WMDs and lies

[avatar4321]

If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered? They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

[Gaffer]

Yeah but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

[Hobbit]

It's what I don't get about the conspiracy theorists.

First, let's bypass the fact that every one of these theorists thinks Bush is an idiot, and assume Cheney pulls all the strings. So, they were not only willing to kill thousands of people, wreck the economy, and even attack a government building, but they were able to silence the thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of people who were involved in this conspiracy. After that, they managed to trick every intelligence agency in the world into thinking that Saddam had WMDs, involving not only thousands more people, but somehow providing incentives to get those people to lie to their own government in order to favor another country's government. However, this beautifully executed, brilliantly planned, and nearly flawless conspiracy failed, somehow, to bump off the guys who made "Loose Change" and somehow couldn't sneak a few of our many WMDs into Iraq and hide them somewhere to make themselves more believable?

It's like those people who say Jesus was a good person, but he wasn't the Messiah. He said he was the Son of God, so he was either lieing, crazy, or he really was the Son of God.

[diuretic]

If Bush and Cheney lied about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't the plant some in Iraq in all the chaos and have them discovered?

Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.

They would have had to known that once the war was one their "lies" would be discovered without evidence if they were lying. So why was there no attempt to plant evidence?

They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.

Could it possibly be that the administration actually believed Saddam had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass destruction and concluded that it was better to do something to eliminate a potential threat then wait around for them to attack?

It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

[avatar4321]

Because a simple forensic examination of the area would have revealed the planting of them.



They thought they didn't need to plant evidence. They thought they would get away with it. Let me give you an analogy. A criminal doesn't put a great deal of effort into hiding his tracks if he thinks he won't be held accountable for his crime.



It could be, except that it's now been proven that - regardless of the source of the mis-information - they didn't want to look a gift horse in the mouth even if they knew they were buying from a horse thief.

how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

[diuretic]

how difficult would it be to manipulate forensic results?

Depends on what you're trying to do.

you are right about one thing, they didnt think they needed to plant evidence. But only because they actually believed Saddam had them... Heck Saddam believed it as well.

If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

It’s doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didn’t they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, here’s my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps – and I’m certainly no expert in this – he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time it’s never actually publicly acknowledged. No country – unless it’s composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldn’t have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustine’s requirements and would have pacified the American people’s concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what you’re being told, test and test until you’re absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didn’t test the informant.

So, now we know – thanks to people like Colin Powell – that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal can’t revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

[Gaffer]

Depends on what you're trying to do.





If I could find a "shrug" smilie I'd us it. For now let me say it's a moot point. The fact is that WMD were not there.

It’s doubtful if they believed Saddam had WMD. If they did then why didn’t they allow the UN programme to deal with it? I need an answer to that to pursue that line of thought.

In the meantime, here’s my hypothesis:

Bush and Cheney had made their collective mind up to invade Iraq. They knew that Iraq had the second largest oil reserves in the world (now we think they have the largest, new discoveries have been made ). Perhaps Saddam was going to cut off trading in oil with the west and focus on Russia, China and India. Perhaps – and I’m certainly no expert in this – he had decided to trade in a currency other than greenbacks in his dealings with Russia, China and India. Perhaps Bush and Cheney knew this and could see the immense economic damage such a move would do to the US and western interests. Perhaps that was sufficient motivation to decide the invasion had to take place.

Now, having made the decision it had to be sold. The message that the military had to go into Iraq to get the oil would not be popular. Even though the military is used for economic reasons all the time it’s never actually publicly acknowledged. No country – unless it’s composed totally of wingnuts, wants to send its military to war without just cause. In a country like America which is probably the most religious in the western world and Christian, the words of St. Augustine on a just war are almost part of the culture. St Augustine wouldn’t have approved. But telling prospective allies and the populus that the invasion was necessary to find WMD which were a threat to what passes for peace in that part of the world met St Augustine’s requirements and would have pacified the American people’s concerns. No country should make war lightly. Telling everyone that WMD existed was a winner.

There was now a need for someone to come along to point the finger at Saddam and allege he had WMD. Fortunately for the Bush Administration there was someone in the wings. Chalabi. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5040846/site/newsweek/

Now when the police deal with an informant they need to do several things but the most important is to test what he is telling them. The recent shooting to death of that grandmother in Atlanta by Atlanta PD narcotics officers shows you what happens when an informant is not properly grilled. You have to take an extremely sceptical approach to what you’re being told, test and test until you’re absolutely sure that you are convinced you are not being sold a pup. With Chalabi I suggest, there was no such test. This wily man had worked out how to ingratiate himself with the Bush Administration. He told them exactly what they wanted to hear and they grabbed at it. They didn’t test the informant.

So, now we know – thanks to people like Colin Powell – that the whole WMD story was a fabrication. From that I can only conclude this:

1. The Bush Administration wanted to believe Chalabi so badly, they saw their invasion justification right there, that they failed in their duty of due diligence.

or

2. They knew Chalabi was lying but they were confident that that would never be discovered because, well, who would ask? They had a compliant Congress and cowardly and complicit mainstream media. What were the risks? None apparently.

So, no need to plant evidence. When they realised that there was indeed a need to plant evidence, to provide false evidence to cover their arses, it was, alas for them, too late.

The criminal can’t revisit the crime scene when the cops are all over it.

Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

[diuretic]

Your definately out there. I thought you had more on the ball than that.

Gratutious insult observed. Gratuitious insult passes. Effect. Nil.

Iraq is selling its oil through contracts. The chinese and Japan and some european countries are getting the contracts. The US isn't getting any of the oil or the money. So how was the war for oil?

The US, the Chinese, Japan, Europeans countries aren't getting the oil. Companies are negotiating oil contracts but of course with the help of their government representatives. Our government in Australia is particularly keen to see one of our companies get its chop - http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...nfidential.pdf - since we lost our wheat contract in Iraq, US farmers have benefited from the invasion and occupation, our government is in there trying to get BHP-Billiton a foothold in the frantic carpetbagging that's going on.

But no matter. Back to my hypothesis. The fact that the Iraqis are now trading with international oil companies, including those apparently in China and India simply isn't relevant to my hypothesis. It doesn't disprove it. It simply illustrates that the Iraqi government is negotiating contracts for the sale of its oil.

we were barely in iraq a month when the dems began their screeching that there were no WMD's. Bush could have had them placed there at any time, just to cover his ass. But to do that would be a lie. He may be wrong at times but he's not a liar.

I'm careful about who I call a liar, I like to make sure I have the evidence before I lean over the table, look them in the eye and say, "you're lying", because I then follow it up with how I know they're lying, just to watch their faces. I won't call Bush or Cheney a liar here. I don't have the evidence.

I remember though, the first moves of US forces in Iraq involved securing the Oil Ministry. If Bush and Cheney knew that WMD were in Iraq then why didn't they assign - through orders to the military - troops to immediately locate and secure the WMD? The briefings Powell gave were highly detailed. WMD were here, here, here, here and there and so on. But were troops assigned to locate and deal with them? Perhaps, but the Oil Ministry was numero uno on the mission objectives list.

Now, given the detailed presentation of the locations of WMD in Iraq, it shouldn't have take a month to find them anyway. Conclusion - they weren't there. They didn't exist.

[stephanie]

Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...

[Fountainhead]

Brilliant ! The TRUTH must really hurt these two-faced politicians.

And I wonder EXACTLY WHAT Hans Blix was being paid to accomplish ? Wasn't he a UN WEAPONS inspector ? Wasn't he systematically DENIED access to numerous suspicious sites over and over and over ? Didn't Saddam deny access to UN weapons inspectors in violation of UN mandates ? Wasn't Blix pretty much a political fox guarding Saddam's hen house ?

Didn't BUSH repeatedly petition the United Nations for meaningful UN inspections ? Efficatious inspections. Not bullshit UN windowdressing. Not ficticious reports about baby formula factories. But unfettered access to ALL of Iraq. Surprise inspections. Whenever and wherever investigators suspected weapon activity ?

The UN had their chance to enforce serious, no-nonsense inspections. But Hans Blix, and highly-placed French and German politicians were lining their pockets with hush money doled-out by Saddam.

Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003



Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...

[diuretic]

Well then......If they weren't there, they didn't exist...
I guess that would make of these people liars and idiots, also...

(snipped a series of quotes that can be read in the post by stephanie - above - and if I was bothered I'd analyse but since I can't be stuff going through a lot of rhetorical crap here's my response)

Anybody with half a brain knew Saddam had WMD...Take a look at the pictures of the 5000 Kurdish men, women and children he killed with them..
It has been said over and over, they we're moved before we invaded Saddam..So I'll believe them first..

Of course he had WMD, the US gave them to him. I knew that. I bet you did too. Don Rumsfeld knew, he gave them to Saddam. Much of those WMD given by the generous US to its good ally Saddam were used by Saddam on -

5000 Kurdish men, women and children

among others. No point in stockpiling the generous gifts of the USA, may as well use them, that's what they're there for. Now, unless I'm wrong, if WMD were used up then....well.....they wouldn't be there any more. Right?

Oh heavens I must be wrong. That nice man Colin Powell had all those press briefings to show where the WMD possessed by Saddam were located.

You all can keep repeating over and over there weren't any, but it still won't make it come true....But we know you all will never drop that argument, because it fit's into your agenda...

I won't repeat it without a need. Unlike your president I don't need to keep repeating things to myself in the hope they come true.

And you will continue to deny because it's imperative to you that the party and the leader is right. You can't even begin to imagine that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a farrago of lies, half-truths, deception and outright bullshit. You are one of the 28% percent that still support your failure of a president and his corrupt regime.

Next time you come to a battle of wits, bring some weapons - even WMD if you must

[diuretic]

Brilliant ! The TRUTH must really hurt these two-faced politicians.

And I wonder EXACTLY WHAT Hans Blix was being paid to accomplish ? Wasn't he a UN WEAPONS inspector ? Wasn't he systematically DENIED access to numerous suspicious sites over and over and over ? Didn't Saddam deny access to UN weapons inspectors in violation of UN mandates ? Wasn't Blix pretty much a political fox guarding Saddam's hen house ?

Didn't BUSH repeatedly petition the United Nations for meaningful UN inspections ? Efficatious inspections. Not bullshit UN windowdressing. Not ficticious reports about baby formula factories. But unfettered access to ALL of Iraq. Surprise inspections. Whenever and wherever investigators suspected weapon activity ?

The UN had their chance to enforce serious, no-nonsense inspections. But Hans Blix, and highly-placed French and German politicians were lining their pockets with hush money doled-out by Saddam.

See my response to stephanie. It addresses the mindless drivel you posted here. Have you no self-respect? Your post is full of calumny, speculation and rhetorical questions. Talk about dragging down the level of debate.

[stephanie]

(snipped a series of quotes that can be read in the post by Stephanie - above - and if I was bothered I'd analyse but since I can't be stuff going through a lot of rhetorical crap here's my response)




Of course he had WMD, the US gave them to him. I knew that. I bet you did too. Don Rumsfeld knew, he gave them to Saddam. Much of those WMD given by the generous US to its good ally Saddam were used by Saddam on -



among others. No point in stockpiling the generous gifts of the USA, may as well use them, that's what they're there for. Now, unless I'm wrong, if WMD were used up then....well.....they wouldn't be there any more. Right?

Oh heavens I must be wrong. That nice man Colin Powell had all those press briefings to show where the WMD possessed by Saddam were located.




I won't repeat it without a need. Unlike your president I don't need to keep repeating things to myself in the hope they come true.

And you will continue to deny because it's imperative to you that the party and the leader is right. You can't even begin to imagine that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was built on a farrago of lies, half-truths, deception and outright bullshit. You are one of the 28% percent that still support your failure of a president and his corrupt regime.

Next time you come to a battle of wits, bring some weapons - even WMD if you must

Read it and weep, dear..I see you can't stand seeing the facts of what the Democrats said about Saddam...
Go cry to your Democrats in Congress about them giving Saddam WMD's..
And go cry to your Democrats in Congress who voted for this war in Iraq..
I'll stand behind our Military men and women, and the 50 million people they liberated, any day...
If that's all ya got...You need to write in, for a new book of Democrat talking points...

[diuretic]

Read it and weep, dear..I see you can't stand seeing the facts of what the Democrats said about Saddam...
Go cry to your Democrats in Congress about them giving Saddam WMD's..
And go cry to your Democrats in Congress who voted for this war in Iraq..
I'll stand behind our Military men and women, and the 50 million people they liberated, any day...
You don't sound like you stand for anything....Not my fault..
If that's all ya got...You need to write in, for a new book of Democrat talking points...

Don't be silly stephanie, you really think I care what any Democrat said about Saddam? I'm not a member of their party, I'm not an American. For mine the Democrats are merely a mirror of the GOP, there are some smart ones, some dumb ones and a lot of liars amongst both parties.

I stand for plenty. Since you don't know my name, you don't know my history, you don't know what I do for a living, you haven't got a clue about me other than what I choose to write here, then making a judgement about me is drawing a low bow. It's also pretty stupid. Now I know nothing about you, apart from the fact that you seem to have great difficulty in putting a cogent argument together here. I can validly conclude that from the tripe I am reading that has your signature attached. Aside from that, I know nothing about you and I'm okay with that. However if you were in an important postion somewhere I'd be a bit worried.

[stephanie]

Don't be silly Stephanie, you really think I care what any Democrat said about Saddam? I'm not a member of their party, I'm not an American. For mine the Democrats are merely a mirror of the GOP, there are some smart ones, some dumb ones and a lot of liars amongst both parties.

I stand for plenty. Since you don't know my name, you don't know my history, you don't know what I do for a living, you haven't got a clue about me other than what I choose to write here, then making a judgement about me is drawing a low bow. It's also pretty stupid. Now I know nothing about you, apart from the fact that you seem to have great difficulty in putting a cogent argument together here. I can validly conclude that from the tripe I am reading that has your signature attached. Aside from that, I know nothing about you and I'm okay with that. However if you were in an important position somewhere I'd be a bit worried.

Awww...U urt mi fweellllllings...snif snif..
At least I don't think so highly of myself, that I have to go out of my way to try and tear a person apart.....
But I see you are so much more intelligent than I am...So from now on, I will try and not bore you with my ignorance...