October 7, 200421 yr WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes. In fact, the long-awaited report, authored by Charles Duelfer, who advises the director of central intelligence on Iraqi weapons, says Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended Iraq's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/...port/index.html Let me guess..new reasons: He was thinking about them in the back of his mind! He cheated on oil for food! Help the people! All good reasons to invade!! No wonder you guys went balatic the other day all over Kerry. Preemptive spin!
October 7, 200421 yr Can anyone actually defend Bush without turning it on Kerry? 585458[/snapback] Why would you want to defend him at this point?
October 7, 200421 yr too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement. :plain
October 7, 200421 yr so you dont hold Bush accountable at all? :plain 585461[/snapback] I hold our Intelligence, Bush, the Senate and the Congress (including Kerry and Edwards). I don't vote to punish a President. I vote for who I believe is the most qualified for the job.
October 7, 200421 yr too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement. :plain 585460[/snapback] They were for going into Iraq using force after all avenues before that were exhausted. This has been explained ad-nuaseum already, and if it still doesn't resonate through your thick skull that the critera Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the senate had set up was not followed, then don't even open your mouth.
October 7, 200421 yr Author The guy just cant take any responsibility can he? Yeah...he isnt a politician my ass. When its a good war..IM A WAR PRESIDENT! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! I SAVED EM! When its a bad war...intelligence sucked..Kerry flips..senate! Thanks for exposing that Bush is a flip flopper too.
October 7, 200421 yr Author too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement.? :plain 585460[/snapback] They were for going into Iraq using force after all avenues before that were exhausted. This has been explained ad-nuaseum already, and if it still doesn't resonate through your thick skull that the critera Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the senate had set up was not followed, then don't even open your mouth. 585463[/snapback] A lot of mud behind throw behind all this spinning from them. Clear desperation.
October 7, 200421 yr Author so you dont hold Bush accountable at all?? :plain 585461[/snapback] He was certainly accountable for recognizing sanctions were essentially worthless. What good are sanctions when the whole world, the UN, and unfortunately even some US companies, are circumventing them and being bought off by Saddam every day? REUTERS article 585467[/snapback] So thats why we invade? oh brother.
October 7, 200421 yr too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement.? :plain 585460[/snapback] They were for going into Iraq using force after all avenues before that were exhausted. This has been explained ad-nuaseum already, and if it still doesn't resonate through your thick skull that the critera Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the senate had set up was not followed, then don't even open your mouth. 585463[/snapback] Show more respect if you want me to respond to your future statements. Now to answer your statement. what avenues? those avenues were exausted. No matter what the UN was going to vote against using force (those Europeans liked their oil for food deal way too much). How many resolutions did you need? There WAS an error in intelligence. Bush, the Senate and the Congress believed that Sadam had WMD.
October 7, 200421 yr Author too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement.? :plain 585460[/snapback] They were for going into Iraq using force after all avenues before that were exhausted. This has been explained ad-nuaseum already, and if it still doesn't resonate through your thick skull that the critera Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the senate had set up was not followed, then don't even open your mouth. 585463[/snapback] Show more respect if you want me to respond to your future statements. Now to answer your statement. what avenues? those avenues were exausted. No matter what the UN was going to vote against using force (those Europeans liked their oil for food deal way too much). How many resolutions did you need? There WAS an error in intelligence. Bush, the Senate and the Congress believed that Sadam had WMD. 585471[/snapback] clearly they werent because we would have found out he wasnt activley seeking them! we lost a 1000 soldiers because he cheated on oil for food. Youve got to be kidding me. Senate and Congress gave him power. He used it rashly and prematurely because he refused to question himself and still does. This is not a leader. Its a maniac.
October 7, 200421 yr too bad, we are already there and there is no way to take our actions back. A change of leadership won't be good for the IRAQ situation. Kerry/Edwards were for the war as long the polls were showing the public approved the war. Now they call it a collosous mistake on judgement. :plain 585460[/snapback] They were for going into Iraq using force after all avenues before that were exhausted. This has been explained ad-nuaseum already, and if it still doesn't resonate through your thick skull that the critera Kerry, Edwards and the rest of the senate had set up was not followed, then don't even open your mouth. 585463[/snapback] Show more respect if you want me to respond to your future statements. Now to answer your statement. what avenues? those avenues were exausted. No matter what the UN was going to vote against using force (those Europeans liked their oil for food deal way too much). How many resolutions did you need? There WAS an error in intelligence. Bush, the Senate and the Congress believed that Sadam had WMD. 585471[/snapback] This is the same intelligence Clinton had. If it seemed that Saddam was such a threat to the US, how come we weren't in there 8 years ago? And even if the UN was going to vote against whatever resoultion we put forward Bush then could say he tried, and they didn't want to come on board. All he can say now is that he went in without most of the nations which make up the UN, found nothing and has egg on his face. The UN looks right and the US looks dead wrong. There is no way around it. Bush embaressed the US and doesn't care.
October 7, 200421 yr Thanks for exposing that Bush is a flip flopper too. 585466[/snapback] This is the problem, this is were you and me differ. . . 99.99% polititians suck. Kerry, Edwards, Cheney, Bush, "put name here". I'm not going to tell you that I believe Bush is the best thing, and there is no fault in him. But I have tried to listen to Kerry/Edwards objectively and I can't buy into their spins. They are lost on the economy and no reasonable argument has been made for making the IRAQ war better. I'm taking the lesser evil. that's all
October 7, 200421 yr Author Thanks for exposing that Bush is a flip flopper too. 585466[/snapback] This is the problem, this is were you and me differ. . . 99.99% polititians suck. Kerry, Edwards, Cheney, Bush, "put name here". I'm not going to tell you that I believe Bush is the best thing, and there is no fault in him. But I have tried to listen to Kerry/Edwards objectively and I can't buy into their spins. They are lost on the economy and no reasonable argument has been made for making the IRAQ war better. I'm taking the lesser evil. that's all 585477[/snapback] I give you credit for admitting Bush is a flip flopper too. But Bush is much much worse IMO. Bush has been spinning for a long time. I think anything but Bush is a better argument for Iraq, especially after this neocon debacle.
October 7, 200421 yr we lost a 1000 soldiers because he cheated on oil for food. Youve got to be kidding me. 585472[/snapback] We've lost 1,065 lives and 7,532 are injured. Who knows how many have lost arms or legs, are paralyzed etc. All because of oil for food? For anyone who thinks this was was justified I think you should go and visit every single person who lost someone in this war and you tell them it was justified. That it was worth it. I don't know about you, but is the world any better today than it was 17 months ago? I don't think so.
October 7, 200421 yr Author The UN looks right and the US looks dead wrong. There is no way around it. Bush embaressed the US and doesn't care. Ex-frikkin-actly. Theyll never admit it. Ever. The preconcieved notions will be reinforced by selective evidence.
October 7, 200421 yr Author clearly they werent because we would have found out he wasnt activley seeking them! What's your explanation for Saddam's ~3000% increase in budget from 98' to 2001 for his special weapons group? Funding went from ~$7M to over $200M Some recently released Saddam interrogation results seem to indicate he was keenly interested in WMD and nukes as a counter to Iran. Indeed - even YOU have posted regarding those interrogation results. You need to explain this apparent disconnect. 585483[/snapback] Nothing even remotley enough to justify invasion. Nothing. He was a wacko who considered it in the back of his mind. Things could have been accomplshed without the massive loss of life.
October 7, 200421 yr Author And even if the UN was going to vote against whatever resoultion we put forward Bush then could say he tried, and they didn't want to come on board. 585475[/snapback] We did all that...for over 10 years in fact... 585487[/snapback] and it worked. He gave up on WMDs.
October 7, 200421 yr And even if the UN was going to vote against whatever resoultion we put forward Bush then could say he tried, and they didn't want to come on board. 585475[/snapback] We did all that...for over 10 years in fact... 585487[/snapback] And look who was right for not coming on board. Sometimes there is saftey in numbers. Brits understand that Iraq was a no-go yet many Americans can't figure it out. Where is this difference in idealology coming from?
October 7, 200421 yr Author And even if the UN was going to vote against whatever resoultion we put forward Bush then could say he tried, and they didn't want to come on board. 585475[/snapback] We did all that...for over 10 years in fact... 585487[/snapback] And look who was right for not coming on board. Sometimes there is saftey in numbers. Brits understand that Iraq was a no-go yet many Americans can't figure it out. Where is this difference in idealology coming from? 585491[/snapback] Since mollusk refuses to answer, I'll ask you the question. Maybe you'll have enough intellectual honesty to try. What's your explanation for Saddam's ~3000% increase in budget from 98' to 2001 for his special weapons group? (this of course is a period during which most inspectors had been absent) Funding went from ~$7M to over $200M Some recently released Saddam interrogation results seem to indicate he was keenly interested in WMD and nukes as a counter to Iran. Do the math: Interest + lots of cash = ???? 585502[/snapback] Ive answered it tonyi. The sanctions were working so he was underminning them. It was a hole. Instead of plugging the whole, you defend bombing the whole thing.
October 7, 200421 yr And even if the UN was going to vote against whatever resoultion we put forward Bush then could say he tried, and they didn't want to come on board. 585475[/snapback] We did all that...for over 10 years in fact... 585487[/snapback] And look who was right for not coming on board. Sometimes there is saftey in numbers. Brits understand that Iraq was a no-go yet many Americans can't figure it out. Where is this difference in idealology coming from? 585491[/snapback] Since mollusk refuses to answer, I'll ask you the question. Maybe you'll have enough intellectual honesty to try. What's your explanation for Saddam's ~3000% increase in budget from 98' to 2001 for his special weapons group? (this of course is a period during which most inspectors had been absent) Funding went from ~$7M to over $200M Some recently released Saddam interrogation results seem to indicate he was keenly interested in WMD and nukes as a counter to Iran. Do the math: Interest + lots of cash = ???? 585502[/snapback] It seems to equal nothing since we found nothing. If he spent that money we should have found facilities, or traces of something yet we found nothing. I have always thought Saddam was putting up a front to make it seem that he was up to something fishy so the US/UN would storm on in and find nothing and they look like they were wrong. As if he was some martyr of sorts. So yes his spending went up, but where did it go? We know it couldn't have been weaspons, there are none.
October 7, 200421 yr Author Ive answered it tonyi. The sanctions were working so he was underminning them. It was a hole. Instead of plugging the whole, you defend bombing the whole thing. 585503[/snapback] What do sanctions have to do with funding increases in WMD programs? Elaborate. I'll repeat the question: What's your explanation for Saddam's ~3000% increase in budget from 98' to 2001 for his special weapons group? (this of course is a period during which most inspectors had been absent) Funding went from ~$7M to over $200M Explain. Please elaborate on the claim I "defend bombing the whole thing". A quote of me advocating the attack on Iraq would be nice. I don't believe I've ever advocated attacking Iraq. This is not to say I don't appreciate the reasons and intel available at the time that lead to the attack. A quote would bolster your claim about my position a lot more than vague handwaving. 585512[/snapback] You dont advocate the invasion..but think the reasons were fine? If Kerry said something like "This is not to say I dont appreciate the reasons.." he would would fried. Listen, cleary he was cheating with oil for food. Clearly he was getting money. Clearly thats the explanation. But the implication that that cheating meant he wanted to get WMDs down the road is the problem I have. His cheating for consideration of WMDs or paying to lift the sanctions is no reason to invade. Thats my point. Bush is still saying his cheating is good enough reason to invade. He will never admit wrongdoing.
October 7, 200421 yr Author You dont advocate the invasion..but thing the reasons were fine? If Kerry said something like "This is not to say I dont appreciate the reasons.." he would would fried. Listen, cleary he was cheating with oil for food. Clearly he was getting money. Clearly thats the explanation. 585523[/snapback] Weren't you just minutes ago saying sanctions were working though? Now you say he was cheaping and circumventing them. You're flip-flopping as bad as Kerry does. 585528[/snapback] No, the sanctions prevented him from getting WMDs. He had to find alternatives. Just cut off his method of underminning them. After youve adjusted for error, the method is up and running again. Plus, what about phishfan's question on why he never actuall spent this money? Wanna answer that?
October 7, 200421 yr You dont advocate the invasion..but thing the reasons were fine? If Kerry said something like "This is not to say I dont appreciate the reasons.." he would would fried. Listen, cleary he was cheating with oil for food. Clearly he was getting money. Clearly thats the explanation. 585523[/snapback] Weren't you just minutes ago saying sanctions were working though? Now you say he was cheaping and circumventing them. You're flip-flopping as bad as Kerry does. 585528[/snapback] I think what Mollusk is saying is that the sanctions were keeping Saddam from getting WMDs which was the point of going to war, thus, that trumps all.
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.