Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Where's 5-ever mea culpa on the Iraqi WMD's?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    if there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq.

    Now that its been proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq in 2003 we haven't heard a word from you. Integrity?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 28 2004, 09:59 AM
    [b] if there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq.

    Now that its been proven that there were no WMD's in Iraq in 2003 we haven't heard a word from you. Integrity? [/b][/quote]
    Tail -


    The burden of proof was on Saddam to prove that he didn't have them, not on the US to prove that he did. He did have stockpiles and raw materials that were unaccounted for, even up to the last days of the most recent UN inspection regime. Saddam was not forthcoming about what happened to them, other than unsupported denials. Blix himself even said that Saddam was not complying, even well after 1441.

    It would have been criminally negligent for the USA to simply assume he did not have them, especially in light of the fact that 9-11 showed us that terrorism is not something confined to other areas.

    Am I surprised that we have found nothing? Yes. Am I disappointed? Yes. Is my faith in the intelligence community shaken? Yes.

    However, as you know, the intelligence agencies of the entire world all were in agreement that Saddam had WMD. In fact, if you remember prior to the war, the disagreement between the USA and other countries was NOT whether or not Saddam had them - everyone agreed he did - it was over the best method of disarmament...force or inspections. It is clear that Saddam, after not complying for many years and kicking the incpestors out for four long years, had not made a decision to fufill the terms of his cease-fire agreement. Even given a final ultimatum in the form of 1441, he obstructed. We called him on it. End of story. 12 years was enough. I supported regime change in 1998 - when Clinton made it the official policy of the USA and talked all about Saddam's WMD and the need to have a credible threat of force.

    Bush never said the threat from WMD was "imminent."" In fact, he ridicules those who wanted to wait until it was.

    We need to examine how our intelligence is so poor in that region, and how the entire world could have been so wrong about something so vital. But what is clear is that Saddam retained the componentry, the know-how and the will to continue his pursuit of WMD. So-called containment was very, very expensive, it was ruinous for the Iraqi people (which helps foster anti-American resentment) and was undermined by the illegal contracts and prfoteering other countries engaged in with Saddam (those same countries who argued in favor of extending these "sanctions" in perpetuity, regardless of Saddam's defiance."

    I think your boy Kerry does a good job summing things up - you may interested in hearing what he had to say about Saddam and the need to use force - keep in mind he was basing these statements on the exact intel Bush was:

    [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/document/ker...00401261431.asp[/url]

  3. #3
    5ever no one outside of the white house had access to the same intel bush did and you know it.

    all in all that's a pretty sorry post for a guy who seemed utterly convinced war was justified and WMD were a certainty.

    what about the 6 GI's who died yesterday and the 5 who died last couple days?

    died in the name of american economic interest

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Bitonti - YES they did.

    The war was justified and should have been finished off in 1991. I supported Clinton in 1998. I supported Bush in 2003.

    What about them? What economic interest? You make no sense at all - all you ever do is complain about the cost of the war and now you are turning around and talking about 'economic interest.'

    You don't know what you are talking about.

    What, exactly, is incorrect about my post above? Which governments and intelligence agencies were convinced that Saddam had nothing?

    The burden of proof was always on Saddam, not on the civilized world to find a needle in a haystack. Did you even read Kay's interim report?

  5. #5
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Tail: Look at my signature. When will Lord O'Reilly recant?

  6. #6
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 28 2004, 11:33 AM
    [b] The burden of proof was always on Saddam, not on the civilized world to find a needle in a haystack. Did you even read Kay's interim report? [/b][/quote]
    yeah shakin posted it

    -- bottom line even if he had WMD its not a reason to go to war. War is a last resort, not a first.

    Did you see the docs that Paul Oneill released? The big 5 have been drooling over the Iraqi oilfields since Jan of 2001 (at least that's the documented date, most likely they have been drooling since 1950!)

    WMD - ha - i scoff. There are a hundred WMD holding countries and many of them have anti-american factions?

    maybe we should invade them all?

    the real way to deal with terrorism is isolationism i've been saying it all along. Now our soldiers are dying by Al_Queda style car bombs in Iraq and there's no end in
    sight. Those guys aren't fighting remnants of Saddam's regime they are fighting suicidal terrorists and there seems to be an unlimited amount of them.

    the war is really going great. like who gives a f--k if Iraqi's have freedom or democracy or quality of life? what about Americans quality of life?

    just admit it you bastard ;) its all about oil. if there wasn't oil in Iraq we wouldn't be there. fighting Terrorism with guns is like fighting cockroaches with shoes. You might get a couple but they just keep on coming.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    5-ever...This thread is about you and what you said. No one else. So don't try and drag anybody else into this. for once stand behind YOUR statements.

    Last year you said you'd be really pissed at Bush if there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq.

    I guess you feel differently now.

    Hypocritical?

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 28 2004, 11:11 AM
    [b] 5-ever...This thread is about you and what you said. No one else. So don't try and drag anybody else into this. for once stand behind YOUR statements.

    Last year you said you'd be really pissed at Bush if there turned out to be no WMD's in Iraq.

    I guess you feel differently now.

    Hypocritical? [/b][/quote]
    I said I'd be pissed of he [i]stopped looking for them[/i], not if they were never found. It seems as though Dr. Kay is pissed that resources are being directed away from the search. It bears watching.

    Yes, if they completely abandon the search, I will be pissed. No doubt. I want to know what happened to the WMD the entire world thought he had, or, at a minimum, find out why everyone's intel was so bad and what is being done to remedy that problem.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Jan 28 2004, 12:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Jan 28 2004, 12:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Jan 28 2004, 11:11 AM
    [b] 5-ever...This thread is about you and what you said. No one else. So don&#39;t try and drag anybody else into this. for once stand behind YOUR statements.

    Last year you said you&#39;d be really pissed at Bush if there turned out to be no WMD&#39;s in Iraq.

    I guess you feel differently now.

    Hypocritical? [/b][/quote]
    I said I&#39;d be pissed of he [i]stopped looking for them[/i], not if they were never found. It seems as though Dr. Kay is pissed that resources are being directed away from the search. It bears watching.

    Yes, if they completely abandon the search, I will be pissed. No doubt. I want to know what happened to the WMD the entire world thought he had, or, at a minimum, find out why everyone&#39;s intel was so bad and what is being done to remedy that problem. [/b][/quote]
    First of all that&#39;s not what you said, and you know it&#33;

    Second of all, how long do we search? Should this search be something that&#39;s passed from one generation to the next.

    Face it dude, to make a basketball analogy this search is in "garbage time". It&#39;s just a matter of time before it&#39;s called off.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us