October 7, 200421 yr The UN's former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix told BBC2's Newsnight sanctions had successfully "contained" Saddam. "They did destroy all the biological and chemical weapons and the nuclear weapons sector was also all cleared up. "Had we had a few months more we would have been able to tell the CIA and others that there were no weapons of mass destruction." But US President George Bush had been "desperate" to be able to say there were WMD, Dr Blix added. Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said the report showed the war was a "tragic mistake" "There were no stockpiles. There were also no programmes. The report is quite frank about that. :mad : "There were no chemical precursors, there were no biological agents, there were no plants to make them, there were no delivery vehicles to fire them. There was no programme, no capability, no weapons. "We could have found all that out if we had let Hans Blix finish the job which he wanted to do without fighting a war in which 10,000 people were killed." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3722290.stm Now, would someone please tell me why? :mad :
October 7, 200421 yr because 1, the president is inept, 2 the senators (including kerry and edwards) and congressmen are even worst.
October 7, 200421 yr Author because 1, the president is inept, 2 the senators (including kerry and edwards) and congressmen are even worst. 585328[/snapback] So you are saying we are in Iraq because of Kerry and Edwards?
October 7, 200421 yr because 1, the president is inept, 2 the senators (including kerry and edwards) and congressmen are even worst. 585328[/snapback] Why, because they didnt commit political suicide? I know youre not that naive orisha. Bush made it a 9-11 event. No moderate Senator could go against him. Youve gotta understand how political capital works.
October 7, 200421 yr Author then they shouldn't blame the president now. they went with it. 585336[/snapback] Wrong... This is what John Kerry and John Edwards voted for: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002 Does this sound like he gave permission to Bush to invade Iraq just Because?
October 7, 200421 yr then they shouldn't blame the president now. they went with it. 585336[/snapback] Wrong... This is what John Kerry and John Edwards voted for: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002 Does this sound like he gave permission to Bush to invade Iraq just Because? 585339[/snapback] and that was his mistake. he should have said: "I exort the president to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and inmediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side. Until all diplomatic resources have been used the senate will not give the president authorization to go to war." but it was easier to not take responsability.
October 7, 200421 yr Author then they shouldn't blame the president now. they went with it. 585336[/snapback] Wrong... This is what John Kerry and John Edwards voted for: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002 Does this sound like he gave permission to Bush to invade Iraq just Because? 585339[/snapback] and that was his mistake. he should have said: "I exort the president to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and inmediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side. Until all diplomatic resources have been used the senate will not give the president authorization to go to war." but it was easier to not take responsability. 585357[/snapback] Whatever dude. That is your opinion. At that time, even I was convinced Saddam Hussein was a menace and that he had weapons. The point is that with that resolution the President had the leverage to go and force Saddam to let inspectors in Iraq. The mistake was made by President Bush, who didn't wait for the inspections to finish and conclude that Saddam had no weapons.
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did.
October 7, 200421 yr because 1, the president is inept, 2 the senators (including kerry and edwards) and congressmen are even worst. 585328[/snapback] Why, because they didnt commit political suicide? I know youre not that naive orisha. Bush made it a 9-11 event. No moderate Senator could go against him. Youve gotta understand how political capital works. 585334[/snapback] Political suicide? how? Half of the democratic senators voted against the bill to authorize force. It obviously would have been political suicide for republicans to do that, but by no means was john kerry forced to blindly vote for going to an unjustified war. He could have easily voted the way he did in 1991. "Political suicide" isn't an excuse at all for his vote; democrats clearly had the opportunity to support the war or oppose it. He supported it.
October 7, 200421 yr then they shouldn't blame the president now. they went with it. 585336[/snapback] Wrong... This is what John Kerry and John Edwards voted for: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002 Does this sound like he gave permission to Bush to invade Iraq just Because? 585339[/snapback] and that was his mistake. he should have said: "I exort the president to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and inmediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side. Until all diplomatic resources have been used the senate will not give the president authorization to go to war." but it was easier to not take responsability. 585357[/snapback] Whatever dude. That is your opinion. At that time, even I was convinced Saddam Hussein was a menace and that he had weapons. The point is that with that resolution the President had the leverage to go and force Saddam to let inspectors in Iraq. The mistake was made by President Bush, who didn't wait for the inspections to finish and conclude that Saddam had no weapons. 585366[/snapback] i was convinced too, but that's still not a reason to turn the decision to the president. it is a decision that the congress and senate should make, not the president.
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did. 585373[/snapback] give it up fish fillet. HE WASNT EVEN SEEKING WMDs! The UN sanctions were working! Its amazing how youre trying to spin this back on Blix and Kerry. Bush and the US intelligence botched this up bad. Bad. Keep on scurrying to tranfer blame. I swear..do conservative ever admit they were wrong?
October 7, 200421 yr HE WASNT EVEN SEEKING WMDs! 585448[/snapback] Did you or did you not start this thread? yes or no. http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...showtopic=32469 Does that article you referenced, say or not say the following: yes or no. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. ... It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq. Or is it that you just want to take a Chinese menu approach to the Saddam interrogation cherry picking only those aspects that suit your cause? 585495[/snapback] YES I started the thread. So you justify invasion because a leader has it in their mind to perhaps one day get WMDs? Did he have the capability? Answer me yes or no. DID HE HAVE THE CAPABILITY? Did we need to invade? Couldnt we just fix the oil for food problem? We had to frikkin invade and lose 1000 soldiers? I dream of one day owning a mansion. Do I have the capability? No!
October 7, 200421 yr HE WASNT EVEN SEEKING WMDs! 585448[/snapback] Did you or did you not start this thread? yes or no. http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...showtopic=32469 Does that article you referenced, say or not say the following: yes or no. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. ... It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq. Or is it that you just want to take a Chinese menu approach to the Saddam interrogation cherry picking only those aspects that suit your cause? 585495[/snapback] I dream about porking Logan Tom, doesn't mean I act on it, nor have I ever tried to seek her.
October 7, 200421 yr HE WASNT EVEN SEEKING WMDs! 585448[/snapback] Did you or did you not start this thread? yes or no. http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...showtopic=32469 Does that article you referenced, say or not say the following: yes or no. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. ... It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq. So cut the funding out..but invasion..goodness. Or is it that you just want to take a Chinese menu approach to the Saddam interrogation cherry picking only those aspects that suit your cause? 585495[/snapback] I dream about porking Logan Tom, doesn't mean I act on it, nor have I ever tried to seek her. 585500[/snapback] Do the math. Interest + over $200M in funding = ???? They weren't researching how to make fireworks dude. 585504[/snapback]
October 7, 200421 yr HE WASNT EVEN SEEKING WMDs! 585448[/snapback] Did you or did you not start this thread? yes or no. http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...showtopic=32469 Does that article you referenced, say or not say the following: yes or no. Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. ... It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq. Or is it that you just want to take a Chinese menu approach to the Saddam interrogation cherry picking only those aspects that suit your cause? 585495[/snapback] I dream about porking Logan Tom, doesn't mean I act on it, nor have I ever tried to seek her. 585500[/snapback] Do the math. Interest + over $200M in funding = ???? They weren't researching how to make fireworks dude. 585504[/snapback] So cut the funding out..but invasion..goodness.
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did. 585373[/snapback] I really couldn't have said it any better myself. Mr. Blix has mastered the democratic arts of hinsight and speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did. 585373[/snapback] I really couldn't have said it any better myself. Mr. Blix has mastered the democratic arts of hinsight and speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 585574[/snapback] What amazes me is the hypocrisay. Republicans can sit there and blame everything on Clinton's decisions but then whine when their guys get criticism. The use of the hindsight argument is telling..got nothing else...just say stop criticizing!
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did. 585373[/snapback] I really couldn't have said it any better myself. Mr. Blix has mastered the democratic arts of hinsight and speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 585574[/snapback] What amazes me is the hypocrisay. Republicans can sit there and blame everything on Clinton's decisions but then whine when their guys get criticism. The use of the hindsight argument is telling..got nothing else...just say stop criticizing! 585578[/snapback] I would agree with you if it weren't for one little detail..... Kerry wholeheartedly supported Bush in re: Iraq. I think it's safe to say that if Kerry voted against the war and vehemently rallied against it the whole time none of this would be an issue. And please don't accuse of hypocrisy. Kerry is the very essence of the term with regards to his voting record as opposed to what comes out of the hole in his face now. Kerry is the quinticential pandering politician.
October 7, 200421 yr Leave it to good old Hans Blix to pull a Kerry and cover his arse using hindsight. Sure Hans, all you needed was just a few more months. I guess the whole decade before just wasn't enough time. I also find it funny he now says that they destroyed all of the stockpiles while under UN inspection. Funny, the UN wasn't so confident that Iraq had done anything like this at the time. Like I said, just Hans trying to get some traction out of a report that Whew! vindicated him but not for anything he ever really did. 585373[/snapback] I really couldn't have said it any better myself. Mr. Blix has mastered the democratic arts of hinsight and speaking out of both sides of his mouth. 585574[/snapback] What amazes me is the hypocrisay. Republicans can sit there and blame everything on Clinton's decisions but then whine when their guys get criticism. The use of the hindsight argument is telling..got nothing else...just say stop criticizing! 585578[/snapback] I would agree with you if it weren't for one little detail..... Kerry wholeheartedly supported Bush in re: Iraq. I think it's safe to say that if Kerry voted against the war and vehemently rallied against it the whole time none of this would be an issue. And please don't accuse of hypocrisy. Kerry is the very essence of the term with regards to his voting record as opposed to what comes out of the hole in his face now. Kerry is the quinticential pandering politician. 585630[/snapback] "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out." TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002
October 7, 200421 yr On that particular vote what was the count? What do the conservatives say to the charge that a vote against that bill constitutes political suicide? Just some curious questions as the only Repub defense of Bush on this issue is now to say Kerry voted for it as well.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.