the "right-wing scream machine" is constantly trying to rewrite the facts by repeating the same mantras over and over again. Sooner or later, everyone starts accepting these lies as if they were true.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03. This is in fact false. Saddam made every effort and even bent over backwards to allow weapons inspectors to scour every possible place. This is verified by the weapons inspectors and the news crews following them around the country. Our government unilaterally made the decision to kick them out by threatening an imminent attack. The inspectors were doing their job, Saddam was allowing them to do it, yet our administration didn't want the soon-to-be conclusions drawn from the fact that there were no WMD to interfere with the false pretenses for war. I think its troubling how the right-wingers continually beat misinformation into our heads. For the uninformed it can be very persuasive. I've heard it so many times, I almost subconciously believed it to be true.

How is this further relevant? Congress gave an authorization of force dependent on the White House insuring that Saddam was disarmed. It did not specifically imply going to war as the sole way to insure this. The facts of the matter are that the UN inspection teams were making progress in insuring disarmament (and frustrated over finding absolutely nothing). Of course, many of us now know, it didn't really matter for the administration. We were going to war, the war drums were beating, the profiteers were drooling, and the pundits were cheering. The administration is in direct violation of the legislation they say gives them the right to be in Iraq even today. Military action was granted only when it was ensured that Saddam refused to give up WMD (despite clandestine operations already in full-swing). One, there was no WMD to give up and two, the administration didn't want to give the inspectors any time to find NOTHING.

Thanks to the author of the following story for reminding the rest of us with an open mind to re-examine the truth. That is what we all should be doing instead of wasting our time airing our personal biases regarding liberals, Democrats, communism, and homosexuals. The links at the bottom support the fact that inspectors were given every opportunity to find WMD. Thanks for your time.

How George Tenet Lied By Ray McGovern
Consortium News
Monday 14 May 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507F.shtml


...Tenet was indeed useful to Cheney and Bush, but he is no idiot. Those who do not rely exclusively on the corporate media for their information know Tenet for what he is—a charlatan. A willing co-conspirator, he did for Bush and Cheney what propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels did for Hitler.
The key difference is that Goebbels and his Nazi collaborators, rather than writing books and taking sinecures to enrich themselves, were held accountable at Nuremberg...

...Tenet knew there were no WMD. Secret British documents reveal not only that Tenet told his British counterpart the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. They also show that Washington and London developed a scheme to “wrongfoot” Saddam Hussein by insisting on the kind of U.N. inspections they were sure he would reject, thus providing a convenient casus belli.
Saddam outfoxed them by allowing the most intrusive inspection regime in recent history. At the turn of 2002-03, U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Saddam’s palaces, interviewing his scientists, and pursuing every tip they could get from Tenet—and finding nothing...

...Who needs real evidence as opposed to allegations of WMD, when the name of the game is removing Saddam?
But how to explain the blather about WMD in the lead-up to the war, when not one piece of imagery or other intelligence could confirm the presence of such weapons? Easy. Apply the Rumsfeld dictum: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
And then explain further that the lack of evidence proves nothing but how clever the Iraqis have become at hiding their weapons. Don’t laugh; that’s what Rumsfeld and the neocons said.
That foolishness had run its course by March 2003 when, despite the best “leads” Tenet could provide and the intrusive inspection regime, the U.N. inspectors could find nothing. It was getting downright embarrassing for those bent on a belli without an ostensible casus, but by then enough troops were in place to conquer Iraq (or so thought Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).
At that point Bush told the U.N. to withdraw its inspectors promptly and let them watch the fireworks of shock and awe from a safer distance on TV. (What is really shocking is that President Bush continues to claim that Saddam threw out the inspectors. But, again, he has “catapulted” it so often that most Americans do not realize it is a lie.)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern's responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief. He was also an Infantry Captain in the U.S. Army

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

:lol: I find a liberal accusing Republicans of stealing their tactic of attempting to rewrite the facts through constantly repeating the same BS hillarious, and just about the definition of "hypocrite."

[gabosaurus]

"Liberal" Dems do not need to worry about destroying America. The Bushies are doing a good enough job of it on their own.

[nevadamedic]

"Liberal" Dems do not need to worry about destroying America. The Bushies are doing a good enough job of it on their own.

Will you atleast try to make an intelligent statement once and a while?

[avatar4321]

"Liberal" Dems do not need to worry about destroying America. The Bushies are doing a good enough job of it on their own.

What has Bush done that is anything close to "destroying" America. How do we destroy American by capturing terrorists, giving people their money back, and removing dictators around the world?

[nevadamedic]

I find it interesting how those who want to protect the Administration accuse those against the Occupation and Democrats of rewriting history. Don't get me wrong, mainstream media and the timidity and ignorance of some Democrats share the blame for taking us to war. Yet, the "right-wing scream machine" is constantly trying to rewrite the facts by repeating the same mantras over and over again. Sooner or later, everyone starts accepting these lies as if they were true.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03. This is in fact false. Saddam made every effort and even bent over backwards to allow weapons inspectors to scour every possible place. This is verified by the weapons inspectors and the news crews following them around the country. Our government unilaterally made the decision to kick them out by threatening an imminent attack. The inspectors were doing their job, Saddam was allowing them to do it, yet our administration didn't want the soon-to-be conclusions drawn from the fact that there were no WMD to interfere with the false pretenses for war. I think its troubling how the right-wingers continually beat misinformation into our heads. For the uninformed it can be very persuasive. I've heard it so many times, I almost subconciously believed it to be true.

How is this further relevant? Congress gave an authorization of force dependent on the White House insuring that Saddam was disarmed. It did not specifically imply going to war as the sole way to insure this. The facts of the matter are that the UN inspection teams were making progress in insuring disarmament (and frustrated over finding absolutely nothing). Of course, many of us now know, it didn't really matter for the administration. We were going to war, the war drums were beating, the profiteers were drooling, and the pundits were cheering. The administration is in direct violation of the legislation they say gives them the right to be in Iraq even today. Military action was granted only when it was ensured that Saddam refused to give up WMD (despite clandestine operations already in full-swing). One, there was no WMD to give up and two, the administration didn't want to give the inspectors any time to find NOTHING.

Thanks to the author of the following story for reminding the rest of us with an open mind to re-examine the truth. That is what we all should be doing instead of wasting our time airing our personal biases regarding liberals, Democrats, communism, and homosexuals. The links at the bottom support the fact that inspectors were given every opportunity to find WMD. Thanks for your time.

How George Tenet Lied By Ray McGovern
Consortium News
Monday 14 May 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051507F.shtml


...Tenet was indeed useful to Cheney and Bush, but he is no idiot. Those who do not rely exclusively on the corporate media for their information know Tenet for what he is—a charlatan. A willing co-conspirator, he did for Bush and Cheney what propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels did for Hitler.
The key difference is that Goebbels and his Nazi collaborators, rather than writing books and taking sinecures to enrich themselves, were held accountable at Nuremberg...

...Tenet knew there were no WMD. Secret British documents reveal not only that Tenet told his British counterpart the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. They also show that Washington and London developed a scheme to “wrongfoot” Saddam Hussein by insisting on the kind of U.N. inspections they were sure he would reject, thus providing a convenient casus belli.
Saddam outfoxed them by allowing the most intrusive inspection regime in recent history. At the turn of 2002-03, U.N. inspectors were crawling all over Saddam’s palaces, interviewing his scientists, and pursuing every tip they could get from Tenet—and finding nothing...

...Who needs real evidence as opposed to allegations of WMD, when the name of the game is removing Saddam?
But how to explain the blather about WMD in the lead-up to the war, when not one piece of imagery or other intelligence could confirm the presence of such weapons? Easy. Apply the Rumsfeld dictum: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
And then explain further that the lack of evidence proves nothing but how clever the Iraqis have become at hiding their weapons. Don’t laugh; that’s what Rumsfeld and the neocons said.
That foolishness had run its course by March 2003 when, despite the best “leads” Tenet could provide and the intrusive inspection regime, the U.N. inspectors could find nothing. It was getting downright embarrassing for those bent on a belli without an ostensible casus, but by then enough troops were in place to conquer Iraq (or so thought Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz).
At that point Bush told the U.N. to withdraw its inspectors promptly and let them watch the fireworks of shock and awe from a safer distance on TV. (What is really shocking is that President Bush continues to claim that Saddam threw out the inspectors. But, again, he has “catapulted” it so often that most Americans do not realize it is a lie.)...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray McGovern's responsibilities during his 27-year service as a CIA analyst included chairing National Intelligence Estimates and preparing the President’s Daily Brief. He was also an Infantry Captain in the U.S. Army

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_07-08/inspectors_julaug03.asp
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

Kid's, this person is the prime example of why not to use crack.

[TheStripey1]

:lol: I find a liberal accusing Republicans of stealing their tactic of attempting to rewrite the facts through constantly repeating the same BS hillarious, and just about the definition of "hypocrite."

Why? Do you like being lied to? Why?

[TheStripey1]

"Liberal" Dems do not need to worry about destroying America. The Bushies are doing a good enough job of it on their own.

I've often wondered where these bushies think they are going to live once their "leaders" fleece the country. Certainly they don't think they'll be invited along with the rich when they leave our shores on their multimillion dollar yachts...

nope... all those bushies will be here with us lefties... waving goodbye... tho, some of us will be giving the one fingered wave...

[TheStripey1]

What has Bush done that is anything close to "destroying" America. How do we destroy American by capturing terrorists, giving people their money back, and removing dictators around the world?


Invading a country based on lies and then breaking the military by prosecuting the war incompetently...

:dance:

know anyone whose job has been outsourced to India?... how about whose job was taken by an illegal alien?... know anyone whose house has been foreclosed?...

[Dilloduck]

Invading a country based on lies and then breaking the military by prosecuting the war incompetently...

:dance:


know anyone whose job has been outsourced to India?... how about whose job was taken by an illegal alien?... know anyone whose house has been foreclosed?...

:laugh2: ya --and it all started before Bush ever took office.

[lily]

Will you atleast try to make an intelligent statement once and a while?


Kid's, this person is the prime example of why not to use crack.

?????????

[manu1959]

....everyone starts accepting these lies as if they were true.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03. This is in fact false.



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-9.html

[Birdzeye]

?????????

That is the voice of someone who has nothing of substance to add to the argument.

[Dilloduck]

That is the voice of someone who has nothing of substance to add to the argument.

Why stop lies when people refuse to even believe the truth ? Like Bin Ladens' cult wants YOU to be a Muslim or dead, for example.

[lily]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraq_10-9.html


I'm not sure what this link to an interview of Hans Blix before he even went into Iraq to inspect has to do with. He wasn't even there yet.

One of these is the belief that Saddam made it difficult for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job in 2002-03.

[lily]

That is the voice of someone who has nothing of substance to add to the argument.

I'm begining to think I need a fly swatter.:laugh2:

[loosecannon]

:lol: I find a liberal accusing Republicans of stealing their tactic of attempting to rewrite the facts through constantly repeating the same BS hillarious, and just about the definition of "hypocrite."

Yeah right!:laugh2:


third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. ~ GWBush from the White House own web site


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html

[Dilloduck]

I'm begining to think I need a fly swatter.:laugh2:

Might wanna arm yourself a bit more. Fly swatters are pretty ineffective against AKs and RPGs. Oh ya--you think the Bin Laden cult is only bluffing.

[lily]

Might wanna arm yourself a bit more. Fly swatters are pretty ineffective against AKs and RPGs. Oh ya--you think the Bin Laden cult is only bluffing.

Sorry Dill........I don't think nevada's snipes, are actually AKs and RPGs. More like annoying gnats......especially when he/she is doing the same thing that he/she is complaining about.


Originally Posted by nevadamedic
Will you atleast try to make an intelligent statement once and a while?

Quote:
Kid's, this person is the prime example of why not to use crack.

[manu1959]

I'm not sure what this link to an interview of Hans Blix before he even went into Iraq to inspect has to do with. He wasn't even there yet.

you are right he wasn't there....there were no inspectors there.....the terms of saddams surrender of gulf I required inspectors to be there to prove that he was complying ......

[lily]

you are right he wasn't there....there were no inspectors there.....the terms of saddams surrender of gulf I required inspectors to be there to prove that he was complying ......

::shrug:: ok.........don't know what that has to do with him being there in November 2002.

[manu1959]

::shrug:: ok.........don't know what that has to do with him being there in November 2002.

nothing .... my point was the claim by the thread starter that saddam was complying with inspections .... not possible if inspectors were not there ....

[lily]

nothing .... my point was the claim by the thread starter that saddam was complying with inspections .... not possible if inspectors were not there ....

Ok. I guess I must have missed that part. I confess.......I don't read all the posts here. I'm a skimmer.

[loosecannon]

the claim by the thread starter that saddam was complying with inspections .... not possible if inspectors were not there ....

That is a fiction, a false paradigm, a lie.

The compliance of Saddam was not dependent on Weapons inspectors present.


That is like saying Bush isn't a war criminal if rats don't live in the WH cellar.

[manu1959]

That is a fiction, a false paradigm, a lie.

The compliance of Saddam was not dependent on Weapons inspectors present.


That is like saying Bush isn't a war criminal if rats don't live in the WH cellar.

you spun it....

i said...

the claim by the thread starter that saddam was complying with inspections .... not possible if inspectors were not there ....

[loosecannon]

the claim by the thread starter that saddam was complying with inspections .... not possible if inspectors were not there ....

False, it is entirely possible to comply without an inspector present.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And if subsequent inspections prove there was nothing there, it leaves the Bushies holding an empty bag of accusations.

[Birdzeye]

Sorry Dill........I don't think nevada's snipes, are actually AKs and RPGs. More like annoying gnats......especially when he/she is doing the same thing that he/she is complaining about.

Touche! :coffee:

[Dilloduck]

Sorry Dill........I don't think nevada's snipes, are actually AKs and RPGs. More like annoying gnats......especially when he/she is doing the same thing that he/she is complaining about.

I wasn't referring to Nevada---al-quaeda likes those weapons.

[manu1959]

False, it is entirely possible to comply without an inspector present.

.....the claim was .... " he was complying with inspections " .... it is not possible to have inspections without inspectors .....

[Nukeman]

.....the claim was .... " he was complying with inspections " .... it is not possible to have inspections without inspectors .....

Manu, your wasting your breath or should I say you'll get a cramp from typing...

[manu1959]

Manu, your wasting your breath or should I say you'll get a cramp from typing...

i know but, i like watching him bob and weave....

[lily]

I wasn't referring to Nevada---al-quaeda likes those weapons.

Well, I don't know what to tell you.......that's what I was referring to, quotes and all.

[loosecannon]

.....the claim was .... " he was complying with inspections " .... it is not possible to have inspections without inspectors .....

OK you can think that, but compliance does not depnd on inspections.

I can open my doors and turn on the lights but if nobody shows up to inspect I still complied.

[manu1959]

OK you can think that, but compliance does not depnd on inspections.

I can open my doors and turn on the lights but if nobody shows up to inspect I still complied.

.....the claim by the thread starter was .... " he was complying with inspections " .... it is not possible to have inspections without inspectors .....

[nevadamedic]

:lol: I find a liberal accusing Republicans of stealing their tactic of attempting to rewrite the facts through constantly repeating the same BS hillarious, and just about the definition of "hypocrite."

:clap:

[zefrendylia]

.....the claim by the thread starter was .... " he was complying with inspections " .... it is not possible to have inspections without inspectors .....


Apparently you're confused. I wasn't discussing Saddam's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire agreements after 1998. I was discussing Saddam's compliance with the weapons inspection teams in 2002-2003. The cynically-timed, pre mid-term election vote for a resolution authorizing force was based upon what occurred with these inspections in 2002-2003. Saddam complied with these inspections (granted the 200,000 American troops on his borders didn't hurt). Despite that, the Administration went forward with the invasion anyway. Therefore, the Administration violated their own Republican-originated authorization of force.

Supporters of the invasion like to always bring up the cease-fire agreements from the Persian Gulf War. But for some strange reason, their trip down memory lane stops there. Since we like to look at Saddam in the larger context, I say we go back a few more decades.

Let's start in the 1950's since that's when U.S. influence began increasing in the Mid-East.

1955: The anti-Soviet, military-security Baghdad Pact is signed with Turkey, Iran (coup already completed by the CIA), Pakistan, NATO (the U.S.).

1958: Coup led by General Karim Kassem.

1959: Iraq withdraws from Baghdad Pact, Kassem nationalizes part of the country's oil industry (meaning he thinks Iraqis deserve more of the profits than foreign oil companies)

1963: Kassem is overthrown by the Ba'ath Party with the funding and support of the CIA. The Ba'ath Party initiates an era of pogroms with the full knowledge of the U.S. embassy (hey at least they're not commies right?).

1974-75: Kurdish revolts in the north are put down violently with no condemnation by the U.S. Saddam Hussein is head of internal security.

1979: Saddam Hussein becomes President; Iranian revolution--pro-U.S. Shah is overthrown after decades of brutal oppression (and supported by the CIA)

1980: Iraq-Iran War starts

1980-1988: Iraq receives arms, funding, and intelligence from U.S. and other Western nation to include chemical weapons and biological agents even after evidence shows Saddam will use them

1984: DIA intelligence shows Iraq using nerve agents on Iranian troops (100,000 affected); U.S. intelligence helps to calibrate mustard gas for maximum effect.

1988: Chemical agents used on Kurds--5000 killed; US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

1989: U.S. invades nation of Panama under pretext of drug traffiking, removing dictator and occupying country.

1990: Iraqi economy destroyed by war; Kuwait refuses to reduce OPEC production to increase price of oil; Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refuse to forgive Iraqi war debt; Iraq disputes oil-rich region bordering Kuwait and Kuwaiti "slant-drilling;" U.S. Ambassador April Gilespie claims the U.S. will not get involved over the dispute; Iraqi invades and occupies Kuwait

1991: 15-year old Nayirah, daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador gives false congressional testimony of "babies being yanked out of incubators"

Jan. 1991: Saddam ignores UN deadline for withdrawal; air bombardment commences--Coalition targets Iraqi civilian infrastructure (dams, electrical grids, sewage plants, water purification) in violation of the Laws of War

Feb. 1991: Saddam proposes cease-fire and withdrawal--U.S. declines but promises not to fire on retreating troops; retreating Iraqis torch kuwaiti oil wells; "The Highway of Death" commences--Iraqi civilians and military personnel are massacred; President Bush publicly calls on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam--when they do Saddam brutally puts them down; Bush tells U.S. Army to stand down and disavows chief CIA agents in Iraq.

1991: Iraqi chemical weapons dumps exploded by American troops, atmospheric dispersement exposes over 200,000.

1991-1998: Weapons inspections and economic sanctions; CIA infiltrates weapons teams to gather intelligence for regime change; sanctions kill an estimated 500,000 Iraqis--mostly children; despite U.S. best efforts, Saddam resists coup, but people suffer--little infrastructure rebuilt after coalition bombardment; despite no language in UN ceasefire resolution--coalition institutes no-fly zones over 60% of Iraq; Saddam becomes increasingly paranoid--kicks out inspectors and targets coalition aircraft; Operation Desert Fox; millions of dollars to Iraqi National Congress (Ahmed Chalabi)--much of it disappears; Neo-conservatives try to persuade Clinton for overt regime change but ultimately fail.

1998-2000: Monica Lewinsky scandal, growth of Al Qaeda-led attacks

Jan. 2001: Despite clear evidence of Al Qaeda threat (and no link to Iraq), new Administration holds National Security Council meeting with 1 topic: regime change in Iraq.


Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we just completely stay out of the middle east for once.

[nevadamedic]

Apparently you're confused. I wasn't discussing Saddam's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire agreements after 1998. I was discussing Saddam's compliance with the weapons inspection teams in 2002-2003. The cynically-timed, pre mid-term election vote for a resolution authorizing force was based upon what occurred with these inspections in 2002-2003. Saddam complied with these inspections (granted the 200,000 American troops on his borders didn't hurt). Despite that, the Administration went forward with the invasion anyway. Therefore, the Administration violated their own Republican-originated authorization of force.

Supporters of the invasion like to always bring up the cease-fire agreements from the Persian Gulf War. But for some strange reason, their trip down memory lane stops there. Since we like to look at Saddam in the larger context, I say we go back a few more decades.

Let's start in the 1950's since that's when U.S. influence began increasing in the Mid-East.

1955: The anti-Soviet, military-security Baghdad Pact is signed with Turkey, Iran (coup already completed by the CIA), Pakistan, NATO (the U.S.).

1958: Coup led by General Karim Kassem.

1959: Iraq withdraws from Baghdad Pact, Kassem nationalizes part of the country's oil industry (meaning he thinks Iraqis deserve more of the profits than foreign oil companies)

1963: Kassem is overthrown by the Ba'ath Party with the funding and support of the CIA. The Ba'ath Party initiates an era of pogroms with the full knowledge of the U.S. embassy (hey at least they're not commies right?).

1974-75: Kurdish revolts in the north are put down violently with no condemnation by the U.S. Saddam Hussein is head of internal security.

1979: Saddam Hussein becomes President; Iranian revolution--pro-U.S. Shah is overthrown after decades of brutal oppression (and supported by the CIA)

1980: Iraq-Iran War starts

1980-1988: Iraq receives arms, funding, and intelligence from U.S. and other Western nation to include chemical weapons and biological agents even after evidence shows Saddam will use them

1984: DIA intelligence shows Iraq using nerve agents on Iranian troops (100,000 affected); U.S. intelligence helps to calibrate mustard gas for maximum effect.

1988: Chemical agents used on Kurds--5000 killed; US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

1989: U.S. invades nation of Panama under pretext of drug traffiking, removing dictator and occupying country.

1990: Iraqi economy destroyed by war; Kuwait refuses to reduce OPEC production to increase price of oil; Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refuse to forgive Iraqi war debt; Iraq disputes oil-rich region bordering Kuwait and Kuwaiti "slant-drilling;" U.S. Ambassador April Gilespie claims the U.S. will not get involved over the dispute; Iraqi invades and occupies Kuwait

1991: 15-year old Nayirah, daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador gives false congressional testimony of "babies being yanked out of incubators"

Jan. 1991: Saddam ignores UN deadline for withdrawal; air bombardment commences--Coalition targets Iraqi civilian infrastructure (dams, electrical grids, sewage plants, water purification) in violation of the Laws of War

Feb. 1991: Saddam proposes cease-fire and withdrawal--U.S. declines but promises not to fire on retreating troops; retreating Iraqis torch kuwaiti oil wells; "The Highway of Death" commences--Iraqi civilians and military personnel are massacred; President Bush publicly calls on Iraqis to overthrow Saddam--when they do Saddam brutally puts them down; Bush tells U.S. Army to stand down and disavows chief CIA agents in Iraq.

1991: Iraqi chemical weapons dumps exploded by American troops, atmospheric dispersement exposes over 200,000.

1991-1998: Weapons inspections and economic sanctions; CIA infiltrates weapons teams to gather intelligence for regime change; sanctions kill an estimated 500,000 Iraqis--mostly children; despite U.S. best efforts, Saddam resists coup, but people suffer--little infrastructure rebuilt after coalition bombardment; despite no language in UN ceasefire resolution--coalition institutes no-fly zones over 60% of Iraq; Saddam becomes increasingly paranoid--kicks out inspectors and targets coalition aircraft; Operation Desert Fox; millions of dollars to Iraqi National Congress (Ahmed Chalabi)--much of it disappears; Neo-conservatives try to persuade Clinton for overt regime change but ultimately fail.

1998-2000: Monica Lewinsky scandal, growth of Al Qaeda-led attacks

Jan. 2001: Despite clear evidence of Al Qaeda threat (and no link to Iraq), new Administration holds National Security Council meeting with 1 topic: regime change in Iraq.


Hey, here's an idea. Why don't we just completely stay out of the middle east for once.

Huh?