The Failed Presidency.

I intend no affront, Bill, merely disagreement and divergent opinion. I surely take no umbrage at your position; I merely do not share it. Neither of us is the greater or the lesser for any of that; we merely see it differently.

If not, then there wouldn't be two parties. Of course, I pray for multiple parties with open coalitions being required - as, I am neither a Rep nor a Dem, both being much too extremist for me!!!

There's a lot to be said for Multi-Party Coalition Government ... the Italians, for example, have so much more fun during their elections than we seem to. Then again, they've had about 59 governments in the last 58 years, haven't they?

"A committee is the least efficient means through which to accomplish anything of importance" :wink:

The notion that Iraq did destroy weapons, but didn't bother to document that fact is so far fetched, I question the intellect of anyone who considers it a possibility.

If there are hidden WMD's in Iraq that are NEVER found then it stands to reason they'll NEVER be used so what's the problem?

The problem is that what apparently passes for reason with you, is not what passes for reason with me; nor do I suspect is it in fact objectively reasonable.

Or to put it another way, your too-cute comment falls apart if anyone knows where they are or ever stumbles upon them, and (to parallel my recent comment) the notion that nobody knows where they are is daft.

gosh scrat...a little bitchy today? I wasn't addressing you...I was responding to the previous comment by cjhsa.....and I was being serious. Please take your seat.

Precisely.

Could you describe what you think "proof they destroyed them" might look like?

A 'document'? Seems like those crafty Iraqis could've "sexed "something up without much trouble (as if that would've satisfied anyone enough to stave off an invasion)...

Pieces of something? Like a ten-year-old centrifuge buried in someone's back yard?

Here's some very cut-and-dried factoids, Scrat:

Nearly six months of furious searching by thousands of US Army personnel, David Kay and 1400 inspectors, and God knows who else.

No weapons found; no proof weapons destroyed.

And your contention remains...what, exactly? "they must be somewhere...."?

Whose intellect is questionable?[/b]

Ockham's Razor
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily".

Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html

The application of these two rules would suggest that if no weapons of mass destruction can be found, and there is no record of their destruction, they did not exist.

I may be missing something here, but where is the evidence that the acknowledged, known, catalogued, still-unaccounted-for materiel did not exist? Where is the evidence of what happened to it?

WMD's or no WMD's, Complicity in 9/11 or not, support of terrorism or not. Compliance to the UN mandates or not. Would have made no difference. Bush , or at least his brain trust had decided that Saddam had to go and a regime change was a must. The rest is history. We, our children and grandchildren will be paying for that grand fiasco. .

A M E N!

I wasn't aware that you had to be addressing me for me to have an opinion of your opinion. Perhaps you meant to send cjhsa a PM and got confused? Otherwise, post to a public forum and your comments are fair game.

Well done, I knew you'd get a clue eventually! That is precisely my point... That which once existed either still exists or was destroyed; and evidence exists in either case. That said evidence is not revealing itself quickly enough for your liking does not change that simple fact.

Just a little non-specific, non-accusatory, general, pre-emptory sort of reminder here... remember to play fair when exercizing the fair game option

my my scrat we are pms ing today aren't we? Try a Midol and have a nice day.

My dearest BPB, I always have a nice day! You'd be surprised what a bracing tonic being right so often is! (In fact, I imagine you'd be very surprised... experiencing it as rarely as I'm sure you do.) :wink:

Frank A Pisa quotes Au 1929 who says that President Bush or at least his brain trust decided that Saddam had to go.

I don't think Frank A Pisa and Au 1929 are up on their reading. Frank A Pisa never gives documentation or evidence. Au 1929 does once in a while.

What Frank A Pisa and Au 1929 do not know or refuse to understand is that President Bush and his brain trust do not exist in a vacuum. They do have access to all kinds of documentation that has gone before.

I know that Frank A Pisa and Au 1929 will not be able to explain the following since it does not fit into their thesis that President Bush and his brain trust decided Saddam will have to go. They do not tell us why President Bush and his brain trust decided Saddam had to go.

At least one important reason why President Bush and his brain trust decided Saddam had to go is that they were advised by the most brilliant foreign policy expert we have ever had as President- William Jefferson Clinton.

On December 16th 1998, Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq.

Clinton said in his speech:

QUOTE

SO WE WILL PURSUE A LONG-TERM STRATEGY TO CONTAIN IRAQ AND ITS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND WORK

TOWARD

THE

DAY

WHEN

IRAQ

HAS

A

GOVERNMENT

WORTHY

OF

ITS

PEOPLE

and

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain SADDAM'S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his agression and prevent another Gulf War"


and

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.'

Can(will?) Au 1929 and Frank A Pisa deal with the above.

It is clear that Clinton wanted Saddam removed and thought he was a threat and felt that he had WMD's.

Is Au1929 and Frank A Pisa saying that President Bush should have totally ignored Clinton's warnings?

It appears clear to me that BOTH presidents thought Saddam should be removed; that Saddam was a danger to the world and that Saddam had WMD's.

Scrat is indeed correct.

http://www.un.org

reports the following:

(and it is to be noted that Hans Blix is NOT in the CIA)

quote

"He (Blix) questions Iraq's claim concering the quality, quantity and DISPOSITION of VX Nerve Gas produced by Iraq as well as the claims that Iraq had destroyed 8,500 liters of Anthrax. IN ADDITION HE REPORTS THAT IRAQ HAS TESTED TWO MISSLES IN EXCESS OF THE PERMITTED RANGE OF 159 KILOMETER>"

It is clear that the latter point was established. Blix said that Saddam did have WMD's AT LEAST AS FAR AS MISSLES WERE CONCERNED.

Italgato,

Missles are not WMDs. Payloads are.

Regards