• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Hide your head in the Sand

passin thru

Well-known member
Despite the pathetic mainstream media and the Pathetic Democrats' lying to the contrary, several chemical weapons have been found that qualify as WMD. But people have ignored the evidence..............since it would blow a hole in their 'Bush Lied, people died' nonsense. To be fair, the Bush Administration has done little to correct the record on this issue.

Now a new report from the Pentagon sheds some light on just how many WMDs have been found, and it's a lot. We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...............real nasty stuff.
So why isn't this major breaking news?

Because the WMDs are said to be manufactured before 1991....not in recent years. Therefore, the mainstream media and the Pathetic Democrats don't count those. For some reason, they want WMDs made in recent years. Seems the left likes their mustard gas just a little fresher. But that's not the point(and they know it). This stuff can kill ... but to the left it's harmless(yeah right).

All that matters is Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he got rid of all his WMDs. He absolutely did not. What do you reckon would have happened had Hussein sold some of these WMD's to Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't have been a pleasant sight. But this evidence will be ignored..............and the leftist propaganda machine that says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat will patheticly roll on...................and on.......... and on.......................

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
 

nonothing

Well-known member
YOU WERE RIGHT REPUBLICANS,THERE WAS WMD's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.....feel better? Now passing thru look for stories on getting the troops home safe,and the inocent people safe beds at night...
 

passin thru

Well-known member
R2.................I think you missed it, NN did not disagree with me, but only wants to ignore the history that got us to this point.. I just believe that some of the left has tried to ignore these facts. I want to keep a handle on all facts that got us to this point. It gives us direction of how we proceed from here.
 

passin thru

Well-known member
I guess my view is that anyone half intelligent realizes how we got here and has put that behind them unless they are a right or left wing fringe fanatic.

Thanks for the condescending attitude.........however if it was not ontended that way I am sorry.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I guess my view is that anyone half intelligent realizes how we got here and has put that behind them unless they are a right or left wing fringe fanatic.

I refuse to be labeled as a fanatic. But to ignore how we got into this mess will only make it easier to be drawn into another. There needs to be a clear explanation by this Administration as to why they made decisions they made, why they made statements they made.

For whatever reason, we were mistaken about the extent of and activeness of the WMD program. We invaded. Much of the world supported us at that point. We publically said we would go in and voila the Iraqis would cheer us as liberators and fall right into democracy and we'd be out shortly.

No. We were not "mistaken" about the WMD program. The CIA, the State Department Intelligence both told the President Saddam was not a threat to this country. By accepting the claim the Bush Bunch is now making that "everyone was wrong" it lets this bunch get away with....murder. There should be an accounting, a public disclosure, reasonable debate in Congress about what happened and why. But it won't happen because the Republicans are in charge.

We were wrong but yes, we're there and we have to figure out how to get out without leaving a shambles. And you know, that may not be possible.

"We" weren't wrong; the Bush Administation twisted, lied, and misused intelligence information to make their case for war. You know that. Look at Scooter Libby's testimony that Bush and Cheney gave him permission to leak classified information to the media that made their case for war. He didn't leak everything, only what made the Bush Administration's case for war. I refuse to set idly by and say well, that's ok, we just need to figure a way out now. It's not ok for any Administration to mislead, downright lie, the the American people for their own personal agenda.

I actually am a bit more optimistic at this point. I think unfortunately the Iraqi government will have to be quite heavy handed and nearly tyrannical to stop the anarchy and civil war. It's outrageous how they are killing one another.

I heard that even Bill O'Rielly was even speaking positively about Saddam's way of handling Iraqis. Something like, "We should just shoot them, like Saddam did."
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
I read widely, speak with lots of folks in Government (including dissenting opinions), and listen to a spectrum of television / radio commentators.

And I have a good deal of respect for your opinion. But on this one I think you're dead wrong.

It's too simplistic to just label the administration liars. They believed Saddam Hussain was a danger. I believed they DID think he had WMD and was parlaying with al-Qaeda. I believe they were easily convinced and did exaggerate but I don't see it all as a large evil plot. That is to ignore the facts. Lots of smart Govt people opposed the war from the outset by the way, as not in our national interests. I believe that the argument really is more about policy decisions and what is and is not good for U.S. national security.

Simplistic? Maybe, but they did lie. The CIA refused to vet one of Bush's speeches that contained the yellowcake claim. But they put it back in to his State of the Union Speech. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts by this Administration. Telling Scooter Libby to leak classified information that made the case for war was a deliberate act. I don't think I can ignore those things and say, shame on you, but let's carry on now. I want some accountability from this government.

I have my own major issues with this administration. They are manipulators, naive, too pro big business, ideologues, polarizers and polluters. That this is a massively flawed administration is recognized by all except a few diehards, including most Republicans who will be running on anti-Bush issues this Fall. But I do not see it as a large plot because there were too many people involved and any one of them would have bolted if it were simply outright lies and deceptions.

Again you're using the "simply" word. Whether or not it was simply outright lies and deceptions, they did lie. They did withold information and push the threats. Did you see the FRONTLINE story? It made a good case for a plot between Cheny and Rumsfeld, among others. Oh, I agree with you that they have a lot to answer for. Look at Medicare D. Medicare can't negotiate for lower prices, but private insurance companies can! And that's after they mislead Congress about the cost of the program to start with. The cost of the ten drugs most used by seniors enrolled in Medicare D has gone up since the plan was started. The Administration claimed prices would go down because of "competition" within the drug industry. There's no competition when you have the President of the United States in your corner.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Scooter Libby outted Valerie Plame to retaliate against her husband opposing the administration publically. This is classic Karl Rove, a man who has singlehandedly upped the ante in dirty and mean politics in his generation.

I believe that Tenet and Colin Powell -- who were seeing intelligence -- thought honestly that Iraq had WMD. Public television had a great show on this and one commentator mentioned an incident with Tenet and Bush where Bush said "isn't the evidence too skimpy?" and Tenet said "it's a slamdunk". The commentator said that Tenet should have spoken up there and then.

What I believed happened was a combination of policy driving intelligence outcomes (bad) and intelligence officials who were consensus seeking type individuals (specifically Tenet) being too "agreeable" instead of ferretting out and shoving in the administration's face the opposing intelligence.

Intelligence is not facts, it is opinion based on what is somehow observable, which is not a full or a disclosed picture but can be partial or misleading or deceptive.

All true, but if the Administation had not come into office with an agenda for overthrowing Saddam, none of this would have mattered. If Bush really wanted to get the terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11, we'd have more troops in Afghanistan instead of depending on NATO. Saddam was a target from the day Bush walked into the White House and nothing was allowed to get in his way. Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, for one, says so. Now it's a disaster; he's turning his back on it and refusing to take responsibility for ending it. That will be up to the next president, he says. No, simply saying, well you guys were bad boys, but we need to get on with it, is not enough. I want accountability for the money and lives lost in that country, the damage done to our military. I want to be sure it won't happen again.

I'm not talking about Libby leaking Valarie Plame's name. He also leaked part of a classified NIE. But only the part that made the case for war against Iraq.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Reader, I would have to agree with you analysis on this one pretty much straight down the line. I think it is Rove and the kind of skills he brings to the table that is to blame for most of it. It is his job to it but it is the Decider's job to prevent Rove from going too far and with the merging of K street and other things, he has not.

The earmarking in D.C. could be stopped by the executive branch real quick if the Pres. wanted to. Instead they have sold earmarks that benefit thier contributors instead of the people.

Quite disappointing from one who has sold himself as ethical and independent. Clinton may not have been as ethical personally but when you are not ethical politically, and you are the top politician, it is much worse.

This has turned into a propaganda machine that does not have a good foundation. Such it is when men of hubris are not corrected or at least questioned. Congress has only given the green light instead of being one of the three coequal branches of power. It doesn't say much for our the structure of our democracy entrusted in the hands that are there now.
 
Top