Still love and miss this guy

[Abbey Marie]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg

As should all true Americans. He like al men had not perfection but he certainly had the best interests /welfare of this nation as his primary goal. Which is not the case concerning Obama. As Obama has just the opposite as his goal. I already have and will bet my life on that ..-Tyr

[Drummond]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg

I absolutely agree !

While it's my understanding that President Bush embarked on his Presidency with the view that it should concentrate less on international policy than his predecessor ... once 9/11 had happened, he rose to the challenge this posed .. well, magnificently !!

The Western World couldn't have asked for a better Leader, a better example to follow. It's perhaps an arguable point (the example of Reagan comes to mind), but I for one would definitely say he's the best World Statesman this world has seen in modern times. :salute:

[aboutime]

http://icansayit.com/images/missmeyet.jpg

I DO! And, every time a liberal cuts down Reagan. Another idiot exposes their hatred.

[revelarts]

I miss my constitutional rights.
He's the one that made it fashionable, patriotic even, to take them away.
He lied us into an unneeded war in Iraq, yet still made people think he cared about the troops.
sorry i don't buy it.
I don't miss Bush at all, and regret i voted for him twice.

( and i won't miss Obama when he's gone either btw )

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I miss my constitutional rights.
He's the one that made it fashionable, patriotic even, to take them away.
He lied us into an unneeded war in Iraq, yet still made people think he cared about the troops.
sorry i don't buy it.
I don't miss Bush at all, and regret i voted for him twice.

( and i won't miss Obama when he's gone either btw )

I respect your honesty and readily agree that Bush was not perfect. I have a few major disagreements with some of his actions myself. Yet when compared to Obama he was a boy scout in my opinion and did not do near as much harm in his 8 years as Obama did in his first two years alone! Since then the difference of even far greater harm has mushroomed like a nuke explosion IMHO.-Tyr

[aboutime]

I miss my constitutional rights.
He's the one that made it fashionable, patriotic even, to take them away.
He lied us into an unneeded war in Iraq, yet still made people think he cared about the troops.
sorry i don't buy it.
I don't miss Bush at all, and regret i voted for him twice.

( and i won't miss Obama when he's gone either btw )


REV. PLEASE TELL US. WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE YOU LOST?

I live in the same nation you do. And still have all of my RIGHTS.
Which lies are you so convinced he (Bush) told us?
I know it's old stories, constantly repeated lies made to sound good because you
hated Bush.
BUT...So far. Since Bush was in office.

NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER PROVEN, OR DOCUMENTED ANY LIES BUSH SUPPOSEDLY TOLD.
Would you like to try. No opinions, no hearsay, no stories. JUST DOCUMENTED, PROVEN FACTS.

[revelarts]

Tyr,
I agree that Obama is worse, we just differ on the amount.
I'd say Obama is worse by 2.
He's just continued most of Bushes policies... BS war on terror, other war at his say so, war on civil liberties, war on transparency, more bail outs for fat cats, increasing size of gov't, increasing the size of debt, increasing the power of the CiC... spying on U.S citizens without warran, jailing people without trials, etc...
He's added on Obamacare and killing Americans without trial, cheerleading for homosexual "rights" and abortions, Using the Irs as a political tool, plus some others but most of his admin has just been follow thru of W..
I'm not sentimental about the deeds of either of them.
facts are facts.


REV. PLEASE TELL US. WHICH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE YOU LOST?
I live in the same nation you do. And still have all of my RIGHTS.
Which lies are you so convinced he (Bush) told us?
I know it's old stories, constantly repeated lies made to sound good because you
hated Bush.
BUT...So far. Since Bush was in office.

NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER PROVEN, OR DOCUMENTED ANY LIES BUSH SUPPOSEDLY TOLD.
Would you like to try. No opinions, no hearsay, no stories. JUST DOCUMENTED, PROVEN FACTS.
you been to an airport lately A.T.? or the bus station or a major ballgame, or drive 100 miles from the boarder? federal employees frisk and search you and your car without probably cause or warrants. Maybe where you live it's been that way "all the time". . well not for me.

A.T. for some reason you think if you still can walk the street , and haven't been arrested for no reason, you have your right to trial.
but the sad fact is you can be arrested ... no just picked up... tomorrow morning and sent to gitmo or elsewhere and never see a court room... ever... and never leave your prison facility. Or if your visiting a foreign country you could be shot dead in the street, if you are accused of being a terrorist... or terrorist sympathizer.... or providing "material support" (what ever that means today).
But it hasn't happened to you yet, sooo you somehow still believe you still have a right to trail. with jury and the like i guess.
But If it's happened to other Americans that doesn't count in your mind.
I don't understand your disconnect.
you served in the Mil for the rights and safety others but somehow you can't see it when the same rights are negated BY the gov't.
the oath says there can be enemies foreign AND domestic that want to destroy the constitution of the people.
you might want to reconsider.

[revelarts]

....
Which lies are you so convinced he (Bush) told us?
I know it's old stories, constantly repeated lies made to sound good because you
hated Bush.
BUT...So far. Since Bush was in office.

NOT ONE PERSON HAS EVER PROVEN, OR DOCUMENTED ANY LIES BUSH SUPPOSEDLY TOLD.
Would you like to try. No opinions, no hearsay, no stories. JUST DOCUMENTED, PROVEN FACTS.


Bush lied to us about WMD's being in Iraq. He knew the intel was old news and BS but sold it to the world are gold info. There are even notes between him and Blair about "fixing" the intel.
maybe all that does not equal "lie" to you but I suspect you'd call your neighbor a liar he did same over much smaller issues.
more details here.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027


<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LJQS3eLSXgA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/10/article-0-03621EBD000005DC-715_468x292.jpg

http://blog.gettyimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Arlington-National-Cemetery-Memorial-Day-John-Moore-Getty-Images-74345339-e1337978526107.jpg


lied into War in Iraq for what?
Sorry no. I do not miss Bush at all.

[Drummond]

Bush lied to us about WMD's being in Iraq. He knew the intel was old news and BS but sold it to the world are gold info. There are even notes between him and Blair about "fixing" the intel. maybe
all that does not equal "lie" to you but I suspect you'd call your neighbor a liar he did same over much smaller issues.
more details here.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027

This is a very old, and very worn out, argument, and I'm surprised I'm rehashing it AGAIN.

Bush DID NOT lie about WMD's in Iraq ... in excess of 500 were found (maybe not in pristine condition, but they existed nonetheless). I've already backed that case up multiple times, and will do so yet again if I must. In any case, it comes close to being beside the point: Saddam defied various UN Resolutions on the issue, not least Res 1441, and its demand for accountability: this itself absolutely mandated action against his regime.

Bush did his duty. To the US, of course: to the Western World: and in the furtherance of world security. Saddam HAD to be dealt with, because if he hadn't been, (a) Saddam would've seen his position as unassailable, and (b) every tinpot dictator going would've started amassing their own WMD arsenals.

I call Bush an exceptional world statesman. His admirable lead on the War on Terror marks him out to be this. It's shameful that the civilised world didn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US and unstintingly fight with them, exactly as Bush asked it to.

[gabosaurus]

http://thelibertytree.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/miss-me-yet.jpg

[revelarts]

This is a very old, and very worn out, argument, and I'm surprised I'm rehashing it AGAIN.

Bush DID NOT lie about WMD's in Iraq ... in excess of 500 were found (maybe not in pristine condition, but they existed nonetheless).
Even Bush has admitted that they did not find what he Cheney and rRumfled claimed (lied) they would find.
I cannot understand why you and some others continue to insist otherwise.

and the pitiful few canisters of old munitions is NOT "a mushroom cloud" or grounds for a FULL ON WAR. or worth money and definitely not the lives of all the Americans, Brits and others.

The U.S. GAO has documented that the U.S. gov't has Misplaced or can't verify the location of serious amounts of our Nuke material . Whistsle blowers and other news report note that U.S. Bio and chem stores are missing or sold to unknown parties.
more than Iraq was ever missing. not to mention all the conventional weapons the US arms dealers and gov't sell supply above and below ground.

In Fact the U.S, gov't has GIVEN arms to alqeada in Libya And Syria! there more evidence of OUR working with terrorist than there ever was with Saddam.



I've already backed that case up multiple times, and will do so yet again if I must. In any case, it comes close to being beside the point: Saddam defied various UN Resolutions on the issue, not least Res 1441, and its demand for accountability: this itself absolutely mandated action against his regime.

Bush did his duty. To the US, of course: to the Western World: and in the furtherance of world security. Saddam HAD to be dealt with, because if he hadn't been, (a) Saddam would've seen his position as unassailable, and (b) every tinpot dictator going would've started amassing their own WMD arsenals.

I call Bush an exceptional world statesman. His admirable lead on the War on Terror marks him out to be this. It's shameful that the civilised world didn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the US and unstintingly fight with them, exactly as Bush asked it to.



Iraq had NOTHING to do with the War on terror, or 9/11.

Breaking U.N resolutions is NO reason for war the U.S. has broken resolution, the U.K. has Broken resolution, Israel has broken resolutions Etc etc etc.

AND the U.N. Made it clear that it was UNneccessary for the U.S. to invade over WMD's.
which is the MAIN thing Bush spoke of. NOT resolutions.
see my list of Bush speaches here.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448852#post448852

and He and Blair LIED,
Again see a list of Witnesses HERE.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027
partisan denials don't do ANYONE any good.

but if you want to believe fary tale history and wave the flag, don't let the facts get in your way.

[Abbey Marie]

Rev, I don't know how anyone can look at the picture I posted and not see the goodness and compassion in the man. Unless they don't want to see it. And there are many pictures like it- I know I've posted some over the years.

As for the things that you feel he did wrong, I'd say this: Until you sit in the Oval Office, you simply do not and cannot know the full information that these men use to make foreign and domestic decisions to protect us. It is so easy to judge from the outside, and we all do it, but do we have the information to do so correctly? I say we do not.

Secondly, regardless of polices, the point of the picture was how I and others miss such a good and (and patriotic) man. Especially when the current resident shows such disdain for our flag. Your refusal to acknowledge that about Bush is then more about you than him.

[aboutime]

Bush lied to us about WMD's being in Iraq. He knew the intel was old news and BS but sold it to the world are gold info. There are even notes between him and Blair about "fixing" the intel.
maybe all that does not equal "lie" to you but I suspect you'd call your neighbor a liar he did same over much smaller issues.
more details here.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027


<iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LJQS3eLSXgA?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/02/10/article-0-03621EBD000005DC-715_468x292.jpg

http://blog.gettyimages.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Arlington-National-Cemetery-Memorial-Day-John-Moore-Getty-Images-74345339-e1337978526107.jpg


lied into War in Iraq for what?
Sorry no. I do not miss Bush at all.


REV. You failed to present the PROOF, DOCUMENTED, ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE PROOF. All you are doing is repeating the constantly repeated FALSE LIBERAL, HATE BUSH facts made up by those who are too lazy to actually investigate on their own.
You rely on other people's information, and not one of them...like you. Have shown any proof, other than to repeat the known, proven Lies about Bush that make you feel so good.
That's what the absence of knowledge, education, and the ability to actually think on your own does to you.
Now, I know you will, and must disagree with me on this.
And, you can do that till the cows come home.
STILL, as I said. NOT ONE PERSON HAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED THE REAL, DOCUMENTED, VERIFIABLE, TRUTH to back up any of YOUR accusations about Bush.
The TRUTH isn't on your side in this.
And sadly for you, and other Bush haters. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE TRUTH to meet your demands.

[revelarts]

Rev, I don't know how anyone can look at the picture I posted and not see the goodness and compassion in the man. Unless they don't want to see it. And there are many pictures like it- I know I've posted some over the years.

As for the things that you feel he did wrong, I'd say this: Until you sit in the Oval Office, you simply do not and cannot know the full information that these men use to make foreign and domestic decisions to protect us. It is so easy to judge from the outside, and we all do it, but do we have the information to do so correctly? I say we do not.

Secondly, regardless of polices, the point of the picture was how I and others miss such a good and (and patriotic) man. Especially when the current resident shows such disdain for our flag. Your refusal to acknowledge that about Bush is then more about you than him.

Looking at a picture of him I should see the goodness? ok. sure it’s a nice picture. And as has been said many times Bush seems like a nice guy. Bill Clinton seems like a nice fella too. Does that mean either was a good president? or that i should miss them in face of the actions and crimes they committed and it’s effect on the country?

I didn’t lie to public about WMD’s and get 10,000’s of troops killed and injured in an unneeded illegal war, I didn’t say it was OK to torture , spy on, and jail Americans without probable cause.

But you say there must be something wrong with me for being upset about all of the above?

Should a picture of him hugging a soldier make me forget ALL of that? Should I just ignore all of that and more? Seriously , i don’t think so.

He was elected to be president, and being a nice guy here and there is fine. And I cannot know his heart but based on his DEEDS, i come to the conclusion that overall he did not/does not REALLY care about the troops.

Maybe a few pictures and things he’s said has convinced you otherwise. But as I’ve mentioned several times I’m long past politicians TALKING about what they believe.

A few hugs don’t make up for all the blood spilled in Iraq. Or the lost of constitutional rights.

　
And seeing Bush Hug a soldier my thoughts don’t go to automatic comparisons with Obama.

Obama has hugged his share of troops as well. But i don’t buy those pictures as the standard i should judge his presidency or humanity on.

WHAT Has he DONE in the office for the troops or against them? That’s the real measure right. Hugs are great but c’mon.

And i don’t think you really mean the line, "until you sit in the office you can’t judge" No one here says that about Obama’s choices. Most people on this board attack Obama from every angle ASSUMING the worse about EVERYTHING he does. _he’s a Foreign Muslim communist. A few pictures of him in church should change that right? But I bring a clear chain of data to back up what I’ve said about W. we are being honest and fair right? I’m not just guessing or wishing he did it, I voted for the GUY based on what he said, I I’m critiquing what he did.

Abby If the presidents are to be accountable to the people WE HAVE TO judge their actions in office to the best of our abilities. Honestly, and using the best facts available. If we don’t we’re not doing OUR job.
No one here can show us ANY WMD’s worth troops dying for, And as president he had access to ALL of the intel to tell him there were none. And as many in the Intel community have stated, the Admin knew the intel was Old and bad but they wanted a war.
That’s what the best data says and in my mind that trumps ANY hugs he can give a soldier.
And you know my passion for the Constitution, His Compassion for a troops does NOTHING bring the country back from where HE lead it. that’s a fact.

If something is wrong with me for not just looking at the picture and saying "aawww, isn’t Bush a nice fella after all."

then ok , I guess so.

[revelarts]

http://mynetbox.info//images/xtra/leader-pics_0001.jpg
So we should forget about everything else that Obama has done now? right?

[Drummond]

http://mynetbox.info//images/xtra/leader-pics_0001.jpg
So we should forget about everything else that Obama has done now? right?

That's an excellent suggestion, Revelarts ...:rolleyes:

[Drummond]

I find it truly amazing that, more than a DECADE on from the Iraq war, I'm once again having to tackle an argument such as this one. Just goes to show .. the Left NEVER give up peddling their propaganda ...


Even Bush has admitted that they did not find what he Cheney and rRumfled claimed (lied) they would find.
I cannot understand why you and some others continue to insist otherwise.

All you can realistically say is that nobody precisely found what they expected to find. By the way, you overlook the great consensus there was, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, that Saddam just HAD TO BE holding out on everyone.

And with good reason. Saddam was required to give chapter and verse on EITHER the WMD stocks he had, OR to account for their dispositions. So, after an initial period of non-cooperation, he eventually let a pitifully small 'force' of UN inspectors into Iraq, then once there, had his people lead them by the nose to sites where it was said that WMD's had been destroyed.

That some had been, was incontrovertible. Rather less clear was the percentage destroyed. Hans Blix HIMSELF admitted, during a Fox News interview, that assessing what quantities .. therefore the percentage of the total .. HAD been destroyed, was an impossibility from the work they were doing.

What's more, Saddam refused to let inspectors have access to their scientists .. until eventually he allowed it, but only under strict supervision at all times.

Blix's inspectors were LED to sites POINTED OUT TO THEM. This is how their inspections worked. Now, Revelarts, what use was any of this ?? For all anybody in the inspection teams could know or determine, maybe as little as ten percent of Saddam's stockpiles were disposed of.

NONE OF THIS WAS OF ANY USE AT ALL.


and the pitiful few canisters of old munitions is NOT "a mushroom cloud" or grounds for a FULL ON WAR. or worth money and definitely not the lives of all the Americans, Brits and others.

'Pitiful few canisters', you say ?? Sorry ... JUST UNTRUE. Now, I'm not sure whether it's the 5th, or 6th time I've posted this evidence on to this forum since I've joined it, but, HERE WE GO AGAIN .....

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

I invite you to see for yourself the evidence, produced by your OWN intelligence people, to say that around FIVE HUNDRED WMD's had been found !!!

May I point out that this is more than a 'pitiful few' .. ??????

See the conclusions reached in the document. It's said that, degraded though they were, those WMD's still had sufficient viability to be useful to terrorists - but happily, the American forces got to them before anyone else did. Revelarts .. YOU HAVE GEORGE W BUSH TO THANK FOR THAT.


The U.S. GAO has documented that the U.S. gov't has Misplaced or can't verify the location of serious amounts of our Nuke material . Whistsle blowers and other news report note that U.S. Bio and chem stores are missing or sold to unknown parties.

... which tells you what, Revelarts ? That there's absolutely no chance whatever of any of it falling into terrorist hands, EVER ?

I suggest to you that this is as good a reason as any to wage the War on Terror !!! The more that can be done to defeat those who'd misuse such materials, the better ! Or do you think it better to give terrorists enough of an easy time of it, by NOT fighting them, to allow them the maximum chance of using what they can capture ???


In Fact the U.S, gov't has GIVEN arms to alqeada in Libya And Syria! there more evidence of OUR working with terrorist than there ever was with Saddam.

That's Lefties for you, Revelarts. Or had you forgotten that what you're referring to was on Obama's watch ??


Iraq had NOTHING to do with the War on terror, or 9/11.

9/11 ... maybe not. The War on Terror, or more precisely, aid to terrorists ... Saddam was well known for such murky connections.

His bankrolling of Hamas was well known, for example. His Government gave shelter to Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's supposed 'head man in Iraq'.

Care for some evidence of the need to tackle Saddam, Revelarts ?

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/


A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

• In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.

• Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.

• Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.

• In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work—How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.

• In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.

So tell me, Revelarts, how it is that Saddam was NOT, according to Lefties, 'A legitimate target in the War on Terror'.

Or, try this ..

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914


In the two years of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq has given Palestinian families more than $10 million, all according to a well-known scale. Families of suicide bombers get $25,000 each and families of those killed in confrontations with Israel get $10,000. Those who houses are destroyed by the Israeli military get $5,000 and those wounded by Israelis get $1,000.

President Bush says the money rewards and solicits murder. An official of the charity that distributes the money says it symbolizes solidarity between Iraqis and Palestinians — both, he says, targets of American aggression.

"The same weapons that are targeting Iraq are targeting Palestinians," says Abu Samir of the Arabic Liberation Front. "We are in the same bunker."

The group also distributes food from Iraq, and uses Iraqi funds to run hospitals and provide scholarships to Iraqi schools.

Saddam is very popular among many Palestinians because of his active support of the Palestinian cause and his missile attacks on Israel during the Gulf War.

After the ceremony, Mahdi thanked the Iraqi leader. "He is the only one who understands our situation — he's suffering the same tragedy," she says.

Mahdi's husband told her of his suicide mission only just before he left. She says she tried to talk him out of it — to no avail.

"He was determined," she recalls. "I could not stop him — God and the homeland are more important than anything. Even his son."

The money, she says, is for Ismail's future. But it was her husband's wish that — if the Palestinians' lot does not improve — little Ismail grow up to be a suicide bomber, too. His mother agrees.

Revelarts: OF COURSE Saddam had to be dealt with !!!

Break with your age-old, tired and morally bankrupt Leftie propaganda, Revelarts, and face the truth. The War on Terror was, and is, highly necessary -- and George W Bush was a fine patriot for standing up to the evils which spawned 9/11 ... and much more besides.

[aboutime]

For everyone who responded with all of the so-called CHRISTIAN love they pretend to offer. I feel sorry for those, like Rev. Who would do much better, and feel much more confident if he changed his political/religious opinions to admitting the Liberal/Progressive ideology he seems to enjoy here.

HATRED in it's many forms, coming from someone who calls themselves a REV...is hypocrisy of the Highest order.

Repeating lies, insisting lies are factual...seems to go entirely against what some pretend to call the CHRISTIAN way.

I'm so tired of listening, and reading the Uninformed, Literally stupid remarks from many, based on falsehoods that only prolong, and proliferate HATRED. Such as what we are hearing about Bush.
And REV.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING. Repeating the same accusations is nothing short of Childish, and Dishonest. If you refuse to see, or recognize that. I feel sorry for your hypocrisy.

[Drummond]

For everyone who responded with all of the so-called CHRISTIAN love they pretend to offer. I feel sorry for those, like Rev. Who would do much better, and feel much more confident if he changed his political/religious opinions to admitting the Liberal/Progressive ideology he seems to enjoy here.

HATRED in it's many forms, coming from someone who calls themselves a REV...is hypocrisy of the Highest order.

Repeating lies, insisting lies are factual...seems to go entirely against what some pretend to call the CHRISTIAN way.

I'm so tired of listening, and reading the Uninformed, Literally stupid remarks from many, based on falsehoods that only prolong, and proliferate HATRED. Such as what we are hearing about Bush.
And REV.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING. Repeating the same accusations is nothing short of Childish, and Dishonest. If you refuse to see, or recognize that. I feel sorry for your hypocrisy.

We're just getting a rehash of tired, old Left-wing propaganda. And this on the back of a true and caring patriot.

It isn't 'just' that he served America's interests in her time of need, or that he did so for years afterwards. Truth be told, the Western world is today a better and more secure place for GW Bush's efforts. Efforts which his 'allies' should have done MUCH more to build upon, or even OFFER, than they really did.

We all owe him a considerable debt, for supplying the calibre of leadership the world needed at an especially dire time.

[aboutime]

We're just getting a rehash of tired, old Left-wing propaganda. And this on the back of a true and caring patriot.

It isn't 'just' that he served America's interests in her time of need, or that he did so for years afterwards. Truth be told, the Western world is today a better and more secure place for GW Bush's efforts. Efforts which his 'allies' should have done MUCH more to build upon, or even OFFER, than they really did.

We all owe him a considerable debt, for supplying the calibre of leadership the world needed at an especially dire time.


Sir Drummond. In spite of sticking my neck out...asking for whatever hatred will come my way. My wife and I often catch ourselves tearing up whenever we see, or hear W, or his parents.
And, of course. Listening to, and remembering Ronald Reagan's smooth, soft voice as he spoke always brings fond memories...and tears as well.

Sadly for Obama, and the Clintons. They will never, ever feel the respect. Nor will they ever get the emotional feelings of admiration from me, or my wife.

How difficult it really is to DAILY...learn about, see, or hear how our present occupant of the PEOPLE'S HOUSE is abusing, and destroying EVERYTHING we PROUD Americans hold dear?

The replacement elections of OBAMA cannot come soon enough. And I find myself praying that our SIX grandchildren will someday feel the PRIDE, and LOVE I have for most of my life. Until a HOME GROWN Enemy tries to take it all away.

There's a reason so many Americans are now denying a need for religious teachings.
I look at Hollywood as the enemy, convincing Young, and Older Americans there is no God, in order to relieve them of personal responsibility to follow the common laws of man...namely, the TEN COMMANDMENTS everyone used to know.
If they deny a God. They can also deny a need to follow such rules of man.
And tyranny, with Anarchy become the Norm for the Instant Gratification of the STUPID.

[revelarts]

I find it truly amazing that, more than a DECADE on from the Iraq war, I'm once again having to tackle an argument such as this one. Just goes to show .. the Left NEVER give up peddling their propaganda ...

I find it amazing that you still believe Bush is a Hero, and as I've said before. I voted for Bush but looked at the facts at the run up to war rather than believe the right wing propaganda and flag waving and fear mongering over a dictator that only months earlier C. Rice and Colan Pwell said was "contained" and "unable to project force against his neighbors" . But magically somehow, after 911, he's so dangerous that he can't be allowed to live. Sorry I don't fear up politically. if he was unable to project force agaist his neighbor 6 mths earlier he doesn't become a major threat to the U.S. that must be invaded.


All you can realistically say is that nobody precisely found what they expected to find. By the way, you overlook the great consensus there was, in the run-up to the 2003 invasion, that Saddam just HAD TO BE holding out on everyone.
Great concencus means nothing, the insiders in the intel world KNEW the facts told Bush but he didn't want to hear it. And afterwards Bush JOKED that he didn't find what they claimed, remember the "mobile bio facilities" NUKE program" "Yellow Cake" etc. they were lies. that what we all can realistically say if your not in denial.

And with good reason. Saddam was required to give chapter and verse on EITHER the WMD stocks he had, OR to account for their dispositions. So, after an initial period of non-cooperation, he eventually let a pitifully small 'force' of UN inspectors into Iraq, then once there, had his people lead them by the nose to sites where it was said that WMD's had been destroyed.

That some had been, was incontrovertible. Rather less clear was the percentage destroyed. Hans Blix HIMSELF admitted, during a Fox News interview, that assessing what quantities .. therefore the percentage of the total .. HAD been destroyed, was an impossibility from the work they were doing.

What's more, Saddam refused to let inspectors have access to their scientists .. until eventually he allowed it, but only under strict supervision at all times.

Blix's inspectors were LED to sites POINTED OUT TO THEM. This is how their inspections worked. Now, Revelarts, what use was any of this ?? For all anybody in the inspection teams could know or determine, maybe as little as ten percent of Saddam's stockpiles were disposed of.

NONE OF THIS WAS OF ANY USE AT ALL.
Blix told Bush and the world weeks before the invasion that they did indeed have a list of item to look for AND a list FROM BUSH and BLAIR and they DID have access to where they want and WHERE BUSH AND BLAIR pointed to go and could within the space of month confirm or deny all of the (LYING) allegations of the U.S. and the UK


'Pitiful few canisters', you say ?? Sorry ... JUST UNTRUE. Now, I'm not sure whether it's the 5th, or 6th time I've posted this evidence on to this forum since I've joined it, but, HERE WE GO AGAIN .....

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

I invite you to see for yourself the evidence, produced by your OWN intelligence people, to say that around FIVE HUNDRED WMD's had been found !!!

May I point out that this is more than a 'pitiful few' .. ??????

See the conclusions reached in the document. It's said that, degraded though they were, those WMD's still had sufficient viability to be useful to terrorists - but happily, the American forces got to them before anyone else did. Revelarts .. YOU HAVE GEORGE W BUSH TO THANK FOR THAT.
Yes pitiful few canisters, NOT WORTH the PRICE in BLOOD SPLIT. especially when they could have been retrieve by UN inspectors.



... which tells you what, Revelarts ? That there's absolutely no chance whatever of any of it falling into terrorist hands, EVER ?

I suggest to you that this is as good a reason as any to wage the War on Terror !!! The more that can be done to defeat those who'd misuse such materials, the better ! Or do you think it better to give terrorists enough of an easy time of it, by NOT fighting them, to allow them the maximum chance of using what they can capture ??? You seem to want to solve every POTENTIAL problem with a gun or someones else guns. The problem with the missing U.S. items is TRACKING no need for a gun in this case if they are tracked properly.




That's Lefties for you, Revelarts. Or had you forgotten that what you're referring to was on Obama's watch ??
Romney and many on the right were urging Obama to give weapons to Libya saying he was to slow and WEAK. As with Syria Drummond.


9/11 ... maybe not. The War on Terror, or more precisely, aid to terrorists ... Saddam was well known for such murky connections.

His bankrolling of Hamas was well known, for example. His Government gave shelter to Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's supposed 'head man in Iraq'.

Care for some evidence of the need to tackle Saddam, Revelarts ?

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/


So tell me, Revelarts, how it is that Saddam was NOT, according to Lefties, 'A legitimate target in the War on Terror'.

Or, try this ..

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=129914


Revelarts: OF COURSE Saddam had to be dealt with !!!No one claimed Saddam was a good guy. BUT the U.S. has NO right to attack another country because it's made plans to attack us Especially when it can't even attack it's neighbors with any effectiveness any longer (Kuwait). HOW is he a real threat? AND If we really wanted to deal with a threat the (11 planes were filled with Saudis! and it's finally coming out now that the SAUDI gov't had financially and other fingers in a REAL attack on the U.S. Saddam was a bit player, concerned about his local area not attacking the U.S..


Break with your age-old, tired and morally bankrupt Leftie propaganda, Revelarts, and face the truth. The War on Terror was, and is, highly necessary -- and George W Bush was a fine patriot for standing up to the evils which spawned 9/11 ... and much more besides.Drummond, break with your blind warmongering neo con fear factory imperialist denials of reality and think how much more the U.S. could have done if it had focused on REAL terrorist rather than sending men to die on a false errand over non existent WMD's.


For everyone who responded with all of the so-called CHRISTIAN love they pretend to offer. I feel sorry for those, like Rev. Who would do much better, and feel much more confident if he changed his political/religious opinions to admitting the Liberal/Progressive ideology he seems to enjoy here.

HATRED in it's many forms, coming from someone who calls themselves a REV...is hypocrisy of the Highest order.

Repeating lies, insisting lies are factual...seems to go entirely against what some pretend to call the CHRISTIAN way.

I'm so tired of listening, and reading the Uninformed, Literally stupid remarks from many, based on falsehoods that only prolong, and proliferate HATRED. Such as what we are hearing about Bush.
And REV.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT PROVEN ANYTHING. Repeating the same accusations is nothing short of Childish, and Dishonest. If you refuse to see, or recognize that. I feel sorry for your hypocrisy.so are your leading me to the loving path with this post here? Please prove anything I've said is a lie. so far you haven't addressed any of the points I've presented, you've just called me names.


Sir Drummond. In spite of sticking my neck out...asking for whatever hatred will come my way. My wife and I often catch ourselves tearing up whenever we see, or hear W, or his parents.
And, of course. Listening to, and remembering Ronald Reagan's smooth, soft voice as he spoke always brings fond memories...and tears as well.

Sadly for Obama, and the Clintons. They will never, ever feel the respect. Nor will they ever get the emotional feelings of admiration from me, or my wife.

How difficult it really is to DAILY...learn about, see, or hear how our present occupant of the PEOPLE'S HOUSE is abusing, and destroying EVERYTHING we PROUD Americans hold dear?

The replacement elections of OBAMA cannot come soon enough. And I find myself praying that our SIX grandchildren will someday feel the PRIDE, and LOVE I have for most of my life. Until a HOME GROWN Enemy tries to take it all away.

There's a reason so many Americans are now denying a need for religious teachings.
I look at Hollywood as the enemy, convincing Young, and Older Americans there is no God, in order to relieve them of personal responsibility to follow the common laws of man...namely, the TEN COMMANDMENTS everyone used to know.
If they deny a God. They can also deny a need to follow such rules of man.
And tyranny, with Anarchy become the Norm for the Instant Gratification of the STUPID.

AT, I tear up when I see Iraqi vets with missing limbs and read the numbers of them that have committed suicide. and the numbers of the dead. when I see Bush I think of them and I have NO respect for Bush at that point.

[aboutime]

I find it amazing that you still believe Bush is a Hero, and as I've said before. I voted for Bush but looked at the facts at the run up to war rather than believe the right wing propaganda and flag waving and fear mongering over a dictator that only months earlier C. Rice and Colan Pwell said was "contained" and "unable to project force against his neighbors" . But magically somehow, after 911, he's so dangerous that he can't be allowed to live. Sorry I don't fear up politically. if he was unable to project force agaist his neighbor 6 mths earlier he doesn't become a major threat to the U.S. that must be invaded.
Great concencus means nothing, the insiders in the intel world KNEW the facts told Bush but he didn't want to hear it. And afterwards Bush JOKED that he didn't find what they claimed, remember the "mobile bio facilities" NUKE program" "Yellow Cake" etc. they were lies. that what we all can realistically say if your not in denial. Blix told Bush and the world weeks before the invasion that they did indeed have a list of item to look for AND a list FROM BUSH and BLAIR and they DID have access to where they want and WHERE BUSH AND BLAIR pointed to go and could within the space of month confirm or deny all of the (LYING) allegations of the U.S. and the UK

Yes pitiful few canisters, NOT WORTH the PRICE in BLOOD SPLIT. especially when they could have been retrieve by UN inspectors.

You seem to want to solve every POTENTIAL problem with a gun or someones else guns. The problem with the missing U.S. items is TRACKING no need for a gun in this case if they are tracked properly.


Romney and many on the right were urging Obama to give weapons to Libya saying he was to slow and WEAK. As with Syria Drummond.
No one claimed Saddam was a good guy. BUT the U.S. has NO right to attack another country because it's made plans to attack us Especially when it can't even attack it's neighbors with any effectiveness any longer (Kuwait). HOW is he a real threat? AND If we really wanted to deal with a threat the (11 planes were filled with Saudis! and it's finally coming out now that the SAUDI gov't had financially and other fingers in a REAL attack on the U.S. Saddam was a bit player, concerned about his local area not attacking the U.S..
Drummond, break with your blind warmongering neo con fear factory imperialist denials of reality and think how much more the U.S. could have done if it had focused on REAL terrorist rather than sending men to die on a false errand over non existent WMD's.

so are your leading me to the loving path with this post here? Please prove anything I've said is a lie. so far you haven't addressed any of the points I've presented, you've just called me names.



AT, I tear up when I see Iraqi vets with missing limbs and read the numbers of them that have committed suicide. and the numbers of the dead. when I see Bush I think of them and I have NO respect for Bush at that point.


Nice try Rev. Redirecting attention by pointing at me. You simply aren't worth the effort anymore. Too bad you are so easily led by liars, then repeat them by defending them as well.
By the way. As ONE of those people you claim to tear up about. That doesn't convince me you aren't easily led by lies.
As the father of an Army veteran, and Marine...for life. Who spent 30 years listening to people like you use the TEAR UP excuse to convince others of how much you CARE????
Don't work with me Rev.
I know you base everything you have said on PROVEN LIES. And you still have NOT presented DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE to the contrary to backup your claims...I mean, Lies about Bush.
Therefore. I do not expect YOU WILL EVER produce the evidence other than your standard, liberal hate filled lies.

[Abbey Marie]

Looking at a picture of him I should see the goodness? ok. sure it’s a nice picture. And as has been said many times Bush seems like a nice guy. Bill Clinton seems like a nice fella too. Does that mean either was a good president? or that i should miss them in face of the actions and crimes they committed and it’s effect on the country?
...


That one sentence really jumped out at me. Are we talking about the same Bill Clinton who raped a woman, and who had sexual affairs in the Oval Office and lied about it under oath? The Dem who supported abortion?

That is NOT a nice guy by my definition.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

REV. You failed to present the PROOF, DOCUMENTED, ACTUAL, VERIFIABLE PROOF. All you are doing is repeating the constantly repeated FALSE LIBERAL, HATE BUSH facts made up by those who are too lazy to actually investigate on their own.
You rely on other people's information, and not one of them...like you. Have shown any proof, other than to repeat the known, proven Lies about Bush that make you feel so good.
That's what the absence of knowledge, education, and the ability to actually think on your own does to you.
Now, I know you will, and must disagree with me on this.
And, you can do that till the cows come home.
STILL, as I said. NOT ONE PERSON HAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED THE REAL, DOCUMENTED, VERIFIABLE, TRUTH to back up any of YOUR accusations about Bush.
The TRUTH isn't on your side in this.
And sadly for you, and other Bush haters. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THE TRUTH to meet your demands.

That last picture says it all. Not only what those men fought for but why we simply must back our military to the hilt my friend. I once fell on a grave like that and cried. I was 15 and it was my father's. Until one has felt that kind of grief that pierces the heart so deeply that it cuts it into they are clueless about it although they may think they know. Until one has had their soul completely shattered like that they are clueless about the depths that misery and grief can take a person.
I've seen that picture before and always prayed that lady eventually found comfort for her great loss . It can come, it only took me 17 years to find it in my case.. -Tyr

[revelarts]

That one sentence really jumped out at me. Are we talking about the same Bill Clinton who raped a woman, and who had sexual affairs in the Oval Office and lied about it under oath? The Dem who supported abortion?

That is NOT a nice guy by my definition.

Exactly my point.
Bush sent people to war based on lies, took away constitutional rights, made torture legal, and the other things i mentioned.
does THAT sound like a nice guy?

[revelarts]

Nice try Rev. Redirecting attention by pointing at me. You simply aren't worth the effort anymore. Too bad you are so easily led by liars, then repeat them by defending them as well.
By the way. As ONE of those people you claim to tear up about. That doesn't convince me you aren't easily led by lies.
As the father of an Army veteran, and Marine...for life. Who spent 30 years listening to people like you use the TEAR UP excuse to convince others of how much you CARE????
Don't work with me Rev.
I know you base everything you have said on PROVEN LIES. And you still have NOT presented DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE to the contrary to backup your claims...I mean, Lies about Bush.
Therefore. I do not expect YOU WILL EVER produce the evidence other than your standard, liberal hate filled lies.

I'm sure Bush appreciates your tears of respect as much as you appreciate mine.

[Gaffer]

Rev I have asked this before. What is the difference between being wrong and lying. If you make a claim about something that turns out to be wrong, does that make you a lair?

There were WMD's there. They didn't find the quantity they expected, but that was because they were all shipped to syria during the three months it took to gear up for invasion.

Liberals lie, that's all they do, so why do you always take their side and believe the lies. Bush didn't lie, the left lied. And now they are in power and lying even more right to our faces.

Bush tried to do the right thing by the country, unfortunately doing the right thing often has unforeseen consequences. He didn't expect a leftist dictator to follow him in the white house.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm sure Bush appreciates your tears of respect as much as you appreciate mine.

Rev, a damn big difference is in intent what separates Obama and Bush AS WELL AS THE SEVERITY OF MEASURES NOW BEING INSTITUTED. You mentioned you thought Obama only twice as bad as Bush but trust me that's not even close ... He is far , far worse than that and he isn't done yet!! --Tyr

[revelarts]

Rev I have asked this before. What is the difference between being wrong and lying. If you make a claim about something that turns out to be wrong, does that make you a lair?

There were WMD's there. They didn't find the quantity they expected, but that was because they were all shipped to syria during the three months it took to gear up for invasion.

Liberals lie, that's all they do, so why do you always take their side and believe the lies. Bush didn't lie, the left lied. And now they are in power and lying even more right to our faces.

Bush tried to do the right thing by the country, unfortunately doing the right thing often has unforeseen consequences. He didn't expect a leftist dictator to follow him in the white house.

Ok how many times have i attacked an exposes lies on the left Gaffer c'mon. Plenty!
please don't you start to with this left truth, right truth thing.
the truth is the truth, it is what it is. putting and R over a lie doesn't make it true.

If Hitler says "the Sky is Blue today" OK check it to make sure but if it checks out then Hilter told the truth. the facts make the truth not the party,
at least in my world.

concerning the WMD's are in Syria now
Do we have "proof" of that? the story of one Iraqi , like Cruveball, is not enough to make that story stick.
And AGAIN BLIX said it would only takes months to determine IF what the US and UK alleged were true.
NO Need for war. period.
But Bush was going to have it anyway.


George W. Bush
American Enterprise Institute (The Future of Iraq)
Washington, DC
February 26, 2003
...In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

George W. Bush
march 19 2003
the day the War began
My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger….
...Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.

George W. Bush
Remarks at Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, NC
April 3, 2003
...The United States and our allies pledged to act if the dictator did not disarm. The regime in Iraq is now learning that we keep our word. (Applause.) By our actions, we serve a great and just cause: We will remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers. Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th, this time, perhaps with chemical or biological or nuclear terror. And by defending our own security, we are freeing the people of Iraq from one of the cruelest regimes on Earth. (Applause.)....


Was there any "grave danger" from Saddam? NO.
Was Saddam threatening anyone's peace "with weapons of mass murder"? NO.
Was Saddam "Building" and Hiding weapons that would allow him to "DOMINATE" the M.E.? uh NO!
Earlier in the same year of the war Powell and Rice BOTH said I quote "Saddam is NOT ABLE TO PROJECT FORCE Against his Neighbors" Saddam was "CONTAINED" So how was he able to DOMINATE later in the Year? Fact is He wasn't able to. his stores of arms had been settles reduced since Gulf WI.

Was the president fooled by his own advisers? If so who fooled this great patriot and hero of the people? Why aren't you and other asking for there heads.
no i get attacked for pointing out the obvious fact that there were no WMD's He sold the war on WMDs and therefore he's to blame for send 10,000s of men and women in a war for NOTHING.

Why am i the bad guy here?
you say based on the word of basically ONE Iraqi general that the weapons are now in Syria, Didn't the Hero of the people know that? If the WMDs were the problem (as Bush REPEATED over and over) why didn't we attack Syria then?

I linked to the words of over 7 U.S. intel officers from the CIA, DIA, pentagon and I can link to more in the FBI and NSA. people who -just like you and AT and other here- want the safety of this country.
They say in NO uncertain terms that Bush Cheney and Rumsfled DID NOT WANT evidence against the idea that Saddam had no WMD's they ONLY wanted to here AY thread of evidence that he did.

Why is one Iraqi officers word Gold but alllll of the intel people i point to in the US and UK are supposedly liars, motivated by party (some where/are republicans) or are traitors or cowards, or in it for a book deal and such?

Why is the downing st memo where it states they wanted to "fix" the intelligence for war NOT PROOF of lying?
it's a "Document" but AT can't even acknowledge that somehow.

I'd love to think that Bush didn't know, ( I think Powell was deceived and didn't know BTW not that i'm a Powell fan) and was only mistaken but the witnesses are piled up far to high against him. And the FACT that NO WMD's of any significances were found makes the case for those that TRIED to tell HIM and US. before the war.

Seems you and others are waiting for a confession from Bush and Cheney.
Treat all politicians as normal people. would you give your boss the chief of police the benny off the doubt if a solid block of unrelated detectives and officers from various depts said they tried to tell the chief the truth about a supposed "bad neighborhood" before a raid that left a lot of officers dead and found NOTHING but a few joints and 5 old hand guns. But he wouldn't listen to anyone but his "special team" that he'd set up.


But look i just wanted to make my comment. many ar BELEIVE in PRez Bush sorry I've tried to just look at the facts and best ascertain who's more likly to be teling the truth.
seems most here think that Bush is somewhere between Jesus and George Washington and all of the intel folks, pentagon people, and Pwells Cheif of Staff and the downing st memo and the Cheifs of staff of MI5 are all just evil left wing liars who made up stories that Bush Cheney Blair Rumsfled KNEW the intel was old and bogus but just want to sell a war.

Fine, we disagree.
you think he made mistake, or was mislead by unknown parties we have no need to consider. OK.
Gaffer
no problem

Drummond, AT, Tyr and Abby,
we disagree here you have theright to your opinion, despite all evidence and reports to the contrary

[revelarts]

Proof?
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

http://downingstreetmemo.com/iraqoptions.html

• As originally reported in the The Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html), May 1, 2005 SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
[end text - emphasis added]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, AT, Tyr and Abby,
we disagree here you have the right to your opinion, despite all evidence and reports to the contrary

As do you my friend. If we all acted like the Borg wouldn't it be a dull world? :beer:
I celebrate that we do not..--;) And I have never accused you being anything but honest in your views. --Tyr

[gabosaurus]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8121142528/h6E45DE7B/

[jafar00]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8121142528/h6E45DE7B/

Republicans have short memories it seems.

[jimnyc]

Yes pitiful few canisters, NOT WORTH the PRICE in BLOOD SPLIT. especially when they could have been retrieve by UN inspectors.

THOUSANDS/TONS of gallons and drums of chemical weapons - accounted for and tagged in 1998 - all VERY viable - GONE - DISAPPEARED - NO LONGER accounted for to this very day. The resolutions and IAEA demanded they account for these chemical weapons - they NEVER did. That one thing alone puts them in material breach - and the weapons in that one cache alone, if used properly, could have taken out hundreds of thousands and into the millions if placed on appropriate warheads. This also doesn't take into account missing AND found un-weaponized chemical weapons. However dated, the clock doesn't tick until they are mixed, leaving the shelf life to be MUCH MUCH longer.

The weapons were real. Viable weapons were found in addition to dated weapons. That cannot be denied. These other weapons aren't often spoken of, as they weren't weaponized yet, just in pure form. And lets not forget the "disappeared" TONS of chemical weapons that we know 1000% for a fact in 1998 existed. These are facts that cannot be disputed, but they can be denied or minimized.

[jimnyc]

Republicans have short memories it seems.

We didn't forget that ALL of these attacks are performed by Muslims.

[revelarts]

THOUSANDS/TONS of gallons and drums of chemical weapons - accounted for and tagged in 1998 - all VERY viable - GONE - DISAPPEARED - NO LONGER accounted for to this very day. The resolutions and IAEA demanded they account for these chemical weapons - they NEVER did. That one thing alone puts them in material breach - and the weapons in that one cache alone, if used properly, could have taken out hundreds of thousands and into the millions if placed on appropriate warheads. This also doesn't take into account missing AND found un-weaponized chemical weapons. However dated, the clock doesn't tick until they are mixed, leaving the shelf life to be MUCH MUCH longer.

The weapons were real. Viable weapons were found in addition to dated weapons. That cannot be denied. These other weapons aren't often spoken of, as they weren't weaponized yet, just in pure form. And lets not forget the "disappeared" TONS of chemical weapons that we know 1000% for a fact in 1998 existed. These are facts that cannot be disputed, but they can be denied or minimized.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
full text Hans Blix's briefing to the security council in February (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1) and March (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm)



summed up he basically says:
here are the items we think are missing, we are now inspecting everything we know of and is listed, and the extra the US and UK are talking about. We are destroying items today, and have access to everything and are doing surprise inspections without problem. IF there's anything left we can confirm it and deal with it in a few months.

Bush's response:
I don't care about that. Attack.


Hans Blix:
Between late November and mid-March 2003, Blix reports, the UN inspectors made seven hundred separate visits to five hundred sites. About three dozen of those sites had been suggested by intelligence services, many by Tenet's CIA, which insisted that these were "the best" in the agency's database. Blix was shocked. "If this was the best, what was the rest?" he asked himself. "Could there be 100-percent certainty about the existence of weapons of mass destruction but zero-percent knowledge about their location?"
By this time Blix was firmly opposed to the evident American preference for disarmament by war. "It was, in my view, too early to give up now," he writes. Tony Blair in late February tried to convince Blix that Saddam had WMD even if Blix couldn't find them – the French, German, and Egyptian intelligence services were all sure of it, Blair said. Blix told Blair that to him they seemed not so sure, and adds as an aside, "My faith in intelligence had been shaken." On March 5, Blix on the phone with Rice asked her point-blank if the United States knew where Iraq's WMD were hidden. "No, she said, but interviews after liberation would reveal it."
In that meeting of the Security Council both ElBaradei and Blix reported their continuing plans for further inspections, and both said that outstanding issues might be resolved within a few months. This was not what the United States wanted to hear. In mid-February, President Bush had derided efforts to give Iraq "another, 'nother, 'nother last chance." Blix had pleaded in a phone call about the same time to Secretary of State Colin Powell for a free hand at least until April 15. "He said it was too late."
Three years later, in a speech to the Arms Control Association, Blix reflected on that moment in his office at the UN – the afternoon of March 16 – when the State Department's John Wolf called to say that the time had come to pull the inspectors out of Iraq. "My belief is that if we had been allowed to continue with inspections for a couple of months more, we would then have been able to go to all of the sites which were given by intelligence," he said. "And since there were not any weapons of massive destruction, we would have reported there were not any." An invasion might have taken place anyway, Blix concedes; the Americans and British had sent several hundred thousand troops to Kuwait and could not leave them sitting in the desert indefinitely. "But it would have been certainly more difficult," Blix said. Even so, in Blix's view, something important had been achieved. "The UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it." Blix guessed that Saddam hid his compliance so Iran wouldn't think him weak, but it was the Americans who were deceived.

Blix is Charitable, the "Americans" were deceived but not Bush Blair and Crew.
they were FIXING the intel to get support for WAR.

[Kathianne]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8121142528/h6E45DE7B/

A bit inconvenient bit forgotten, he was advocating and bring the war to the enemy. He never declared that all was peaceful.

The turning of the political tide was brought by the Democrats, how's that working out now?

[fj1200]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8121142528/h6E45DE7B/

In how many of those instances was there no response from the military during an ongoing offensive? Not to mention some idiocy about a movie.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In how many of those instances was there no response from the military during an ongoing offensive? Not to mention some idiocy about a movie.

You are right Bush made no cover up story . And the news was only too damn glad to point to those attacks as great failures on Bush's part. Now the entire world is free to run roughshod as it pleases(China, Russia, Iran , Syria, N. Korea ,etc.) because we have a dem/dumb President loved and adore by his party and the lameass media. Now the world is posed and ripe for a WW3 event . And yet the blinded fools hail Obama as at least a demi-god. Its sickening to have to witness the stupidity, insanity and ignorance of such adoring fans!-Tyr

[jimnyc]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm
full text Hans Blix's briefing to the security council in February (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.unitednations1) and March (http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm)



summed up he basically says:
here are the items we think are missing, we are now inspecting everything we know of and is listed, and the extra the US and UK are talking about. We are destroying items today, and have access to everything and are doing surprise inspections without problem. IF there's anything left we can confirm it and deal with it in a few months.

Bush's response:
I don't care about that. Attack.



Blix is Charitable, the "Americans" were deceived but not Bush Blair and Crew.
they were FIXING the intel to get support for WAR.

It seems like what you're posting is stuff relevant to accusations laid out by the Bush administration and I don't see anywhere at all where it covers missing WMD's from 1998 which left Iraq in material breach.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&p=645398#post645398
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&p=470277#post470277

The weaponization has been brought up many times before, making pure chemicals found much more relevant, while some would dismiss it. And to this day, the missing chemicals from '98 haven't been accounted for. I'm not stating this as a way of defending Bush or anyone else - but to show that anyone thinking that Iraq was telling the truth, or didn't need to be disarmed, is/was clearly wrong. Either that, or we accept the fact that TONS of chemical weapons could literally disappear, and we then shrug our shoulders and forget about it.


Another matter and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

This specific issue was presented to Saddam multiple times - they outright ignored multiple requests on these accounted for chemical weapons. They refused to cooperate. We know 100000000000% for sure that they existed. Then they disappear. Of course some will swear that they must have been destroyed, even without a lick of evidence, because that theory might support their argument. But it's a FACT that they were accounted for and a FACT that they are listed as missing and haven't been accounted for in anyway.

[Abbey Marie]

Republicans have short memories it seems.

We didn't forget that ALL of these attacks are performed by Muslims.


OH SNAP! Best. Comeback. Evuh.


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDwwDiinUqvkHvRZhn33tWmQo2TvqbC Fl9djTB3MHaFE7NJw5X

[revelarts]

It seems like what you're posting is stuff relevant to accusations laid out by the Bush administration and I don't see anywhere at all where it covers missing WMD's from 1998 which left Iraq in material breach.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&p=645398#post645398
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose&p=470277#post470277

The weaponization has been brought up many times before, making pure chemicals found much more relevant, while some would dismiss it. And to this day, the missing chemicals from '98 haven't been accounted for. I'm not stating this as a way of defending Bush or anyone else - but to show that anyone thinking that Iraq was telling the truth, or didn't need to be disarmed, is/was clearly wrong. Either that, or we accept the fact that TONS of chemical weapons could literally disappear, and we then shrug our shoulders and forget about it.



This specific issue was presented to Saddam multiple times - they outright ignored multiple requests on these accounted for chemical weapons. They refused to cooperate. We know 100000000000% for sure that they existed. Then they disappear. Of course some will swear that they must have been destroyed, even without a lick of evidence, because that theory might support their argument. But it's a FACT that they were accounted for and a FACT that they are listed as missing and haven't been accounted for in anyway.

the record was provided BY the IRAQIS themselves. and AGAIN, why is this alsways overlooked by you guys. BLIX said he'd be able to confirm or deny it in a few months. disarming them without war. AND Again it's been 10 YEARS and you still know 100000% that they had it but you have ZERO% knowledge of where it is or was. STILL!! sooo maybe, as Blix said, it was already destroyed? If you Can't FIND IT you can not KNOW 100000%... bottom line there was no reason to invade. and Bush did lie about what he claimed he knew to gin up support for the war.

[jimnyc]

the record was provided BY the IRAQIS themselves. and AGAIN, why is this alsways overlooked by you guys. BLIX said he'd be able to confirm or deny it in a few months. disarming them without war. AND Again it's been 10 YEARS and you still know 100000% that they had it but you have ZERO% knowledge of where it is or was. STILL!! sooo maybe, as Blix said, it was already destroyed? If you Can't FIND IT you can not KNOW 100000%... bottom line there was no reason to invade. and Bush did lie about what he claimed he knew to gin up support for the war.

And yet tagged and overseen by inspectors themselves, only to have disappeared the next time they entered the country, and the Iraqi's REFUSED to offer any type of proof at all, no matter how many times asked. Even knowing they would be in material breach of resolutions, they still ignored the requests. And then what we have is tons of chemicals aka WMD's amongst the missing, and the people who had control of them ignoring any inquiries. Blix can say all he wanted - but if the Iraqi's played games as they did for years - and outright ignored these tons of weapons and associated inquiries, there is no way Blix could have stated whether or not they could have found them.

I don't need to find it to be 100% certain that they existed. Blix NEVER said they were destroyed. Now, if you want to say it wasn't a reason worthy if getting to them ourselves, that's cool, that's your opinion. BUT, it's a FACT that there were TONS of accounted for chemical weapons in 1998 that conveniently disappeared, and the Iraqi's REFUSED to cooperate in finding them. It's a FACT that this alone put them in material breach. Nevermind that Blix thinks he could have found this or that - but Iraq had a DUTY to comply and they refused. Material breach no matter how you slice it. You think that material breach wasn't worthy of going in. But that doesn't make the breach disappear nor does it account for the WMD's that were once accounted for.

But I get it, let's just ignore enough chemical weapons to kill every citizen in Iraq if used properly if it doesn't fit our opinion.

[jimnyc]

This was just the tip of the iceberg. You have stuff like this, and the aforementioned chemicals, and a nation that wants to play cat and mouse games... The bottom line remains that there were tons and tons and tons and tons of weapons and chemicals that were tagged, seen and knowledge made of them. They were there, some destroyed and some we have no idea what happened to. Then we have a leader playing games with all of this, hiding things and NEVER fully cooperating with inspectors. AND from a country that used chemical weapons no less than like 7-10 times within the past 20-25 years of their little games.

Since 1991 UNSCOM inspectors in Iraq have overseen the destruction of:


-- 38,000 chemical munitions



-- 480,000 liters of chemical warfare agents and precursors



-- 48 ballistic missiles



-- 6 missile launchers



-- 30 CBW missile warheads



During the last six years of inspections, the Iraqi government has
made many declarations concerning the volume and deposition of
chemical and biological weapons programs -- all of which have been
proven or judged to be inaccurate or incomplete. No admission, for
example, of their extensive biological weapons program was made until
Iraqi defectors forced acknowledgment. Iraq then claimed that all BW
agents and materials had been destroyed -- a claim rejected by both
UNSCOM and Western intelligence agencies. As incomplete as they may
be, Iraq declarations indicate a very extensive CBW program. UNSCOM
guidelines require the confidentiality of its reports, and it is only
recently that some details have been released by the U.S. and British
governments. Information released so far indicates that prior to the
Persian Gulf conflict Iraq produced (and claims to have destroyed):


-- 4 tons of VX persistent nerve agent



-- 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin



-- 8,400 liters of anthrax spores



-- unspecified amounts of the nerve agent Sarin and the blister agent
"mustard gas"


Iraq has also acknowledged that prior to the Persian Gulf conflict it
manufactured 100 botulinum bombs, 50 anthrax bombs, and 7 aflatoxin
bombs. In addition, 16 missile warheads were filled with botulinum,
five with anthrax bacillus, and four with aflatoxin.


U.S. and British intelligence agencies believe that Iraq has hidden
stores of CBW agents, production equipment, ballistic missiles, and
missile warheads. UNSCOM has reported no firm evidence that Iraq still
retains weapons or materiel, but the Iraqi government has not provided
adequate evidence to support its claim that all its CBW arsenal has
been destroyed, nor has it accounted for CBW production materials
known to have been in its possession. These factors, coupled with
Iraqi obstruction of UNSCOM inspections, have led to strong
suspicions. U.S. and British intelligence agencies believe that Iraq
still may possess tons of chemical warfare agents and the necessary
materials to produce thousands of liters of biological agents. UNSCOM
and U.S. intelligence differ in their estimates of the number of
actual missiles that may still be in Iraq. Again information is
sketchy. In part, this is because much is classified, but even the
classified information is reportedly incomplete. A recent report
issued by the British government, however, provided some information
(Foreign and Commonwealth Office --
(http://193.114.50.5/texts/1998/feb/04/iraqppr.txt).


-- British intelligence believes that up to ten SCUD missiles capable
of carrying CBW warheads remain hidden.


-- UNSCOM reports that between 40-70 CBW-capable missile warheads are
unaccounted for.


-- Iraq possessed enough growth medium to produce over 16,000 liters
more anthrax spores than has been acknowledged.


-- 4,000 tons of CW precursor chemicals are unaccounted for; enough to
produce several hundred tons of CW agents.


-- 31,000 CW munitions remain unaccounted for.



-- Essential CW production equipment remains unaccounted for.



-- It is believed that Iraq may retain undetermined amounts of Ebola
virus, bubonic and pneumonic plague bacteria, and the toxin ricin.


The current debate over the advisability of airstrikes has highlighted
two significant challenges in the efforts to eliminate Iraq's CBW
arsenal: 1) the great difficulty of locating and destroying CBW
stocks, if they exist, through air power alone, and 2) the relative
ease of reconstituting a CBW production program after such attacks,
particularly if the goal is relatively small amounts suitable for
terror attacks. The estimates have ranged from weeks to months, unless
a close monitoring regime is maintained. Recent press reports indicate
that even under the UNSCOM regime and the U.N. embargo on CBW-related
equipment, Iraq may have been able to acquire equipment that could be
used to produce biological weapons in a clandestine purchase from
Russia.(1) Were such assistance to continue, reconstitution of a
significant CBW capability would be relatively simple. Production of
smaller amounts of CBW agents for terrorist use would be
proportionately easier, and employment need not involve sophisticated
delivery systems.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

[revelarts]

Sooo that has been destroyed right? and Much of that came FROM the U.S. But Jim you keep going back to the 1990's, I go to, and you ignore AGAIN, the fact that Blix says in 2003 that ALL of the stray munitions could taken care of in months without war. And it does not negate the fact that Bush-Chenney Rumsfled and Blair promoted BS about "yellow cake" "mobile bio facilities", "45 minutes to death", "mushroom clouds" "He COULD Kill us ALL one day maybe", and other completely bogus and Hyperbolic crap to scarce the world into thinking Saddam was a mad dog killer that needed to be put down. And all of the munitions you mention are less than what Mad dog Khadfi had, the crazy NKoreans had HAVE! and even Syria had/HAVE!. Pakistan HAS! There was NO reason to call out Saddam as target of war. He was contained and weak and could have been peacefully disarmed in months.

[jimnyc]

Sooo that has been destroyed right? and Much of that came FROM the U.S. But Jim you keep going back to the 1990's, I go to, and you ignore AGAIN, the fact that Blix says in 2003 that ALL of the stray munitions could taken care of in months without war. And it does not negate the fact that Bush-Chenney Rumsfled and Blair promoted BS about "yellow cake" "mobile bio facilities", "45 minutes to death", "mushroom clouds" "He COULD Kill us ALL one day maybe", and other completely bogus and Hyperbolic crap to scarce the world into thinking Saddam was a mad dog killer that needed to be put down. And all of the munitions you mention are less than what Mad dog Khadfi had, the crazy NKoreans had HAVE! and even Syria had/HAVE!. Pakistan HAS! There was NO reason to call out Saddam as target of war. He was contained and weak and could have been peacefully disarmed in months.

No, a fair amount of it that was accounted for in the mid to late 90's was never seen again after Iraq tossed out inspectors that year. And when you store chemicals in a certain way, prior to weaponization, the shelf life is much longer and they can weaponize down the road.

Iraq toyed with inspectors for 12 years prior, and you think it's guaranteed that they would have finished within a few months? Many thought similarly the last dozen times they started going into Iraq, only to be lead on hunts and have things hidden and then to have inspectors tossed out of the country. And tell me, if Blix claims he could have taken care of it all in a few months - what did he have to say about the unaccounted for chemicals? Did he ever even state a specific plan for finding the weaponry from the late 90's? No, he didn't, and those chemicals remain missing to this very day. So what was the plan to find the missing chemicals that Iraq refused to even respond to? How can one say it would only take months when they were clueless to their location and had leaders who wouldn't cooperate as to their whereabouts? YOU say it's months too - so again, WHERE were they going to look for the missing chemicals? I didn't think so.

[jimnyc]

Blix's own words on 2/14/2003, just a short time prior to invasion, as part of his report. Hell, pretty much the entire report is about unaccounted for chemicals. These items were accounted for in 1998. And then Iraqi documentation submitted previously only shows some of it being accounted for or destroyed. 1,000 tons still unaccounted for. But I suppose we should look at enough chemicals to kill a country and forget about it? If, and I know it's a big if, but imagine they weaponize the anthrax and put it in a bunch of warheads. Any idea how many people that could potentially kill? Easily half the country if not more.


The outstanding questions remained, however – well known to Iraq -- concerning anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles. Iraqi documents, for example, left some 1,000 tons of chemical agents unaccounted for and the issue must be resolved either by presenting such items for elimination, or by presenting convincing evidence that they had been eliminated. As for Al-Samoud 2 and the
Al Fatah missiles, they could very well represent a prima facie case of proscribed missile systems, as they had been tested to ranges exceeding the 150-kilometre limit set by the Security Council.

So within 5 weeks Iraq was 100% fully complying? They accounted for these chemicals? Did they present ANYTHING to "present evidence" even in the slightest bit in the next 5 weeks? What specifically about this unaccounted for stuff changed over the next 5 weeks that made Blix so confident he would find everything within a few months?

Simply posting the reports where he reported to the UN that he accounted for this stuff will suffice.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

[revelarts]

No, a fair amount of it that was accounted for in the mid to late 90's was never seen again after Iraq tossed out inspectors that year. And when you store chemicals in a certain way, prior to weaponization, the shelf life is much longer and they can weaponize down the road.

Iraq toyed with inspectors for 12 years prior, and you think it's guaranteed that they would have finished within a few months? Many thought similarly the last dozen times they started going into Iraq, only to be lead on hunts and have things hidden and then to have inspectors tossed out of the country. And tell me, if Blix claims he could have taken care of it all in a few months - what did he have to say about the unaccounted for chemicals? Did he ever even state a specific plan for finding the weaponry from the late 90's? No, he didn't, and those chemicals remain missing to this very day. So what was the plan to find the missing chemicals that Iraq refused to even respond to? How can one say it would only take months when they were clueless to their location and had leaders who wouldn't cooperate as to their whereabouts? YOU say it's months too - so again, WHERE were they going to look for the missing chemicals? I didn't think so.


Blix's own words on 2/14/2003, just a short time prior to invasion, as part of his report. Hell, pretty much the entire report is about unaccounted for chemicals. These items were accounted for in 1998. And then Iraqi documentation submitted previously only shows some of it being accounted for or destroyed. 1,000 tons still unaccounted for. But I suppose we should look at enough chemicals to kill a country and forget about it? If, and I know it's a big if, but imagine they weaponize the anthrax and put it in a bunch of warheads. Any idea how many people that could potentially kill? Easily half the country if not more.



So within 5 weeks Iraq was 100% fully complying? They accounted for these chemicals? Did they present ANYTHING to "present evidence" even in the slightest bit in the next 5 weeks? What specifically about this unaccounted for stuff changed over the next 5 weeks that made Blix so confident he would find everything within a few months?

Simply posting the reports where he reported to the UN that he accounted for this stuff will suffice.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

Jimyou want to site Blix and the UN in the 90's and assume every count is exact and 1000% reliable. but When Blix says he can finish up and have accounting of Everything in concern in a matter months you want ME to give an account of his thought and actions. why not just take that INFO as gospel 10000% knowledge? Look, As he mentioned they'd been running though Iraq for weeks and months with inspectors with radar etc and as you post tons of canisters and missiles HAD already been destroyed. -into the late 90s- and not only that as Blix spoke in Feb and March at the U.N., U.N inspectors were at that moment, and the days following, discovering and dismantling and searching for munitions he had in the list. All that was in the works, UNTIL, BUSH told the inspectors GET OUTTA the WAY we're Attacking! YEEH HA!! So all of that work STOPPED. and the bombing began and with all that STILL BUSH did not find what Blix had listed and you are so exercised about. you and Drummond claim it had to accounted for and the TOOL to do it was WAR, but the Attack was a WASTE of U.S. And IRAQI lives and billions of dollars for an OVERBLOWN danger that you are still trying to promote as a horrible fear. But Blix and the U.N was in the processes of Doing the ONE job you claim was OF PARAMONT concern FINDING and DESTROYING the few weapons left in Iraq. the War did nothing to help that. And frankly with all of the other enemies that flowed into the country from various hostile countries the chances for it to flow into terrorist hands -IF STIL THERE- was made more likely. Or could it be possible that the US BOMBED the munitions at some point and didn't know it? Or killed anyone who had any real knowledge of the whereabouts? So the attack was possibly even counter productive in the discovery of the -so called- 1000's of WMD's.

[jimnyc]

Jimyou want to site Blix and the UN in the 90's and assume every count is exact and 1000% reliable. but When Blix says he can finish up and have accounting of Everything in concern in a matter months you want ME to give an account of his thought and actions. why not just take that INFO as gospel 10000% knowledge? Look, As he mentioned they'd been running though Iraq for weeks and months with inspectors with radar etc and as you post tons of canisters and missiles HAD already been destroyed. -into the late 90s- and not only that as Blix spoke in Feb and March at the U.N., U.N inspectors were at that moment, and the days following, discovering and dismantling and searching for munitions he had in the list. All that was in the works, UNTIL, BUSH told the inspectors GET OUTTA the WAY we're Attacking! YEEH HA!! So all of that work STOPPED. and the bombing began and with all that STILL BUSH did not find what Blix had listed and you are so exercised about. you and Drummond claim it had to accounted for and the TOOL to do it was WAR, but the Attack was a WASTE of U.S. And IRAQI lives and billions of dollars for an OVERBLOWN danger that you are still trying to promote as a horrible fear. But Blix and the U.N was in the processes of Doing the ONE job you claim was OF PARAMONT concern FINDING and DESTROYING the few weapons left in Iraq. the War did nothing to help that. And frankly with all of the other enemies that flowed into the country from various hostile countries the chances for it to flow into terrorist hands -IF STIL THERE- was made more likely. Or could it be possible that the US BOMBED the munitions at some point and didn't know it? Or killed anyone who had any real knowledge of the whereabouts? So the attack was possibly even counter productive in the discovery of the -so called- 1000's of WMD's.

5 weeks prior to the US going into Iraq, Blix confirmed that tons of chemical weapons had been unaccounted for. All I'm asking is if between that press release, and 5 weeks later when the US went into Iraq - was there any changes in what was unaccounted for? They had a LONG time to account for them, both Blix's group and Saddam, from 2002 forward. How many times did Iraq release information pertaining to those unaccounted for chemical weapons? How much of them did Blix find? And it WAS reliable as the majority of it WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998. You say he could have finished an accounting within a few months and you can't even understand that they CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT, so if you can't account for it, HOW on earth can someone state how long it will take, unless they CAN account for them?

They had time. Iraq refused. They came back, Iraq played games. They came back, Iraq moved things. They were tossed out. They accounted for things. They are tossed again. They ignore resolutions, even when the IAEA makes specific requests of them. In more than a year of the inspectors returning they didn't account for any of the missing items. YET, you want to bitch about them being pushed aside, and expect anyone to believe they would suddenly have found them? Laughable.

But simple, prove me wrong. In Blix's own words they were not cooperating. They had TONS and massive amounts of chemical WMD's missing.

So simple:

1- When did Blix account for these weapons?
2- Where did he say they would be found?
3- Did he EVER say they could find TONS of missing weapons (cause he didn't on 2/14/03)?
4- Did they make ANY headway at all on the missing weapons, between the UN update in February, and then the deadline that was set for Iraq? I mean, do you have a single item from that list to produce that was found? I say none, but go ahead and prove me wrong.

The very man you were relying on to say "They would have found them" or that the world would had been all perfect had they simply waited a few more months - is the very man who stated that Iraq was in non-compliance and in material breach, and reported that enough chemicals to kill an army were still unaccounted for.

But since that last sentence doesn't fit an argument, let's just dismiss it. Sorry, I won't dismiss FACTS. They WERE accounted for. Then they weren't. That was Iraq's job to account for them. They had MORE than ample time to do so, and outright refused.

But you're welcome to stand in for Blix and post here for all of us what changed in the "unaccounted" for department between 2/14 - 3/20 of that year, and why we would have been assured he would find something that he just reported he couldn't account for.

[jimnyc]

U.N inspectors were at that moment, and the days following, discovering and dismantling and searching for munitions he had in the list.

He gave a list of unaccounted for items. Can you please post where these unaccounted for items where first found, and then dismantled/destroyed in that 5 weeks? They were in material breach. If what you are saying is true, that they accounted for what he had presented to the UN, there SURELY would have been news covering it.

Searching for stuff? Perhaps. But they didn't find, dismantle or destroy ANY of the tons of chemicals, as they NEVER found them, so lets not make it sound as if they did in the days following. Unless of course you would like to backup the sentence above with pure facts and such, showing that the stuff he had in the list was suddenly found prior to invasion.

[aboutime]

Jim. Since Rev. doesn't want to provide documented, verifiable, accurate proof to backup his accusations about Bush.

Let's see what kind of reaction he might pretend to ignore with this link: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/syria-hiding-saddams-wmds-back-in-iraq/

[Drummond]

Jim has already done a great job in tackling your points, Revelarts - so much so that I have a lot less I need say than I thought I'd have at this point.


I find it amazing that you still believe Bush is a Hero, and as I've said before.

Amazing ! BUSH DEFENDED YOUR COUNTRY, AND THE WESTERN WORLD, IN THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY POSSIBLE.


I voted for Bush but looked at the facts at the run up to war rather than believe the right wing propaganda and flag waving and fear mongering over a dictator that only months earlier C. Rice and Colan Pwell said was "contained" and "unable to project force against his neighbors" . But magically somehow, after 911, he's so dangerous that he can't be allowed to live.

Simple answer: you forget that Saddam had links with terrorist groups, whether directly so (e.g with Hamas) or more indirectly (giving Al Qaeda's Zarqawi shelter, for example).


Sorry I don't fear up politically.

Fair enough. If you DID, you might be more alert to the realities involved ....


if he was unable to project force agaist his neighbor 6 mths earlier he doesn't become a major threat to the U.S. that must be invaded.

And if he had WMD's stockpiled, who's to say that HIS REGIME would deploy them ? What if he did deals with terrorists, and achieved his ambitions that way ?


Great concencus means nothing, the insiders in the intel world KNEW the facts told Bush but he didn't want to hear it. And afterwards Bush JOKED that he didn't find what they claimed, remember the "mobile bio facilities" NUKE program" "Yellow Cake" etc. they were lies.

A major assertion, which I say you can't back up. You say that lies were told ? PROVE THE INTENTION TO LIE !!


Blix told Bush and the world weeks before the invasion that they did indeed have a list of item to look for AND a list FROM BUSH and BLAIR and they DID have access to where they want and WHERE BUSH AND BLAIR pointed to go and could within the space of month confirm or deny all of the (LYING) allegations of the U.S. and the UK

Let's say you're right, and Blix and his teams could go wherever they chose, when they chose (.. I don't believe it, but I'll suspend my disbelief for the sake of this argument). OK ... here's the difficulty:

HOW ON EARTH COULD BLIX'S PEOPLE VERIFY EXACT QUANTITIES OF WMD'S DESTROYED, ESPECIALLY AS SADDAM DIDN'T PROVIDE TALLIES OF WHAT HAD BEEN RETAINED !!


Yes pitiful few canisters, NOT WORTH the PRICE in BLOOD SPLIT. especially when they could have been retrieve by UN inspectors.

Two obvious points. One, FIVE HUNDRED SUCH CANISTERS IS NOT 'PITIFUL FEW CANISTERS'. Try deploying just a few on the London Underground, or the Newcastle Metro system, or any other metro system, anywhere ! Death and destruction would be the outcome, with massive disruptions to follow.

Two ... you assume an awful lot in saying that UN inspectors could've retrieved them, or even learned of them in the first place. I see no reason whatever to suppose you're right.

Care to prove otherwise ? Give it your best shot ...


You seem to want to solve every POTENTIAL problem with a gun or someones else guns.

Au contraire, Revelarts. What I want is for all terrorists, everywhere, to unilaterally disarm, then present themselves for arrest to whatever authorities are inclined to do so.

.. but, hey, it's not going to happen. Terrorists have this disconcerting tendency to NOT surrender because I'd prefer it ! Instead, they, well ... TERRORISE. They kill, mutilate, do all those charmingly subhuman things that their excuses for minds tell them it's fun to do.

What's a patriotic President to do in such circumstances ?

Well, here's a novel solution. Why not try and DEFEAT them ? Not with feather dusters, nor with interminable political speeches. No, what you do is to send troops in, or planes, drones, missiles, whatever does the trick ... and fire things that go 'bang' at them.

Now, I suggest to you that these things going 'bang' should be a little more effective than fireworks. Would even YOU agree, Revelarts ??

Kindly consult Leftie Central ('Thrush Central' from the Man from Uncle, only on a bad day ....) if you're stuck for an answer ....


No one claimed Saddam was a good guy.
Considering how many Lefties went on marches, just before the 2003 invasion, hoping to protect Saddam and his regime .. I'm delighted to hear it !! ...


BUT the U.S. has NO right to attack another country because it's made plans to attack us
Funnily enough, to my way of thinking, I'd have to think that it would be an EXCELLENT time for it ! Or would you rather hang around doing nothing until the ememy attacked YOU, first ??


Especially when it can't even attack it's neighbors with any effectiveness any longer (Kuwait). HOW is he a real threat?

Through third parties, such as terrorist chums, for example ?

You see, it comes back to the issue of whether Saddam did, or did not, have WMD's. For all of your unsubstantiated, yet typically Leftie, protestations about how Bush 'lied' (!!), still, nobody KNEW what Saddam retained. THAT WAS ALWAYS THE WHOLE POINT !!


Drummond, break with your blind warmongering neo con fear factory imperialist denials of reality

... WOW ! What Leftie scriptwriter invented that one ??


and think how much more the U.S. could have done if it had focused on REAL terrorist rather than sending men to die on a false errand over non existent WMD's.

1. Nobody had any certain knowledge of the quantities of WMD's held by Saddam's regime. THIS HAD TO BE SETTLED.

2. In excess of 500 actually WERE found.

3. Saddam HAD TERRORIST LINKS. It would've been the height of stupidity to believe that nothing dire could've come of that.

4. Doing nothing, instead, would've sent the signal which said that no restrictive UN Resolution need ever be heeded. Cue a whole bunch of tinpot dictators, each believing that they can't be stopped from building up their own WMD arsenals !!!!


so are your leading me to the loving path with this post here?

I'll make you love the idea of taking on belligerents if it kills me !!!


Please prove anything I've said is a lie.

... A JOKE ?? I'VE ALREADY PROVED THAT AROUND 500 WMD'S WERE DISCOVERED, NOT THE 'PITIFUL FEW' THAT YOU ALLEGE !!!!


so far you haven't addressed any of the points I've presented, you've just called me names.

You mean, like 'neocon warmonger' .. ? That's the stuff that YOU try out on people like ME.

You assert that Bush was a warmonger, rushing to war, wanting only war. Yes ?

YOU FORGET THE ULTIMATUM HE GAVE THE TALIBAN BEFORE THE AFGHANISTAN WAR .. ONE WHICH, IF HEEDED, COULD'VE STOPPED MUCH BLOODSHED. THE ONE WHERE THE HANDOVER BY THE TABIBAN OF BIN LADEN WAS DEMANDED.

OR ... HOW ABOUT THIS ... ALSO CONVENIENTLY FORGOTTEN .. ??

http://www.wnd.com/2003/03/17771/


President Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons an ultimatum last night, warning in a national address that they must leave the country within 48 hours or face “military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing.”

“Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it,” the president said from the White House.

Also last night, the Department of Homeland Security raised the terror threat assessment to high, or “orange,” calling for an increase in security measures nationwide.

With war apparently just days away, the president urged all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, to leave Iraq immediately.

Noting that the world had engaged in more than 12 years of diplomacy, Bush said “our good faith has not been returned” and “the Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage.”

“Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraq regime have failed again and again, because we are not dealing with peaceful men,” Bush said.

Iraqi reaction --

Iraqi leaders defiantly rejected Bush’s ultimatum today.

“Iraq doesn’t choose its path through foreigners and doesn’t choose its leaders by decree from Washington, London or Tel Aviv,” said a statement released by members of the Revolution Command Council and the heads of the ruling Baath party.

“The pathetic Bush was hoping … to achieve his evil targets without a fight through that declaration (the ultimatum) which reflects a state of isolation and defeat from which he and his pathetic allies are suffering from,” the statement continued.

Saddam’s son Odai called Bush “unstable” and challenged him to “give up power in America with his family.”

Odai Hussein also warned a U.S.-led attack will force Iraq to broaden the war against the United States.

... But you'd forgotten all of that, Revelarts - yes ?

Oh, and note that last part .. about Iraq broadening 'the war against the United States'. Now ... does that sound to you like a power, or individual, thinking of anything other than extreme belligerence ? Is this someone you should be committed to NOT attack ... as marching Lefties, in the weeks before the invasion, were hell bent upon arranging ??

[revelarts]

5 weeks prior to the US going into Iraq, Blix confirmed that tons of chemical weapons had been unaccounted for. All I'm asking is if between that press release, and 5 weeks later when the US went into Iraq - was there any changes in what was unaccounted for? They had a LONG time to account for them, both Blix's group and Saddam, from 2002 forward. How many times did Iraq release information pertaining to those unaccounted for chemical weapons? How much of them did Blix find? And it WAS reliable as the majority of it WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998. You say he could have finished an accounting within a few months and you can't even understand that they CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT, so if you can't account for it, HOW on earth can someone state how long it will take, unless they CAN account for them?

They had time. Iraq refused. They came back, Iraq played games. They came back, Iraq moved things. They were tossed out. They accounted for things. They are tossed again. They ignore resolutions, even when the IAEA makes specific requests of them. In more than a year of the inspectors returning they didn't account for any of the missing items. YET, you want to bitch about them being pushed aside, and expect anyone to believe they would suddenly have found them? Laughable.

But simple, prove me wrong. In Blix's own words they were not cooperating. They had TONS and massive amounts of chemical WMD's missing.

So simple:

1- When did Blix account for these weapons?
2- Where did he say they would be found?
3- Did he EVER say they could find TONS of missing weapons (cause he didn't on 2/14/03)?
4- Did they make ANY headway at all on the missing weapons, between the UN update in February, and then the deadline that was set for Iraq? I mean, do you have a single item from that list to produce that was found? I say none, but go ahead and prove me wrong.
...

But since that last sentence doesn't fit an argument, let's just dismiss it. Sorry, I won't dismiss FACTS. They WERE accounted for. Then they weren't. That was Iraq's job to account for them. They had MORE than ample time to do so, and outright refused.

But you're welcome to stand in for Blix and post here for all of us what changed in the "unaccounted" for department between 2/14 - 3/20 of that year, and why we would have been assured he would find something that he just reported he couldn't account for.

Did you read all of the March letter Jim? Or just the one line i pulled and have had to repeat 9 times to get anyone to acknowledge.

And BTW "In martial Breach of U,N resolutions." is irrelevant. Not a legal ground for invasion.


Blix in March

"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. "

"As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament – indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed....

To date, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.

Two ‘reconstituted’ casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.

The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.

More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq had already declared, some will require further study and discussion.

...here is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results....

...Resolution 1284 (1999) instructs UNMOVIC to “address unresolved disarmament issues” and to identify “key remaining disarmament tasks” and the latter are to be submitted for approval by the Council in the context of a work programme. UNMOVIC will be ready to submit a draft work programme this month as required.....

...I should note that the working document contains much information and discussion about the issues which existed at the end of 1998 – including information which has come to light after 1998. It contains much less information and discussion about the period after 1998, primarily because of paucity of information. Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programmes have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programmes and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document contains some suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled. ....

....Let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work programme, which resolution 1284 (1999) requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks; it will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the Council has asked us to implement; it will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the programme, e.g. for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes."
so yes they were making headway, and making plans to finish the job.


But Bush didn't care about the U.N. really finding WMD's.
So he charged in killed and maimed 100,000s of Iraqis, 10000s of U.S. troops. Wasted billions of dollars. and still did not find anything but a few 100 old canisters of old chem munitions that were not much more dangerous than cans of drano.

crying that the muntions were "on the list" and MIGHT have been stored well. and MIGHT have gone to Syria. is NO evidence of either. Jim show me Proof of all the munitions "on the list" weren't miscounted or destroyed. You cannot say for sure that the Iraqis didn't destroy them, as many have claimed. they MIGHT have.
But there's NO evidence that they exist today or still existed in 2003.

[revelarts]

Here's the thing that i'd like some of you to answer for me.
Jim you an I have fairly young children.
I think if i were living in the 40's after Pearl Harbour and my kid were of military age I'd agree that it be right for her to serve and fight the national threats of Japan, Italy and Germany. I think most here would agree.

But I tell you plainly if my daughter we in the military after 9-11 and they wanted to send her to Iraq. I'd tell her to get on a plane to Canada.

the threat of Saddam Hussin to the U.S. is a JOKE.
As the Downing report mentioned Libya, North Korea, Syria, had more WMDs than Saddam. Not to mention the other countries that already have full on nukes that are kinda shaky and Mulsim run as Pakistan was/is.

I would not want my kid dying trying to collect a few 1000 old caniters of Anthrax from a M.E. Dictator who couldn't even hold a small neighboring country for a week after we got there.

I ask you honestly Jim, is taking the very last can of munitions "on the list" away from Saddam Hussin in 2003 worth the life of your son?

I say H3LL no.

You and others here may feel differently, but I'd drive my daughter to Canada or Mexico and lie like a professional to get her out of going anywhere near Iraq if i could.

[jimnyc]

Here's the thing that i'd like some of you to answer for me.

Like you told me recently - how about you answer my questions first? I know all the answers already, but I'd still like to see your answers before I go forward.
----
5 weeks prior to the US going into Iraq, Blix confirmed that tons of chemical weapons had been unaccounted for. All I'm asking is if between that press release, and 5 weeks later when the US went into Iraq - was there any changes in what was unaccounted for? They had a LONG time to account for them, both Blix's group and Saddam, from 2002 forward. How many times did Iraq release information pertaining to those unaccounted for chemical weapons? How much of them did Blix find? And it WAS reliable as the majority of it WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998. You say he could have finished an accounting within a few months and you can't even understand that they CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT, so if you can't account for it, HOW on earth can someone state how long it will take, unless they CAN account for them?

They had time. Iraq refused. They came back, Iraq played games. They came back, Iraq moved things. They were tossed out. They accounted for things. They are tossed again. They ignore resolutions, even when the IAEA makes specific requests of them. In more than a year of the inspectors returning they didn't account for any of the missing items. YET, you want to bitch about them being pushed aside, and expect anyone to believe they would suddenly have found them? Laughable.

But simple, prove me wrong. In Blix's own words they were not cooperating. They had TONS and massive amounts of chemical WMD's missing.

So simple:

1- When did Blix account for these weapons?
2- Where did he say they would be found?
3- Did he EVER say they could find TONS of missing weapons (cause he didn't on 2/14/03)?
4- Did they make ANY headway at all on the missing weapons, between the UN update in February, and then the deadline that was set for Iraq? I mean, do you have a single item from that list to produce that was found? I say none, but go ahead and prove me wrong.

The very man you were relying on to say "They would have found them" or that the world would had been all perfect had they simply waited a few more months - is the very man who stated that Iraq was in non-compliance and in material breach, and reported that enough chemicals to kill an army were still unaccounted for.

But since that last sentence doesn't fit an argument, let's just dismiss it. Sorry, I won't dismiss FACTS. They WERE accounted for. Then they weren't. That was Iraq's job to account for them. They had MORE than ample time to do so, and outright refused.

But you're welcome to stand in for Blix and post here for all of us what changed in the "unaccounted" for department between 2/14 - 3/20 of that year, and why we would have been assured he would find something that he just reported he couldn't account for.
-----------------
He gave a list of unaccounted for items. Can you please post where these unaccounted for items where first found, and then dismantled/destroyed in that 5 weeks? They were in material breach. If what you are saying is true, that they accounted for what he had presented to the UN, there SURELY would have been news covering it.

Searching for stuff? Perhaps. But they didn't find, dismantle or destroy ANY of the tons of chemicals, as they NEVER found them, so lets not make it sound as if they did in the days following. Unless of course you would like to backup the sentence above with pure facts and such, showing that the stuff he had in the list was suddenly found prior to invasion.

[jimnyc]

Here's the thing that i'd like some of you to answer for me.
Jim you an I have fairly young children.
I think if i were living in the 40's after Pearl Harbour and my kid were of military age I'd agree that it be right for her to serve and fight the national threats of Japan, Italy and Germany. I think most here would agree.

But I tell you plainly if my daughter we in the military after 9-11 and they wanted to send her to Iraq. I'd tell her to get on a plane to Canada.

the threat of Saddam Hussin to the U.S. is a JOKE.
As the Downing report mentioned Libya, North Korea, Syria, had more WMDs than Saddam. Not to mention the other countries that already have full on nukes that are kinda shaky and Mulsim run as Pakistan was/is.

I would not want my kid dying trying to collect a few 1000 old caniters of Anthrax from a M.E. Dictator who couldn't even hold a small neighboring country for a week after we got there.

I ask you honestly Jim, is taking the very last can of munitions "on the list" away from Saddam Hussin in 2003 worth the life of your son?

I say H3LL no.

You and others here may feel differently, but I'd drive my daughter to Canada or Mexico and lie like a professional to get her out of going anywhere near Iraq if i could.

If my son joined, or was drafted, he would be serving, not fleeing the country. I personally would have had ZERO problem going into Iraq and would have been the proudest Dad in the world if my son went into Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else we would take the fight to murderous dictators or terrorists.

And a few thousand old canisters? You've just had lists of things literally accounted for over there - much of it not weaponized and therefore not really "old". And yet you still dismiss it like they were old batteries. I suppose I would think things were a joke too if I simply shrugged my soldiers at such things and acted like they didn't exist.

But no, my son wouldn't be taught to be a coward and run to another country. I've answered your question now before you even bothered to answer mine. So now you can go ahead and answer them and make your whole argument go down the toilet - and admit to everyone here reading that they still had all those tons and tons of chemicals and chemical weapons unaccounted for as of 5 weeks before the invasion. It was literally the title and subject of why Blix was communicating to the UN. NOTHING on that list was found prior to invasion. NOTHING was located on that list. NOTHING on that list was dismantled or destroyed and NOTHING on that list was identified and accounted for by Iraq. In other words, the man you used to make your case, also proved there were tons and tons of WMD's unaccounted for right up to the leadup to the war - much of these weapons were previously accounted for by UNSCOM inspectors and tagged.

[jimnyc]

D
And BTW "In martial Breach of U,N resolutions." is irrelevant. Not a legal ground for invasion.

Did you mean "material" breach? They were in material breach of prior resolutions, and lastly 1441. This was continued til the day of the invasion. This goes further to prove their lack of cooperation and the fact that WMD's were still unaccounted for.

[revelarts]

1- When did Blix account for these weapons?
2- Where did he say they would be found?
3- Did he EVER say they could find TONS of missing weapons (cause he didn't on 2/14/03)?
4- Did they make ANY headway at all on the missing weapons, between the UN update in February, and then the deadline that was set for Iraq? I mean, do you have a single item from that list to produce that was found?
see post #54
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45203-Still-love-and-miss-this-guy&p=686690#post686690

[jimnyc]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg

Back to the original topic since this went way off course. :)

Whether you agree with the war or not - that doesn't change who George W. Bush was. He was a compassionate president and one who stood by his beliefs, both political and religious. I think he is truly hugging these guys with compassion, and love, and not for a photo op. I saw him with the workers in NYC after 9/11 and he was the same. And when he met with those families, and he cried. And then now when you have to hunt for the coverage, and find out the things he still does for soldiers today, behind the scenes, you see that he is truly one who respects our troops and has a lot of love for them.

[jimnyc]

see post #54
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?45203-Still-love-and-miss-this-guy&p=686690#post686690

Don't see how that answers them at all. Nowhere does he state weapons were found that were the same listed a few weeks back as unaccounted for. The major part bolded deals with weapons destroyed in 1991 - while the chemicals I speak of were accounted for in 1998. The 4 questions you just quoted and pointed to that link - NOT ONE of those questions is answered in that post. Not a single thing he reported about on 2/14 was accounted for by the time the invasion took place.

[jimnyc]

^^ I'll also answer one of my other questions by myself - while he claims that the job could be finished within a few months - not only doesn't claim how he'll do that with the unaccounted for weapons, but never mentions them again.

[revelarts]

^^ I'll also answer one of my other questions by myself - while he claims that the job could be finished within a few months - not only doesn't claim how he'll do that with the unaccounted for weapons, but never mentions them again.
You trusted Bush that he'd find them and he couldn't with an army.
But Why not give Blix the same benny of the doubt? Didn't you read that he had plans laid out to do it.
But Bush didn't allow blix to follow through though did he Jim? Ask Bush why he didn't give Blix a chance to finish up.
pass or fail. a few months would have saved a lot of lives and billions wouldn't Jim?


BTW
Did I mention that Bush lied about the magnitude threat,
And that aggressive war is illegal.





If my son joined, or was drafted, he would be serving, not fleeing the country. I personally would have had ZERO problem going into Iraq and would have been the proudest Dad in the world if my son went into Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else we would take the fight to murderous dictators or terrorists.

And a few thousand old canisters? You've just had lists of things literally accounted for over there - much of it not weaponized and therefore not really "old". And yet you still dismiss it like they were old batteries. I suppose I would think things were a joke too if I simply shrugged my soldiers at such things and acted like they didn't exist.

But no, my son wouldn't be taught to be a coward and run to another country. I've answered your question now before you even bothered to answer mine....

Well, that's your choice Jim.
we disagree.

imo that type of "my country right or wrong" thinking. is the kind of thing that will lead police and military to disarm Americans. for "safety". That lead German soldiers to invade Poland and all the rest. While there's something to be said for loyalty and obeying "the law", there's more to be said for doing right for the right reasons. And looking to the Highest moral and legal laws. the Nuremberg trials made invasion a war crime. Iraq was a war of aggression based on lies. A weak and broken Saddam had a few old canisters , compared to North Korea which did in fact create Nukes in defiance of U.N. treaties and agreements and did not allow inspectors in. And they have Chemical weapons and are defiance of it's agreements there. but we did/do not say it's necessary to go to war with them. even though , we are technical only in a cease fire with them since the 1950's.
AND they are known and documented state sponsors of terror that can be DIRECTLY linked to the them.
Yet somehow we manage to live with this, and an invasion would be considered an Aggressive attack on our part.

Honorable men obeying a foolish leader into a stupid contrived war and death, for phantom threats. Is not something that I'll ever promote. It's a great evil in my mind. wrapping it in the flag, patriotism, loyalty doesn't impress me. it's wrong and a waste.


but folks as i say we disagree.
peace and truth to you all.

[jimnyc]

Well, that's your choice Jim.
we disagree.

imo that type of "my country right or wrong" thinking. is the kind of thing that will lead police and military to disarm Americans. for "safety". That lead German soldiers to invade Poland and all the rest. While there's something to be said for loyalty and obeying "the law", there's more to be said for doing right for the right reasons. And looking to the Highest moral and legal laws. the Nuremberg trials made invasion a war crime. Iraq was a war of aggression based on lies. A weak and broken Saddam had a few old canisters , compared to North Korea which did in fact create Nukes in defiance of U.N. treaties and agreements and did not allow inspectors in. And they have Chemical weapons and are defiance of it's agreements there. but we did/do not say it's necessary to go to war with them. even though , we are technical only in a cease fire with them since the 1950's.
AND they are known and documented state sponsors of terror that can be DIRECTLY linked to the them.
Yet somehow we manage to live with this, and an invasion would be considered an Aggressive attack on our part.

Honorable men obeying a foolish leader into a stupid contrived war and death, for phantom threats. Is not something that I'll ever promote. It's a great evil in my mind. wrapping it in the flag, patriotism, loyalty doesn't impress me. it's wrong and a waste.


but folks as i say we disagree.
peace and truth to you all.

So you're saying the couple hundred thousand of troops involved in going in and out of Iraq - all should have fleed from going, or they should have refused to go somehow?

Anyway, I'll still wait for the citations/facts/proof of the questions I asked for you, even though I answered them myself. :)

[jimnyc]

imo that type of "my country right or wrong" thinking.

Btw, I NEVER stated anything remotely like this. It's YOU that simply just made that up. Par for the course though. :)

[jimnyc]

And another of GWB with one of our heroes. And he still does this kind of stuff to this very day, as well as gets to the airport to welcome back troops when he can.

http://i.imgur.com/huZIlTk.jpg

[jimnyc]

And not just soldiers he has compassion for.

http://i.imgur.com/eEfPXTl.jpg

[jimnyc]

In the rubble with workers. I easily saw him as a regular American and down to earth guy. Yep, sure do miss him!! With all that he did wrong, he was still 50x better than the community organizer who is now making us a laughing stock around the world.

http://i.imgur.com/wHx7OcV.jpg

[revelarts]

People look great in the right context

http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/leader-pics_0002.jpg

[jimnyc]

So here we are again, with another dolt claiming that Bush is like Hitler and others. Amazing how people resort to this kind of stuff when their arguments are literally shoved down their throats and they repeatedly refuse to answer the simplest of questions. I know looking incorrect and having facts put in your face hurts, but claiming GWB is a Hitler equivalent only serves to make you look even more foolish. Being shown to be wrong makes people do some silly shit sometimes! :laugh2:

[revelarts]

So here we are again, with another dolt claiming that Bush is like Hitler and others. Amazing how people resort to this kind of stuff when their arguments are literally shoved down their throats and they repeatedly refuse to answer the simplest of questions. I know looking incorrect and having facts put in your face hurts, but claiming GWB is a Hitler equivalent only serves to make you look even more foolish. Being shown to be wrong makes people do some silly shit sometimes! :laugh2:

I'm comparing Pictures of people looking friendly with the idea that they are "good Leaders" who did the right things.

that's all.
and i did answer your questions, look back. you just don't like my answers.

http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/leader-pics_0000.jpg


Nice people right? should we miss them or judge them on their actions as leaders, not there "sit down and have beer with" "regular folks" factor?

[jimnyc]

and i did answer you questions look back. you just don't like my answers.

Ummm, no. How about answering them line by line then, instead of a bunch of gobbly gook half paragraphs that don't answer the actual questions. And be SPECIFIC in answering. Here, try again then. Should be easy for you to give SPECIFICS as Blix was in his 2/14 address. Feel free to answer them individually so that we can see the answers, and not have to dig through a convoluted paragraph of gibberish in the hopes of finding them. Not generalizations either, give clear answers and links. Don't post "Blix and his team got rid of weapons" and expect us to believe they were one and the same from the unaccounted for list. He was VERY CLEAR about specifics as to what was unaccounted for - and surely if there were changes to that list he would have been JUST as clear.

1- When did Blix account for these weapons?
2- Where did he say they would be found?
3- Did he EVER say they could find TONS of missing weapons (cause he didn't on 2/14/03)?
4- Did they make ANY headway at all on the missing weapons, between the UN update in February, and then the deadline that was set for Iraq? I mean, do you have a single item from that list to produce that was found?

So within 5 weeks Iraq was 100% fully complying? They accounted for these chemicals? Did they present ANYTHING to "present evidence" even in the slightest bit in the next 5 weeks? What specifically about this unaccounted for stuff changed over the next 5 weeks that made Blix so confident he would find everything within a few months?

Blix confirmed that tons of chemical weapons had been unaccounted for. All I'm asking is if between that press release, and 5 weeks later when the US went into Iraq - was there any changes in what was unaccounted for? They had a LONG time to account for them, both Blix's group and Saddam, from 2002 forward. How many times did Iraq release information pertaining to those unaccounted for chemical weapons? How much of them did Blix find? And it WAS reliable as the majority of it WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 1998. You say he could have finished an accounting within a few months and you can't even understand that they CAN'T ACCOUNT FOR IT, so if you can't account for it, HOW on earth can someone state how long it will take, unless they CAN account for them?

[Abbey Marie]

Back to the original topic since this went way off course. :)

Whether you agree with the war or not - that doesn't change who George W. Bush was. He was a compassionate president and one who stood by his beliefs, both political and religious. I think he is truly hugging these guys with compassion, and love, and not for a photo op. I saw him with the workers in NYC after 9/11 and he was the same. And when he met with those families, and he cried. And then now when you have to hunt for the coverage, and find out the things he still does for soldiers today, behind the scenes, you see that he is truly one who respects our troops and has a lot of love for them.

Thank you for seeing it, and saying it.

[namvet]

http://mynetbox.info//images/xtra/leader-pics_0001.jpg
So we should forget about everything else that Obama has done now? right?

that's a great photo op but the military hates his fuckin' guts


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw

[namvet]

Obastard would not NOT waste the time on them


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOC_JjNFkVw

[jimnyc]

that's a great photo op but the military hates his fuckin' guts

It's definitely one way to gauge a boss, but what his employees think of him. GWB and his undying support and love for the soldiers has found his way into so many hearts. Personally, he went out of his way to support as many soldiers in as many ways as he could. I don't see that with Obama. Sure, he's done some honorable things by them, I won't deny that, but on a different level, IMO. But I'll wait till he retires and see how much he involves himself with the wounded warrior project and other causes and how often he meets with soldiers that are coming home from duty and such. His 'in office' treatment of our soldiers is less than anything to brag about, so I wouldn't bank on him going for the long haul after he's out of office.

[jimnyc]

Obastard would not NOT waste the time on them

Apparently he still does this when he can, and did a whole shitload of it that was off the record, or not recorded. That's why I think he genuinely has a ton of admiration and respect for the US troops.

[Abbey Marie]

It's definitely one way to gauge a boss, but what his employees think of him. GWB and his undying support and love for the soldiers has found his way into so many hearts. Personally, he went out of his way to support as many soldiers in as many ways as he could. I don't see that with Obama. Sure, he's done some honorable things by them, I won't deny that, but on a different level, IMO. But I'll wait till he retires and see how much he involves himself with the wounded warrior project and other causes and how often he meets with soldiers that are coming home from duty and such. His 'in office' treatment of our soldiers is less than anything to brag about, so I wouldn't bank on him going for the long haul after he's out of office.

If he loves the soldiers, he can show it by not signing any bill that reduces their benefits, their wages, or their supplies. And maybe he can even wear an American flag pin on his lapel sometimes? (If he does, I've never seen it).

[namvet]

If he loves the soldiers, he can show it by not signing any bill that reduces their benefits, their wages, or their supplies. And maybe he can even wear an American flag pin on his lapel sometimes? (If he does, I've never seen it).

he could if he was American but...........

[Abbey Marie]

he could if he was American but...........

Can't wait until some Secret Service Agent writes a tell-all about the Obamas. Should be quite interesting to learn what really goes on in their private quarters in the WH.

[namvet]

Can't wait until some Secret Service Agent writes a tell-all about the Obamas. Should be quite interesting to learn what really goes on in their private quarters in the WH.

don't gross me out :laugh:

[aboutime]

REV. I know you could care less what I, or many others think about you. So, with that in mind.

Why haven't you posted a LOVING photo of YOU, kissing Obama's butt?
That would make you a Hero here. And how Impressed you would be with....YOU.

[jimnyc]

REV. I know you could care less what I, or many others think about you. So, with that in mind.

Why haven't you posted a LOVING photo of YOU, kissing Obama's butt?
That would make you a Hero here. And how Impressed you would be with....YOU.

He's no Obama butt kisser either! LOL Rev is an equal opportunity hater, so long as the enemy is "the man" :beer:

[aboutime]

He's no Obama butt kisser either! LOL Rev is an equal opportunity hater, so long as the enemy is "the man" :beer:

Thanks jim. I take it He's an equal opportunity Butt Kisser as well?

[Truth Detector]

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/images/20041028_7-p43159-275jpg-515h.jpg

Im surprised that someone would publicly say this. Most political forums will run you out of town just for defending the man.

[Truth Detector]

I miss my constitutional rights.
He's the one that made it fashionable, patriotic even, to take them away.
He lied us into an unneeded war in Iraq, yet still made people think he cared about the troops.
sorry i don't buy it.
I don't miss Bush at all, and regret i voted for him twice.

( and i won't miss Obama when he's gone either btw )

LMAO; well, you've got those false Leftist memes down pat.

I seriously doubt you voted for the man twice if what you post is what you believe. I mean, what kind of dunce would vote for a guy they think lied us into an uneccesary war?

[Truth Detector]

Even Bush has admitted that they did not find what he Cheney and rRumfled claimed (lied) they would find.
I cannot understand why you and some others continue to insist otherwise.

and the pitiful few canisters of old munitions is NOT "a mushroom cloud" or grounds for a FULL ON WAR. or worth money and definitely not the lives of all the Americans, Brits and others.

The U.S. GAO has documented that the U.S. gov't has Misplaced or can't verify the location of serious amounts of our Nuke material . Whistsle blowers and other news report note that U.S. Bio and chem stores are missing or sold to unknown parties.
more than Iraq was ever missing. not to mention all the conventional weapons the US arms dealers and gov't sell supply above and below ground.

In Fact the U.S, gov't has GIVEN arms to alqeada in Libya And Syria! there more evidence of OUR working with terrorist than there ever was with Saddam.



Iraq had NOTHING to do with the War on terror, or 9/11.

Breaking U.N resolutions is NO reason for war the U.S. has broken resolution, the U.K. has Broken resolution, Israel has broken resolutions Etc etc etc.

AND the U.N. Made it clear that it was UNneccessary for the U.S. to invade over WMD's.
which is the MAIN thing Bush spoke of. NOT resolutions.
see my list of Bush speaches here.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448852#post448852

and He and Blair LIED,
Again see a list of Witnesses HERE.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right&p=448027#post448027
partisan denials don't do ANYONE any good.

but if you want to believe fary tale history and wave the flag, don't let the facts get in your way.

So let me understand your convoluted logic on this point; if Bush makes the same claims EVERYONE else did on the topic of WMDs, then he was lying. Or, even better, he was the ONLY man on the planet who actually "KNEW" the truth and was so damned smart, convinced nearly everyone else there were WMDs knowing it was a lie. Bush, the greatest actor to ever sit in the oval office right?

But no, let's take this convoluted logic to it's clever climax; that Bush was so clever that he fooled everyone else into believing his "lie" but was too stupid to figure out the political ramifications once everyone found out it was a lie.

Trust me; idiots parroting this utterly stupid Democrat talking point really are too dumb for prime time.

[Truth Detector]

Exactly my point.
Bush sent people to war based on lies, took away constitutional rights, made torture legal, and the other things i mentioned.
does THAT sound like a nice guy?

The bolded part is another favorite leftist meme; proof positive that when low information voting fools are engaged, they will merely parrot the talking pints they have been fed by a left leaning media.

But the truth is that what we did to people who actually practice torture was nothing remotely close to real torture. But it is a great leftist talking point for the hate AmeriKa first crowd.

[Truth Detector]

Proof?
http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html#otherdocs

The Downing Street Memo is filled with hyperbole, opinion, speculation and innuendo; but anyone with a brain cannot mistake it for facts.

[Truth Detector]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/8121142528/h6E45DE7B/


Republicans have short memories it seems.

Democrats have small tiny brains; Benghazi wasn't about an embassy attack, but rather, the efforts to blame the attacks on an American citizen and cover up what was an obvious terrorist attack during an election year for partisan political purposes.

And you fools wonder why you're labeled low information voters???

[Truth Detector]

the record was provided BY the IRAQIS themselves. and AGAIN, why is this alsways overlooked by you guys. BLIX said he'd be able to confirm or deny it in a few months. disarming them without war. AND Again it's been 10 YEARS and you still know 100000% that they had it but you have ZERO% knowledge of where it is or was. STILL!! sooo maybe, as Blix said, it was already destroyed? If you Can't FIND IT you can not KNOW 100000%... bottom line there was no reason to invade. and Bush did lie about what he claimed he knew to gin up support for the war.

Why do Bush haters like you pretend that Saddam was cooperating the whole time? Are your memories so polluted that you cannot remember he FACTS? Saddam didn't start cooperating until a a massive force had been amassed along his border. And even then he kicked out inspectors on several occasions.

Why do Bush haters forget that Saddam himself could have prevented invasion by accepting the ultimatum he was given without obfuscation and interference?

Why are Bush haters so irrationally stupid?

[Truth Detector]

People look great in the right context

http://mynetbox.info/images/xtra/leader-pics_0002.jpg

The pinnacle of repugnant ignorance is always acheived when dunces compare our leaders to the propaganda of despots like Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

You just can't help yourselves can you? You people really are THAT repugnant.

[Abbey Marie]

Im surprised that someone would publicly say this. Most political forums will run you out of town just for defending the man.

We aren't that kind of board, and I am not afraid to publicly say what I feel. Why should I be?

Btw, Rev is a good guy. We disagree on things but he is thoughtful, intelligent, and never rude or disrespectful.

[NightTrain]

Btw, Rev is a good guy. We disagree on things but he is thoughtful, intelligent, and never rude or disrespectful.


While I disagreed immensely with Rev on many issues, he was never impolite and I never saw him insult anyone - even after being insulted.

That's a pretty rare & admirable quality and one I don't share, I'll be the first to admit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Why do Bush haters like you pretend that Saddam was cooperating the whole time? Are your memories so polluted that you cannot remember he FACTS? Saddam didn't start cooperating until a a massive force had been amassed along his border. And even then he kicked out inspectors on several occasions.

Why do Bush haters forget that Saddam himself could have prevented invasion by accepting the ultimatum he was given without obfuscation and interference?

Why are Bush haters so irrationally stupid?

Rev is a good guy IMHO. I do not always agree with his point of view but he is sincere in expressing it and does so with civility and honor. That right there proves he is no leftist and almost certainly no liberal. You presenting facts in refutation is fine by me but trust me if you will in that he is no leftist.
I am sure you do not know me but take my word if you will -I am a far right conservative. I never defend enemies of this nation--never.. And leftists and almost all liberals are exactly that IMHO.
Post presented for your edification and not a criticism of you exercising your freedom of speech right amigo..-Tyr

[gabosaurus]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/54/d1/5b/54d15b237216d253b299bee198bddb99.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/54/d1/5b/54d15b237216d253b299bee198bddb99.jpg
How can we the dog never stops barking ??
And soon will help his biatch bark to damn much too.. Much to the distress of this great nation.. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Yeah. I miss him too! http://icansayit.com/images/bubbamoni.jpg

[namvet]

http://i58.tinypic.com/ngsob9.jpg

[gabosaurus]

I do miss Nancy, the nation's first female president.

[Jeff]

Wow how can a woman stand up for Clinton, a rapist a man that if at any other job would of been fired on the spot for having sex with a intern. I love when the female population on the left talk about how good Clinton was :laugh: and in the next breath they will talk about woman's lib :laugh: As for Clinton and the economy can ya say Greenspan, yes it was him that had the economy doing so well when Clinton took office but it was all Clinton by the end of 8 years when the news media was screaming who ever wins ( Bush or the nit wit Gore ) will have to get the economy back on track job #1. And lets not forget how old was Monica, a few short months earlier and ya could of added Child molester to Clinton's list of accomplishments :rolleyes: and yes most that praise him would have nothing to do with a child molester ( I guess the same blind love we see for Obama was in play then as well )

[jimnyc]

Wow how can a woman stand up for Clinton, a rapist a man that if at any other job would of been fired on the spot for having sex with a intern. I love when the female population on the left talk about how good Clinton was :laugh: and in the next breath they will talk about woman's lib :laugh: As for Clinton and the economy can ya say Greenspan, yes it was him that had the economy doing so well when Clinton took office but it was all Clinton by the end of 8 years when the news media was screaming who ever wins ( Bush or the nit wit Gore ) will have to get the economy back on track job #1. And lets not forget how old was Monica, a few short months earlier and ya could of added Child molester to Clinton's list of accomplishments :rolleyes: and yes most that praise him would have nothing to do with a child molester ( I guess the same blind love we see for Obama was in play then as well )

Some women will drop their morals and sense of right and wrong, so that they can support their party. Sad little people.

[Truth Detector]

Rev is a good guy IMHO. I do not always agree with his point of view but he is sincere in expressing it and does so with civility and honor. That right there proves he is no leftist and almost certainly no liberal. You presenting facts in refutation is fine by me but trust me if you will in that he is no leftist.
I am sure you do not know me but take my word if you will -I am a far right conservative. I never defend enemies of this nation--never.. And leftists and almost all liberals are exactly that IMHO.
Post presented for your edification and not a criticism of you exercising your freedom of speech right amigo..-Tyr

Where in the post you quoted did I call him a leftist? My guess is that he is one of those politically confused "Independents".

[Truth Detector]

We aren't that kind of board, and I am not afraid to publicly say what I feel. Why should I be?

Btw, Rev is a good guy. We disagree on things but he is thoughtful, intelligent, and never rude or disrespectful.

Oh yes, I've always found people who compare our leaders with Hitler or Stalin as being very enlightened.

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Oh yes, I've always found people who compare our leaders with Hitler or Stalin as being very enlightened.

:rolleyes:

I disagree with that particular post too. But Abbey was speaking of his posts over a span of many years. Rev's a good guy, even if his politics at times are different than the average bloke here at DP. :)

[Truth Detector]

I disagree with that particular post too. But Abbey was speaking of his posts over a span of many years. Rev's a good guy, even if his politics at times are different than the average bloke here at DP. :)

I'll have to take your word for it; from what I have seen here, I haven't seen intelligence. We'll have to agree to disagree until I see something intelligent erupt from him. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

I'll have to take your word for it; from what I have seen here, I haven't seen intelligence. We'll have to agree to disagree until I see something intelligent erupt from him. ;)

Wow.

[Gaffer]

I'll have to take your word for it; from what I have seen here, I haven't seen intelligence. We'll have to agree to disagree until I see something intelligent erupt from him. ;)

Rev is very intelligent, he just has a problem with logic being a ron paul supporter. His boy didn't make it into the finals and rev has never been the same.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Where in the post you quoted did I call him a leftist? My guess is that he is one of those politically confused "Independents".

I never stated that you called him a leftist. I did just want to let you know he is not one and its been proven by his character here. Sure many of us disagree with his posts often but he condemns liberals and dems too damn often to be a certified member in with those slimy bastards IMHO.
Your opinion, keep it or modify it as you see fit amigo. -Tyr