1
   

John Murtha: America has had Enough of Bush's Iraq war

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:36 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
There have been WMDs found


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Oh, wait, you're serious! Let me laugh even harder:

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:48 pm
old europe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
There have been WMDs found


Laughing Laughing Laughing

Oh, wait, you're serious! Let me laugh even harder:

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


I haven't had a lot of luck finding anybody here that is capable of using a search engine, however, I'll try one more time, go to google, type in "wmd found in iraq". Hopefully you'll restore my faith in people that can apparently type here, being able to type on google.
Happy reading.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:48 pm
Yea, something to be proud to support alright. They (and everybody else) are soo better off now. Rolling Eyes

At least 112 people killed across Iraq

Quote:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:59 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
go to google, type in "wmd found in iraq".


Ironically, the first search results that show up with this query are

- FOXNews.com - Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

and

- CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq


Laughing Laughing Laughing


Anyways, I hope you're not suggesting that the mightiest nation on Earth has gone to war over defunct pre-Gulf-War-I munitions. I know that you've identified yourself as right of the neocons, but that would be truly pathetic!
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 08:27 pm
LoneStarMadam, perhaps you are new here and you are not familiar with the general way things are done. When a person makes a statement, it is helpful to provide some kind of proof other than suggestions to use the search engine.

For example:

Quote:
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.

The Iraq Survey Group report, released Wednesday, is 1,200 to 1,500 pages long.

The massive report does say, however, that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future.

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report says.

Duelfer, testifying at a Senate hearing on the report, said his account attempts to describe Iraq's weapons programs "not in isolation but in the context of the aims and objectives of the regime that created and used them."

"I also have insisted that the report include as much basic data as reasonable and that it be unclassified, since the tragedy that has been Iraq has exacted such a huge cost for so many for so long," Duelfer said.

The report was released nearly two years ago to the day that President Bush strode onto a stage in Cincinnati and told the audience that Saddam Hussein's Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "is seeking nuclear weapons."

"The danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time," Bush said in the speech delivered October 7, 2002. "If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"

Speaking on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, Bush maintained Wednesday that the war was the right thing to do and that Iraq stood out as a place where terrorists might get weapons of mass destruction.

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks, and in the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take," Bush said.

But Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, seized on the report as political ammunition against the Bush administration.

"Despite the efforts to focus on Saddam's desires and intentions, the bottom line is Iraq did not have either weapon stockpiles or active production capabilities at the time of the war," Rockefeller said in a press release.

"The report does further document Saddam's attempts to deceive the world and get out from under the sanctions, but the fact remains, the sanctions combined with inspections were working and Saddam was restrained."

But British Prime Minister Tony Blair had just the opposite take on the information in the report, saying it demonstrated the U.N. sanctions were not working and Saddam was "doing his best" to get around them.

He said the report made clear that there was "every intention" on Saddam's part to develop WMD and he "never had any intention of complying with U.N. resolutions."

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee Wednesday, panel Chairman John Warner, R-Virginia, called the findings "significant."

"While the ISG has not found stockpiles of WMD, the ISG and other coalition elements have developed a body of fact that shows that Saddam Hussein had, first, the strategic intention to continue to pursue WMD capabilities; two, created ambiguity about his WMD capabilities that he used to extract concessions in the international world of disclosure and discussion and negotiation.

"He used it as a bargaining tactic and as a strategic deterrent against his neighbors and others."

"As we speak, over 1,700 individuals -- military and civilian -- are in Iraq and Qatar, continuing to search for facts about Iraq's WMD programs," Warner said.

But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.

"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, asked Duelfer about the future likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction, to which Duelfer replied, "The chance of finding a significant stockpile is less than 5 percent."

Based in part on interviews with Saddam, the report concludes that the deposed Iraqi president wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction because he believed they kept the United States from going all the way to Baghdad during the first Gulf War and stopped an Iranian ground offensive during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, senior administration officials said.

U.S. officials said the Duelfer report is "comprehensive," but they are not calling it a "final report" because there are still some loose ends to tie up.

One outstanding issue, an official said, is whether Iraq shipped any stockpiles of weapons outside of the country. Another issue, he said, is mobile biological weapons labs, a matter on which he said "there is still useful work to do."

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.

The U.S. official said he believes Saddam decided to give up his weapons in 1991, but tried to conceal his nuclear and biological programs for as long as possible. Then in 1995, when his son-in-law Hussain Kamal defected with information about the programs, he gave those up, too.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb."


source

Or this one

Quote:
U.S. investigators hunting for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have found no evidence that such material was moved to Syria for safekeeping before the war, according to a final report of the investigation released yesterday.


Otherwise, everyone could just make statements willy nilly without having to back them up and just tell people to use google (or whatever.)

My point is that just look at the horrific results of invading Iraq; they are worse off than they were then, and now there is AQ in Iraq and we have made more anti American sentiment becaue of our unjust invasion across the middle east which in no way makes us safer.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 08:32 pm
old europe wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
go to google, type in "wmd found in iraq".


Ironically, the first search results that show up with this query are

- FOXNews.com - Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

and

- CIA's final report: No WMD found in Iraq


Laughing Laughing Laughing


Anyways, I hope you're not suggesting that the mightiest nation on Earth has gone to war over defunct pre-Gulf-War-I munitions. I know that you've identified yourself as right of the neocons, but that would be truly pathetic!


Why isn't FNC acceptable to you? I'm sure Al Jazeera nor MoveOn would have that story, sorry.
Is that the same CIA that said there were WMDs in Iraq? The same ones that told BC & this president that WMDs was in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 10:21 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Why isn't FNC acceptable to you? I'm sure Al Jazeera nor MoveOn would have that story, sorry.
Is that the same CIA that said there were WMDs in Iraq? The same ones that told BC & this president that WMDs was in Iraq?


I don't think that I said that Fox wasn't acceptable. I said that Fox News popping up at number 1 in the search results was ironic.
But you'll certainly agree that Fox rather leans to the right, because otherwise you wouldn't have given examples of what you perceive to be left-leaning news sources.

And even though Fox News is rather on the right side of whatever's out there to report, their article clearly mentions that

- the munitions found dated back to the period pre-1991
- the chemical agents had already degraded
- the munitions found were not proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s

So what exactly does this proof? Well, it's evidence that Iraq had chemical weapons prior to Gulf War I. Of course, that is not particularly exciting, as we already knew this from Halabja poison gas attack in 1988.

And we already knew it from the Iraq-Iran war. Of course, back then, the US had no problem with the fact that a) Iraq was in posssesion of WMD and b) was using those WMD to kill more than 100,000 Iranians.

Actually, we already knew that Iraq was in possession of chemical weapons because countries like the US, the UK, Germany, France or China had supplied Iraq with either precursors, know-how or actual weapons. Of course that was back in the 1980s, when Iraq Was Our Friend.


However, I somehow remember that the US government made all kinds of claims that Iraq was in the possession of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You know, all that talk about mushroom clouds and so on. I don't think that chemical weapons were mentioned a lot pre-Gulf-War-II.

So here's my question to you: What do you think the defunct pre-1991 munitions show us in regard to the claims the US government made about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the run-up to the invasion?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 10:36 pm
Fox News does not lean to the right, IMO, it's because all of the others lean so far to the left making FNC lookas though they lean right.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 12:50 am
That's your big rebuttal of all the points OE just made?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 03:26 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
JTT wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
That is your opinion, which you have every right to, others may differ.


No, Madam, that is fact. Follow the facts. No WMDs, no connection to Al Quaeda, no UN security council approval, UN inspectors within the country doing their job, USA inspectors there after finding nothing.

It is immoral to kill thousands of innocents based on a pack of lies.


No, it's your fact There have been WMDs found, a connection has been proven, & we don't need the UNs approval. As soon as a UN station got hit in Baghdad, the UN sledaddled out of there.
The UN, in fact, didn't do anything about the 17 UN resolutions that Saddam broke, & he fired at our pilots on a daliy basis before we went in. Now maybe you think it's ok for our planes to get shot at by an enemy & we do nothing, I certainly do not.


Yes, our warplanes overflew that country, and took out radar installations and other military targets, AND THEY GOT SHOT AT!

Who do these people think they are? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 09:01 am
LoneStarMadam wrote:
Fox News does not lean to the right, IMO, it's because all of the others lean so far to the left making FNC lookas though they lean right.


Okay. For the sake of this argument, let's say that Fox looks as though they lean right. At least they do to me.

Now, would you like to answer my question, or do you prefer to just walk away? Here, let me post it again:

old europe wrote:
What do you think the defunct pre-1991 munitions show us in regard to the claims the US government made about Iraq's nuclear capabilities in the run-up to the invasion?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 10:20:58