Question:
In Iraq ——- U.S. inspector finds no evidence Saddam made weapons after 1991 By Ken Guggenheim ASSOCIATED PRESS 12:10 p.m. October 6, 2004 Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, according to the report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group. Duelfer’s findings come less than four weeks before an election in which Bush’s handling of Iraq has become the central issue. Democratic candidate John Kerry has seized on comments this week by the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, that the United States didn’t have enough troops in Iraq to prevent a breakdown in security after Saddam was toppled. The inspector’s report could boost Kerry’s contention that Bush rushed to war based on faulty intelligence and that sanctions and U.N. weapons inspectors should have been given more time. But Duelfer also supports Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said. "There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a campaign speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa., defending the decision to invade. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take." But a top Democrat in Congress, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said Duelfer’s findings undercut the two main arguments for war: that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he would share them with terrorists like al-Qaeda. "We did not go to war because Saddam had future intentions to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Levin said. Traveling in Africa, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the report shows that Saddam was "doing his best" to get around the United Nations’ sanctions. For months, Blair has been trying to defend his justification for joining the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the face of heavy criticism from some in his own party. Duelfer presented his findings in a report of more than 1,000 pages, and in appearances before Senate committees. The report avoids direct comparisons with prewar claims by the Bush administration on Iraq’s weapons systems. But Duelfer largely reinforces the conclusions of his predecessor, David Kay, who said in January, "We were almost all wrong" on Saddam’s weapons programs. The White House did not endorse Kay’s findings then, noting that Duelfer’s team was continuing to search for weapons. Duelfer found that Saddam, hoping to end U.N. sanctions, gradually began ending prohibited weapons programs starting in 1991. But as Iraq started receiving money through the U.N. oil-for-food program in the late 1990s, and as enforcement of the sanctions weakened, Saddam was able to take steps to rebuild his military, such as acquiring parts for missile systems. However, the erosion of sanctions stopped after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Duelfer found, preventing Saddam from pursuing weapons of mass destruction. Duelfer’s team found no written plans by Saddam’s regime to pursue banned weapons if U.N. sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings that Saddam hoped to reconstitute his programs on interviews with Saddam after his capture, as well as talks with other top Iraqi officials. The inspectors found Saddam was particularly concerned about the threat posed by Iran, the country’s enemy in a 1980-88 war. Saddam said he would meet Iran’s threat by any means necessary, which Duelfer understood to mean weapons of mass destruction. Saddam believed the use of chemical weapons against Iran prevented Iraq’s defeat in that war. He also was prepared to use such weapons in 1991 if the U.S.-led coalition had tried to topple him in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Saddam "had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was "a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction." But before the war, the Bush administration cast Saddam as an immediate threat, not a gathering threat who would begin pursuing weapons in the future. For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more." Bush also said then, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said Wednesday that Duelfer’s findings showed there is "no evidence whatsoever of the threats we were warned about." He spoke after Duelfer gave a closed-door briefing to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Duelfer showed Iraq’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction had degraded since 1998. But Roberts called the report inconclusive on what happened to weapons stockpiles Saddam is believed to have once possessed. Interviews with Saddam left Duelfer’s team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States. Saddam appeared to hold out hope that U.S. leaders would ultimately recognize that it was in the country’s interest to deal with Iraq as an important, secular, oil-rich Middle Eastern nation, the report found. The Iraq Survey Group will continue operations and may prepare smaller reports on issues that remain unresolved, including whether weapons had been smuggled out of Iraq and about intelligence that Saddam had mobile biological weapons labs. _____ On the Net: Key findings from the report are available at: <http://wid.ap.org/documents/iraq/041006keyfindings.pdf> Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
>In Iraq >——- >U.S. inspector finds no evidence Saddam made weapons after 1991
"But Duelfer also supports Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. " Guess you missed that part. Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
>>In Iraq >——- >U.S. inspector finds no evidence Saddam made weapons after 1991 >"But Duelfer also supports Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. " >Guess you missed that part.
No, I didn’t. Just in case you’re so blinded by your dumbassed devotion to the worst American president in living memory, allow me to remind you that "a threat" does not in any way translate into "an excuse to invade and occupy a country with the effect of making most of its population terrified, hostile, or both." Just how much of "a threat" was pre-invasion Iraq, Tony? As much of a threat as North Korea, which *brags* about its WMD program? As much of a threat as Iran, which is far further along in its nuclear capability than Iraq ever was, even before Gulf War I? Enough of a threat to warrant a huge shift of resources *away* from the hunt for those responsible for *murdering* 3,000+ Americans on 9/11/01? Can you seriously believe it was? What’s it going to take for you to stand up and admit that Dumber’nyuh made a colossal blunder by insisting on an invasion, compounded by a near-total absence of planning for following up our early military success with an equally successful transition to a peaceful Iraq on friendly terms with its "liberators?" Your guy *fucked up* and you’re showing no sign of being man enough to admit it — at least most Dems admit that Clinton screwed up when lied about his extramarital fling, but you people can’t even face the fact that Dumber’nyuh lied us into a foreign policy disaster that’s spawned a nightmare of carnage in Iraq. For God’s sake, swallow your stupid pride, grow up, and GROW A SET — I promise I won’t gloat when you’ve finally come around! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >No, I didn’t. Just in case >you’re so blinded by your >dumbassed devotion to the >worst American president in >living memory, allow me to >remind you that "a threat" >does not in any way >translate into "an excuse >to invade and occupy a >country with the effect of >making most of its >population terrified, >hostile, or both." Just >how much of "a threat" was >pre-invasion Iraq, Tony? >As much of a threat as >North Korea, which *brags* >about its WMD program? As >much of a threat as Iran, >which is far further along >in its nuclear capability >than Iraq ever was, even >before Gulf War I?
Last I checked, neither of those countries have constantly violated UN resolutions to disarm for years on end, including at least one that promised a threat of forceful removal of said weapons. Do *I* think they are more serious threats? Hell, yeah! At least, *NOW* they are. But there is no paper and vote trail of the world or of the US in order to do something about it. Nor are we involved with a minimum war or enforcement like we already were with Iraq. Iraq already was attacking us on a regular basis for the 10 years prior to our going in there in 2003. Like it or not, the world voted and gave the authorization to enforce resolutions via force. Just because there were only a few that were actually willing to follow through on it, does not make it a *wrong* or even a *bad* move. Especially considering that we never actually completely ended military hostilities with them from the first Gulf War. You could probably just call this the Gulf War Phase I and Phase II, since we were within our right to attack Iraq according to their own agreement with us from the first part of that war. Aside from that, it would behoove the US to entirely finish with these 2 smaller wars before even thinking about starting another with either of those very large and well stocked militaries. >Your guy *fucked up* and >you’re showing no sign of >being man enough to admit >it — at least most Dems >admit that Clinton screwed >up when lied about his >extramarital fling,
Clinton didn’t … he just played the victim of the "evil Republican conspiracy". Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->No, I didn’t. Just in case >you’re so blinded by your >dumbassed devotion to the >worst American president in >living memory, allow me to >remind you that "a threat" >does not in any way >translate into "an excuse >to invade and occupy a >country with the effect of >making most of its >population terrified, >hostile, or both." Just >how much of "a threat" was >pre-invasion Iraq, Tony? >As much of a threat as >North Korea, which *brags* >about its WMD program? As >much of a threat as Iran, >which is far further along >in its nuclear capability >than Iraq ever was, even >before Gulf War I? > Last I checked, neither of those countries have constantly violated UN >resolutions to disarm for years on end, including at least one that promised a >threat of forceful removal of said weapons.
Tony, you’re a righty — you *hate* the U.N., but you’re such a hypocrite you’ll happily use it as an ill-founded excuse for unwarranted military aggression. Shame on you for ignoring the fact that enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolutions is the sole perogative of the voting majority of that body, not the whims of heads of state who happen to have bugs up their asses. >Do *I* think they are more serious >threats? Hell, yeah! At least, *NOW* they are. But there is no paper and >vote trail of the world or of the US in order to do something about it.
There was no authorization to invade Iraq — which was a minor threat at the very much — either. A "paper trail" isn’t nearly enough according to the U.N. rulew we not only agreed to, but helped to draft! > Nor >are we involved with a minimum war or enforcement like we already were with >Iraq.
Ah, you mean the enforcement effort that held Saddam Hussein thoroughly in check at minimal cost in American live and treasure — those sure were the good old days compared to the mess we’re in now, weren’t they? >Iraq already was attacking us on a regular basis for the 10 years prior >to our going in there in 2003.
He’d shoot an occasional SAM and we’d immediately take out the launch and guidance sites — for a pittance compared to the lives and treasure expended invading and occupying his country. Sure sounds like a more sensible solution to me! > Like it or not, the world voted and gave the authorization to enforce >resolutions via force.
Force was *threatened* in the resolutions — the U.S. and Britain never obtained the required authorization. The U.N.’s chief executive has clearly designated our action as illegal and he’s right. The threat of force is a diplomatic tool and not a license. >Just because there were only a few that were actually >willing to follow through on it, does not make it a *wrong* or even a *bad* >move.
I disagree — as subsequent events have proven time after time, it was both morally wrong *and* a very bad move with respect to U.S. interests. > Especially considering that we never actually completely ended military >hostilities with them from the first Gulf War. You could probably just call >this the Gulf War Phase I and Phase II, since we were within our right to >attack Iraq according to their own agreement with us from the first part of >that war.
I’m sure that’s how the man you want as your president feels — on a psychological level, I’m sure he’s thought he was just finishing what his daddy started. Sick…. > Aside from that, it would behoove the US to entirely finish with these 2 >smaller wars before even thinking about starting another with either of those >very large and well stocked militaries.
An interesting way to admit that are military resources have beens stretched to the breaking point by the obviously failing effort in Iraq. Thanks! >Your guy *fucked up* and >you’re showing no sign of >being man enough to admit >it — at least most Dems >admit that Clinton screwed >up when lied about his >extramarital fling, > Clinton didn’t … he just played the victim of the "evil Republican >conspiracy".
We’re not discussing what Clinton or Dumber’nyuh can admit — we’re discussing *you* facing the facts about what Dumber’nyuh has done! I faced Clinton’s shortcomings long ago — it’s your turn to emerge from denial over Dumber’nyuh’s much more serious failures! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
>> Last I checked, neither of those countries have constantly violated UN >resolutions to disarm for years on end, including at least one that promised >a >threat of forceful removal of said weapons. >Tony, you’re a righty — >you *hate* the U.N., but >you’re such a hypocrite >you’ll happily use it as >an ill-founded excuse >for unwarranted military >aggression.
I think the UN has forgotten what it was put in place for. If anyone is a paper tiger these days, it’s them. It’s the most corrupt, underregulated, pointless gathering of self-aggrandizing windbags there ever was. As much as I hate it, it’s still part of the system. > Shame on >you for ignoring the >fact that enforcement of >U.N. Security Council >resolutions is the sole >perogative of the voting >majority of that body, >not the whims of heads of >state who happen to have >bugs up their asses.
I didn’t ignore it … I just used it to point out that even they had voted that something had to be done about Saddam, but very few there actually had/have the ‘nads to back up their empty words with actions. If you recall (use Google if you want), I also put in there that we (the US, at the very least) were still engaged in the enforcement of *our* cease-fire with Iraq from the first part of the Gulf War under GHW Bush, and had every right to protect our troops and our citizens against any further action from the Butcher of Baghdad. You guys seem to think that there was nothing going on over there during the timeframe that we first mopped up the desert with Saddam’s army and the time we finished the job. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess … >Ah, you mean the enforcement >effort that held Saddam >Hussein thoroughly in check >at minimal cost in American >live and treasure — those >sure were the good old days >compared to the mess we’re >in now, weren’t they?
"Thoroughly in check", huh? You apparently haven’t read the reports that during that entire time, he was completely renovating his military with the oil for food money, and with the weapons being bought from France, Russia, and China. Not to mention building rockets that exceeded the range limit set by the cease-fire that was agreed to by Saddam through his minions. You really should find a better news source, because you are apparently completely in the dark on this one. I get the feeling you like it that way. >Iraq already was attacking us on a regular basis for the 10 years prior >to our going in there in 2003. >He’d shoot an occasional SAM >and we’d immediately take >out the launch and guidance >sites — for a pittance >compared to the lives and >treasure expended invading >and occupying his country. >Sure sounds like a more >sensible solution to me!
So, in other words, you would have liked us to bury our head in the sand, only to pull it up any time we got bit in the ass. I don’t know about you, but building an outpost around Iraq and manning it until Saddam either dies and his now dead son succeeded him, or gets dethroned by another more dangerous idiot is a *lot* more uncertain than going in and taking out Hussein & Sons and replacing a tyranny with a representative government. Probably cost less in the long run. I think that’s one of your problems … most of your "solutions" don’t take the not-so-close future and its many variables into consideration. Go look up how many times he started lighting up our troops with his radar systems, and how much more in frequency he was doing it. Go look up how many times he kept crossing the lines in the sand we were drawing, and the distance he would overstep those lines. He was becoming a more serious problem as time went on. Just because you weren’t keeping up with the military opoerations over there, didn’t mean it wasn’t happening. I know you like to live in your own little world where anything that isn’t directly affecting you in your little bubble isn’t really happening, but SHIT!!!! Why wait until he was an imminent threat? Like I said before, imminent is either too late, or more costly than preemption. >Force was *threatened* in >the resolutions — the >U.S. and Britain never >obtained the required >authorization. The U.N.’s >chief executive has >clearly designated our >action as illegal and he’s >right. The threat of >force is a diplomatic tool >and not a license.
Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). He was (keyword there … *WAS*) part of the problem. He *was* part of our problem with terrorists. Get that through your thick skull, and it all starts making sense. As much as you would like to think otherwise, I would prefer that we would *NEVER* have to go to war. Sometimes, there is no other choice. Sometimes, it is the choice that costs less in both lives and money (in that order) in the long run. > Aside from that, it would behoove the US to entirely finish with these 2 >smaller wars before even thinking about starting another with either of >those >very large and well stocked militaries. >An interesting way to admit >that are military resources >have beens stretched to the >breaking point by the >obviously failing effort in >Iraq. Thanks!
Don’t put your words in my mouth, Brucie … and I won’t put my boot in your ass. Deal? I NEVER said any such thing … you are just hearing what you want to hear. FYI, we have about 10% of our forces in Iraq right now, and due to the rampdown in support roles within the military by Clintoon, most of those troops *are* fighting troops. There are very few support roles in the military at this point, hence our need for outsourcing those roles to companies like Halliburton/KBR and KBR/Halliburton … Am I leaving any out here? … Oh, yeah … Halliburton and KBR! Anyway … Like I was saying … What I actually said, which is very different from what you heard, is that if we were to go to war with either of the two major Axis of Terror countries, NK and Iran (in that order), I’m sure the person who signs that order would feel less uncomfortable doing so with the knowledge that a full force is available, should we need it. DO I think we’ll need it? No … but why take a chance? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Your guy *fucked up* and >>you’re showing no sign of >>being man enough to admit >>it — at least most Dems >>admit that Clinton screwed >>up when lied about his >>extramarital fling, > Clinton didn’t … he just played the victim of the "evil Republican >conspiracy". >We’re not discussing what >Clinton or Dumber’nyuh >can admit — we’re >discussing *you* facing >the facts about what >Dumber’nyuh has done! I >faced Clinton’s >shortcomings long ago —
Then why did *YOU* bring him up? Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
> Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to > comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). He > was (keyword there … *WAS*) part of the problem. He *was* part of our > problem with terrorists. Get that through your thick skull, and it all starts > making sense. > As much as you would like to think otherwise, I would prefer that we would > *NEVER* have to go to war. Sometimes, there is no other choice. Sometimes, it > is the choice that costs less in both lives and money (in that order) in the > long run.
(yes, this is a repost, but it seems cogent at this point.): http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/9836946.htm?1c This article shows, yet again, how the administration’s justifications of the Iraq war are completly bogus. Rumsfeld previously said that we had "bulletproof" evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But the CIA says we have no evidence of that, and now Rumsfeld has backed off (or should I say "flip-flopped") on his stance, saying "I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links (Hussein and Al Qaeda)." Say it with me now: "Iraq had no connection to the 9-11 attack".
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Last I checked, neither of those countries have constantly violated UN >>resolutions to disarm for years on end, including at least one that promised >a >>threat of forceful removal of said weapons. >Tony, you’re a righty — >you *hate* the U.N., but >you’re such a hypocrite >you’ll happily use it as >an ill-founded excuse >for unwarranted military >aggression. >I think the UN has forgotten what it was put in place for. If anyone is a >paper tiger these days, it’s them. It’s the most corrupt, underregulated, >pointless gathering of self-aggrandizing windbags there ever was. As much as I >hate it, it’s still part of the system. > Shame on >you for ignoring the >fact that enforcement of >U.N. Security Council >resolutions is the sole >perogative of the voting >majority of that body, >not the whims of heads of >state who happen to have >bugs up their asses. >I didn’t ignore it … I just used it to point out that even they had voted >that something had to be done about Saddam, but very few there actually >had/have the ‘nads to back up their empty words with actions. If you recall >(use Google if you want), I also put in there that we (the US, at the very >least) were still engaged in the enforcement of *our* cease-fire with Iraq from >the first part of the Gulf War under GHW Bush, and had every right to protect >our troops and our citizens against any further action from the Butcher of >Baghdad. You guys seem to think that there was nothing going on over there >during the timeframe that we first mopped up the desert with Saddam’s army and >the time we finished the job. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess … >Ah, you mean the enforcement >effort that held Saddam >Hussein thoroughly in check >at minimal cost in American >live and treasure — those >sure were the good old days >compared to the mess we’re >in now, weren’t they? >"Thoroughly in check", huh? You apparently haven’t read the reports that >during that entire time, he was completely renovating his military with the oil >for food money, and with the weapons being bought from France, Russia, and >China. Not to mention building rockets that exceeded the range limit set by >the cease-fire that was agreed to by Saddam through his minions. You really >should find a better news source, because you are apparently completely in the >dark on this one. I get the feeling you like it that way. >>Iraq already was attacking us on a regular basis for the 10 years prior >>to our going in there in 2003. >He’d shoot an occasional SAM >and we’d immediately take >out the launch and guidance >sites — for a pittance >compared to the lives and >treasure expended invading >and occupying his country. >Sure sounds like a more >sensible solution to me! >So, in other words, you would have liked us to bury our head in the sand, only >to pull it up any time we got bit in the ass. I don’t know about you, but >building an outpost around Iraq and manning it until Saddam either dies and his >now dead son succeeded him, or gets dethroned by another more dangerous idiot >is a *lot* more uncertain than going in and taking out Hussein & Sons and >replacing a tyranny with a representative government. Probably cost less in >the long run. I think that’s one of your problems … most of your "solutions" >don’t take the not-so-close future and its many variables into consideration. >Go look up how many times he started lighting up our troops with his radar >systems, and how much more in frequency he was doing it. Go look up how many >times he kept crossing the lines in the sand we were drawing, and the distance >he would overstep those lines. He was becoming a more serious problem as time >went on. Just because you weren’t keeping up with the military opoerations >over there, didn’t mean it wasn’t happening. I know you like to live in your >own little world where anything that isn’t directly affecting you in your >little bubble isn’t really happening, but SHIT!!!! Why wait until he was an >imminent threat? Like I said before, imminent is either too late, or more >costly than preemption. >Force was *threatened* in >the resolutions — the >U.S. and Britain never >obtained the required >authorization. The U.N.’s >chief executive has >clearly designated our >action as illegal and he’s >right. The threat of >force is a diplomatic tool >and not a license. >Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to >comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?).
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with al-Zarqawi "hiding out" in an area of Iraq over which Baghdad had no control — and we could have gotten rid of him with a simple air strike and/or raid, but (in the chaos created by the invasion and the botched occupation) still haven’t found him even with 260,000+ American boots on the ground. Wonderful… >He >was (keyword there … *WAS*) part of the problem. He *was* part of our >problem with terrorists. Get that through your thick skull, and it all starts >making sense.
Tony, you’re the bonehead here. It is utterly clear that Saddam Hussein was never a significant factor in international terrorism — the only thing we can make stick to him is some checks cut to the families of dead Palestinian homicide bombers. Are you telling me a few grand to dead guys’ families warrants 1,054 dead Americans and $200+ billion in debts? > As much as you would like to think otherwise, I would prefer that we would >*NEVER* have to go to war. Sometimes, there is no other choice.
Bullshit. Invading Iraq was *clearly* a war of choice — even if you take a "Saddam had to go" stance, our priority ought to have been Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the people who actually attacked us. Iraq could have waited indefinitely and you know it! Sometimes, it >is the choice that costs less in both lives and money (in that order) in the >long run.
Are you funkin’ serious — because it’s becoming apparent than, "in the long run," invading Iraq has made the entire region less safe and more anti- American at a very high price considering the negative return on investment! >> Aside from that, it would behoove the US to entirely finish with these 2 >>smaller wars before even thinking about starting another with either of >those >>very large and well stocked militaries. >An interesting way to admit >that are military resources >have beens stretched to the >breaking point by the >obviously failing effort in >Iraq. Thanks! >Don’t put your words in my mouth, Brucie … and I won’t put my boot in your >ass.
Like that has even happened — you apparently now live in an illusory world like Dumber’nyuh! >Deal? I NEVER said any such thing … you are just hearing what you want >to hear. FYI, we have about 10% of our forces in Iraq right now, and due to >the rampdown in support roles within the military by Clintoon, most of those >troops *are* fighting troops. There are very few support roles in the military >at this point, hence our need for outsourcing those roles to companies like >Halliburton/KBR and KBR/Halliburton … Am I leaving any out here? … Oh, yeah >… Halliburton and KBR!
If only ten percent of our forces are in Iraq, how come the backdoor draft through "stop loss" orders? If Iraq is only using ten percent of our "*fighting*" forces, how come there’s no military threats against the admitted nuclear- capable regimes of Iran and North Korea, and how come several thousand troops were transferred from Korea to Iraq? Iow, your nonsense about "finishing two smaller wars" (if 130,000 "*fighting*" troops are tied down trying to secure Iraq and failing at it, I shudder to think how many would be needed for a "larger" war!) is an admission that our forces are stretched too thin to take action against two countries who are *much more* of a WMD threat than Iraq has been since Gulf War I! > Anyway … Like I was saying … What I actually said, which is very >different from what you heard, is that if we were to go to war with either of >the two major Axis of Terror countries, NK and Iran (in that order), I’m sure >the person who signs that order would feel less uncomfortable doing so with the >knowledge that a full force is available, should we need it. DO I think we’ll >need it? No … but why take a chance?
Whatever the funk that heap of weasel-wording means — are you sure your don’t work for Dumber’nyuh? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Your guy *fucked up* and >>>you’re showing no sign of >>>being man enough to admit >>>it — at least most Dems >>>admit that Clinton screwed >>>up when lied about his >>>extramarital fling, >> Clinton didn’t … he just played the victim of the "evil Republican >>conspiracy". >We’re not discussing what >Clinton or Dumber’nyuh >can admit — we’re >discussing *you* facing >the facts about what >Dumber’nyuh has done! I >faced Clinton’s >shortcomings long ago — >Then why did *YOU* bring him up?
I was inquiring as to why *you* are still pissed off at Clinton for trivial lies about his private life while your continue to give Dumber’nyuh a free pass in spite of lies that have cost tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of debt-financed dollars — iow, why can’t *you* admit that the guy you support for president is a biggger and more frequent liar than Clinton ever was? Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
>(yes, this is a repost, but it seems cogent at this point.): >http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/nation/9836946.htm?1c >This article shows, yet again, how the administration’s justifications of >the Iraq war are completly bogus. Rumsfeld previously said that we had >"bulletproof" evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But the CIA >says we have no evidence of that, and now Rumsfeld has backed off (or should >I say "flip-flopped") on his stance, saying "I have not seen any strong, >hard evidence that links (Hussein and Al Qaeda)." >Say it with me now: "Iraq had no connection to the 9-11 attack".
I never said Iraq *had* a connection to 9/11, although the thought did definitely enter my mind immediately after 9/11. Iraq, however, did have a clear connection to Al Qaeda. HUGE difference. http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle… &R=798D1B52B http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/sprj.irq.bush.iraq/ http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167… Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to >comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). >Saddam Hussein had nothing >to do with al-Zarqawi >"hiding out" in an area of >Iraq over which Baghdad >had no control — and we >could have gotten rid of >him with a simple air >strike and/or raid, but >(in the chaos created by >the invasion and the >botched occupation) still >haven’t found him even with >260,000+ American boots on >the ground. Wonderful…
over his entire country, he just couldn’t have his planes fly over that part of it. If you truly believe for one second that Saddam had "no control" over any part of his country, you truly don’t understand the word "tyranny". He had control … you should just stop trying to deceive. You’ll need a HELL of a lot more than that to pull the wool over my eyes. Apparently, it takes less to pull the wool over yours. Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to >>comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). >Saddam Hussein had nothing >to do with al-Zarqawi >"hiding out" in an area of >Iraq over which Baghdad >had no control — and we >could have gotten rid of >him with a simple air >strike and/or raid, but >(in the chaos created by >the invasion and the >botched occupation) still >haven’t found him even with >260,000+ American boots on >the ground. Wonderful… >over his entire country, he just couldn’t have his planes fly over that part of >it.
The Iraqi regime had no presence in large swaths of the Kurdish north, including the area where Zarqawi set up camp. No planes, no troops, no cops, no nothing — the Kurds were de facto autonomous outside a few Arab-dominated cities. >If you truly believe for one second that Saddam had "no control" over any >part of his country, you truly don’t understand the word "tyranny".
By the time we invaded, Saddam Hussein wasn’t much more than the mayor of Baghdad — he could intimidate individuals outside the so-called Sunni Triangle, but his overall control was tenuous at best. He was a very badly weakened "tyrant," especially in the far north and outside the cities. >He had >control … you should just stop trying to deceive. You’ll need a HELL of a >lot more than that to pull the wool over my eyes. Apparently, it takes less to >pull the wool over yours.
You really have no idea how isolated and helpless Saddam Hussein was after Gulf War I, do you? Read the latest report — he was weak and getting weaker by the day, not a significant danger to anyone he couldn’t send thugs out to intimidate. No WMD, almost no control in non-Arab areas, and no effective army or air force. The average American mafia boss is more formidable. Nasty? Sure! A dangerous and imminent threat worthy of 1,054 American military deaths and $200+ billion? No funkin’ way! Check your own eyes for wool, Tony — you’ve been well and truly duped! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
>You really have no idea how >isolated and helpless >Saddam Hussein was after >Gulf War I, do you?
"Isolated and helpless"? Next you’re going to say he was misunderstood. I see exactly where you’re coming from and where you’re going with this, now …. "isolated" … "helpless" … "misunderstood" … "victim of society" …"never got a fair break" … all typical liberal *excuses* for all other common criminals, thugs, drug addicts and other dregs of society. PO’ WIDDLE MISUNDEWSTOOD TEWWOWIST TYWWANIST DICTATOW … AWWW! HOW CUTE! And *you* call *me* duped? … you were playing right into his scheme to think that he was a good little boy just so he could restart all his programs and come back stronger than ever. "Isolated and helpless" … yeah … sure … http://www.csis.org/pubs/2002_iraq.pdf Lostpup198 "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There’s a knob called "brightness", but it doesn’t work." — Gallagher Comedian
Response:
<snip> Bruce, were you ‘for’ Gulf War I (at the time)? Did you think that GHW Bush should have gone into Iraq at that time, and overthrow Saddam’s regime? Curious.
Response:
Finally, a reply *so* devoid of content and relevance that there’s no need for a reply — well done, Tony! Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
><snip> >Bruce, were you ‘for’ Gulf War I (at the time)?
Sure, Iraq invaded a sovereign state without provocation — I’m always against that sort of stuff. As a matter of fact, it was Gulf War I that crippled the Iraqi military and made it at most a minor threat at most to the region and no threat at all to the world. >Did you think that GHW Bush should have gone into Iraq >at that time, and overthrow Saddam’s regime?
No — he would have run into the same meat grinder Dumber’nyuh has been incapable of handling. Bush I was so right that Kerry was able to confront Dumber’nyuh directly from his own father’s book! At the time I wasn’t so sure — but time and his own son’s failure have proven him correct. So, I disagreed with Sen. Kerry about Gulf War I — but I think our support of the Kuwaiti royals should have been conditional, because to this day Kuwait is no more democratic than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was! >Curious.
Naturally! :-) Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to >>>comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). >>Saddam Hussein had nothing >>to do with al-Zarqawi >>"hiding out" in an area of >>Iraq over which Baghdad >>had no control — and we >>could have gotten rid of >>him with a simple air >>strike and/or raid, but >>(in the chaos created by >>the invasion and the >>botched occupation) still >>haven’t found him even with >>260,000+ American boots on >>the ground. Wonderful… >over his entire country, he just couldn’t have his planes fly over that part of >it. > The Iraqi regime had no > presence in large swaths > of the Kurdish north, > including the area where > Zarqawi set up camp. No > planes, no troops, no > cops, no nothing — the > Kurds were de facto > autonomous outside a few > Arab-dominated cities.
Many posters portray Kurds guilty as though Zarqawi’s presence was tolerated by the Kurdish administration. That is not correct. Zarqawi was in Kurdistan but in an area controlled by fundamentalist Ansar al-Islam party which was already at war against the mainstream and secular Kurdish political parties and individuals. He had to travel through Baghdad to get to Ansar territory and nobody, particularly a foreigner like the Jordanian Zarqawi, can get in and out of Baghdad airport or streets without the knowledge of Saddam’s security apparatus. Zarqawi was allowed to travel freely in Iraq because, other than international terrorism, Ansar al-Islam was used by Saddam to undermine Kurdish authority and car bomb Kurdish cities for years before the invasion. Shexmus – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->If you truly believe for one second that Saddam had "no control" over any >part of his country, you truly don’t understand the word "tyranny". > By the time we invaded, > Saddam Hussein wasn’t > much more than the mayor > of Baghdad — he could > intimidate individuals > outside the so-called > Sunni Triangle, but his > overall control was > tenuous at best. He was > a very badly weakened > "tyrant," especially in > the far north and outside > the cities. >He had >control … you should just stop trying to deceive. You’ll need a HELL of a >lot more than that to pull the wool over my eyes. Apparently, it takes less to >pull the wool over yours. > You really have no idea how > isolated and helpless > Saddam Hussein was after > Gulf War I, do you? Read > the latest report — he was > weak and getting weaker by > the day, not a significant > danger to anyone he couldn’t > send thugs out to intimidate. > No WMD, almost no control in > non-Arab areas, and no > effective army or air force. > The average American mafia > boss is more formidable. > Nasty? Sure! A dangerous > and imminent threat worthy > of 1,054 American military > deaths and $200+ billion? > No funkin’ way! Check your > own eyes for wool, Tony — > you’ve been well and truly > duped! > Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
Interesting information — thanks! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>>Funny thing … you were all for the war on terror, but can’t seem to > >>>comprehend that Saddam was hiding out terrorists (can you say al-Zarqawi?). > >>Saddam Hussein had nothing > >>to do with al-Zarqawi > >>"hiding out" in an area of > >>Iraq over which Baghdad > >>had no control — and we > >>could have gotten rid of > >>him with a simple air > >>strike and/or raid, but > >>(in the chaos created by > >>the invasion and the > >>botched occupation) still > >>haven’t found him even with > >>260,000+ American boots on > >>the ground. Wonderful… > >over his entire country, he just couldn’t have his planes fly over that part of > >it. > The Iraqi regime had no > presence in large swaths > of the Kurdish north, > including the area where > Zarqawi set up camp. No > planes, no troops, no > cops, no nothing — the > Kurds were de facto > autonomous outside a few > Arab-dominated cities. >Many posters portray Kurds guilty as though Zarqawi’s presence was >tolerated by the Kurdish administration. That is not correct. >Zarqawi was in Kurdistan but in an area controlled by fundamentalist >Ansar al-Islam party which was already at war against the mainstream >and secular Kurdish political parties and individuals. He had to >travel through Baghdad to get to Ansar territory and nobody, >particularly a foreigner like the Jordanian Zarqawi, can get in and >out of Baghdad airport or streets without the knowledge of Saddam’s >security apparatus. >Zarqawi was allowed to travel freely in Iraq because, other than >international terrorism, Ansar al-Islam was used by Saddam to >undermine Kurdish authority and car bomb Kurdish cities for years >before the invasion. >Shexmus > >If you truly believe for one second that Saddam had "no control" over any > >part of his country, you truly don’t understand the word "tyranny". > By the time we invaded, > Saddam Hussein wasn’t > much more than the mayor > of Baghdad — he could > intimidate individuals > outside the so-called > Sunni Triangle, but his > overall control was > tenuous at best. He was > a very badly weakened > "tyrant," especially in > the far north and outside > the cities. > >He had > >control … you should just stop trying to deceive. You’ll need a HELL of a > >lot more than that to pull the wool over my eyes. Apparently, it takes less to > >pull the wool over yours. > You really have no idea how > isolated and helpless > Saddam Hussein was after > Gulf War I, do you? Read > the latest report — he was > weak and getting weaker by > the day, not a significant > danger to anyone he couldn’t > send thugs out to intimidate. > No WMD, almost no control in > non-Arab areas, and no > effective army or air force. > The average American mafia > boss is more formidable. > Nasty? Sure! A dangerous > and imminent threat worthy > of 1,054 American military > deaths and $200+ billion? > No funkin’ way! Check your > own eyes for wool, Tony — > you’ve been well and truly > duped! > Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access > >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< > -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Posted via TITANnews – Uncensored Newsgroups Access >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<< -=Every Newsgroup – Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > you guys really should get a life. Imagine how much better you’d be if you put > more focus into something better than posting useless political bullshit.