War

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 22 2004, 02:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 22 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 02:24 PM

According to the UN, Iraq exported WMD before and after the war had started in 2003.

But, but... they didn't have any!        ...Right?

Umm, right. Bush was wrong.

I know it's hard to admit that Bush was right, but the UN is backing hm now. The WMD were there.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Sep 22 2004, 06:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Sep 22 2004, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 03:16 AM

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

2. Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3. Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

4. Unemployment rises.

5. Does virtually nothing about the rising costs of health care.

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

I could go on-----best president, I don't think so.

Don't kid yourself. Several of those things happened in response to 9/11, and would have happened no matter who was president. And the only reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because of the mess Clinton made with the presidency. Bin Laden, et al, assumed that Bush would roll over and play dead the way Clinton did. I am sure that if he knew that Bush would retaliate in force, it would not have happened. So, ultimately, it was Clinton's fault.

You can speculate all you want about whether or not 911 and the Iraq mess would have happened under Clinton, but the indisputable fact is that it happened under BUSH's watch. Bush had almost a year to get a heads up on Osama, and never did. Clinton made several attempts to irradicate Osama. Has Bush done any better? Another fact is that Clinton DID have a plan in place to deal with Osama and the Bush Admin. trashed it as soon as they got into office. The Clinton group warned Bush's camp that Osama needed to be dealt with as a high priority, and all Bush could talk about was invading Iraq from the second he got into the white house--read Paul O' Neil's book. Bush has not made us safer, he has put us at greater risk than ever by creating a sactuary for more terrorists in Iraq. There is very little evidence that Iraq was doing much of significance against the US. Now we have terrorists all over the place, especially in Iraq itself. Way to go Bushy--I feel real safe! Not.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 03:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 03:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 21 2004, 08:51 PM

Give me a break!  Outshined and his pals in Iraq get sick and suddenly there are WMD's in Iraq. Outshined admits, inadvertently I sure, that he didn't find WMD's there, and he's sure Saddam must have carted them off to somewhere. While we are demanding proof, how about proof of that?!

If you read the post again, perhaps you'll educate yourself a bit. I never said I got "sick", I said 30 men in the unit on an exploitation mission (search for WMD) developed symptoms of chemical exposure (big difference). I won't go into detail what the symptopms are, as you aren't really interested anyway. Afterward, the barrels they were moving were tested, and came up positive for VX nerve. VX nerve is a type of nerve gas, in case you didn't know. We also had to purify a water source that was contaminated with blister agent (another chemical weapon) and cyanide.

While that is not proof enough for you (and I doubt anything would be), it certainly is for me. Yes, I believe the WMD were either hidden or moved to another country, which would have been fairly easy to do. It's a common theory, not just mine (most experts think they are in Syria).

I believe people like Cal are so committed to thinking the worst about the war at this point that they are very reluctant, if not unable, to see the good we've done or the possibility that we were right to go in. I doubt that anything will sway such people, even if they were to turn up a chemical plant full of WMD. That's just an excuse to gripe anyway. We stopped one of the worst tyrants in the world, and still they complain.

Oh well, it wasn't theirfamilies suffering...

Ok, I stand corrected. A few soldiers get exposed to some chemical agents. Tell me, what country in the world doesn't have SOME dangerous chemical agents. The real point is did Saddam have significant amounts, enough to do any real damage, and was he even threatening to do so? Best evidence says "No."

[Outshined]

Edit: Essentially a duplicate of the one following.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 03:21 PM

Ok, I stand corrected. A few soldiers get exposed to some chemical agents. Tell me, what country in the world doesn't have SOME dangerous chemical agents. The real point is did Saddam have significant amounts, enough to do any real damage, and was he even threatening to do so? Best evidence says "No."

Oops! Better read the UN article above...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Sep 22 2004, 06:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Sep 22 2004, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 03:16 AM

It's almost funny (if it were not so sad) to see the armchair quarterbacks preaching about how bad it was to go into Iraq when few have any clue what it was like there and what it is like now. I'll give you a hint: the Iraq of reality bears little resemblance to the Iraq you see on the news. Outside a few major cities like Fallujah, there is little disturbance.

Bush the "worst" president? Not at all, he ranks among the best in my book. Yes, Clinton avoided all-out war with Iraq, only bombing Baghdad to distract the world from his impeachment hearings (or was that timing coincidence? ). And he didn't remove any weapons from Iraq. Iraq still had plenty when we got there, including some of the most advanced aircraft in the world and plenty more. The WMD had been moved or hidden by then, we know...The Iraqis chose not to use much of their weaponry; many of their troops fled their posts. See my web site for some pictures of weapons that would have hurt far more than a groundhog.

Oh, and Halliburton does not "specialize in oil hardware". They specialize in rebuilding in general. They are one of the only companies in the world capable of such reconstruction, and they got the job. Get over it. If you wanted to help rebuild the country, you should have put in a bid. Otherwise, why do you care which company is doing it?

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

2. Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3. Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

4. Unemployment rises.

5. Does virtually nothing about the rising costs of health care.

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

I could go on-----best president, I don't think so.

Don't kid yourself. Several of those things happened in response to 9/11, and would have happened no matter who was president. And the only reason we were attacked on 9/11 is because of the mess Clinton made with the presidency. Bin Laden, et al, assumed that Bush would roll over and play dead the way Clinton did. I am sure that if he knew that Bush would retaliate in force, it would not have happened. So, ultimately, it was Clinton's fault.

As to Bush retaliating in force----If Osama had known that Bush would attack Iraq, he probably would have jumped for joy at the thought. Bush has given Osama twice as much "ammunition" as he had before. Now the "infidel" has invaded our sacred land. What better way to encourage more terrorism in the region. And again, has Bush been any more successful in killing Osama than Clinton was?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Dravin+Sep 22 2004, 09:06 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravin @ Sep 22 2004, 09:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by Cal+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1.Stock market crashes

That was caused by 9/11 and an already slowing economy (the .com bubble burst before he was in office and even if it didn't wouldn't have had anything to do with him) and the President really doesn't have as much control over the economy as a lot of people think they do, of course Presidents always seem to try to take the credit when things are good and point out the above when things are bad.

Originally posted by -Cal

2.Turns a plus trillion dollar surplus into a plus trillion dollar deficit.

3.Trashes most environmental progress of the past 10 years.

Now that you can pin on him, I'd like to point out that wither number three is good or not depend on ones position, I am all for drilling in ANWR but many would consider that happening to be a horrid environmental setback, I wouldn't.

Originally posted by -Cal

4.Unemployment rises.

See number one, not as in control of this as some people think.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal

@

6.Fails to protect America from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental American soil.

I'm sorry, but the President is not clairvoyant, there seems to be a lot of back and forth over wither 9/11 could have reasonably have been avoided, hindsight is 20/20 and nothing is more annoying then people shouting, “You should have done this because X is clear” when such wasn't the case at the time that whatever should have been done.

<!--QuoteBegin--Cal

7.Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8.Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9.Lies to the American people about the reasons for going to war.

10.Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway

I assume number seven is about Iraq, so I give you all four of these as well. As for number eight, the key is arrogantly, a little diplomacy and a little less show boating would have kept quite a few hackles from getting raised. Nine I might contend with except for the fact when it was found out his intelligence was wrong he didn't apologize to the American people or admit he was wrong, no he simply switched the focus of the war, it went from stopping the WMD to freeing the Iraqi people as a flagship reason.

The short attention spans of some people make me think of 1984 actually.

Apparently, except for the first four, we agree. The bottom line is that the Republican don't hesitate to blame anything bad that happened during the Clinton, on Clinton himself. So I have no qualms about holding the Repubs to the same standard. I will grant that the economy may have started to go south on Bush early on, but the WAY in which Bush dealt with it was atrocious. During a time when we needed to fund the Federal Government, Bush did a massive giveaway to the rich and left the Government essentially bankrupt. Now our kids will have the burden of eventually rescuing the economy when the deficit forces higher taxes.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 11:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 11:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 07:44 AM

As to all these "disappearing" WMD's, your position is predictable in that you are clearly already convinced that there must be WMD's otherwise Bush is a big fat liar, and we can't face that possibility, can we?  So we must convince ourselves that Saddam made them all disappear just before we invaded. Strange how he was willing to use WMD's on the Kurds, but just couldn't bring him self to unleash them on our soldiers.  The fact of the matter is that what ever he had back in the early nineties was gone by the time we invaded, and we can thank Clinton for that, whether you like it or not.

My position on WMD is predictable because I've seen the evidence, I've had to help clean it up. Why didn't he use them on US troops? If you think back, we told him we'd nuke him if he used them, and we would have. That was all over the news, even in Kuwait, so surely you knew. He did the smart thing and got rid of them, whether you like it or not.

If you think he got rid of anything because of Clinton , you are way out of touch with reality. Militarily, Clinton was probably the weakest president of the 20th century. No one was intimidated by him, least of all Hussein. You can't even be serious about that one.

So keep your fingers in your ears and keep chanting "it's not true" over and over.

Maybe you'll manage to convince yourself...

Pure nonsense. Where you got the idea that we would use nuclear weapons in that situation I have no idea. It must have come from one of your "I love nuclear war" friends. Secondly, Clinton was far from weak militarily. Our military was plenty strong to mount any offensive necessary. According to you, our military seems to be doing just fine in Iraq--who did Bush inherit that military from?

When we got into Iraq what did we find? A country that was practically impotent militarily. Iraq, under Clinton went from being a country that rolled over Kuwait and seriously threaten Saudi Arabia, to a country that could barely spit on us when we rolled in this time. How did that come about? Well, pal, it came about under Clinton, unless you were sleeping during the nineties.

As to your wishful thinking about WMD's,.....well, that's what it really is at this point since nobody can find them. You might as well claim that Saddam had a stash of intercontinenal ballistic missles aimed at every city in the US, because the evidence for both is nonexistant.

Please give me the names of a few of these "experts" that seem to know where the WMD's are. I'm sure the Bush Admin. would love to interview them.

[Dravin]

The bottom line is that the Republican don't hesitate to blame anything bad that happened during the Clinton, on Clinton himself. So I have no qualms about holding the Repubs to the same standard.

Tu quoque, just because the other side is sloppy is not an excuse to be so. What blame lies on Bush I give to Bush, what blame lies on Clinton I give to Clinton, what blame rest on others I give to others. I will grant that this is nothing new in politics, people taking credit they shouldn't and therefore receiving blame they don't rightly deserve.

During a time when we needed to fund the Federal Government, Bush did a massive giveaway to the rich and left the Government essentially bankrupt. Now our kids will have the burden of eventually rescuing the economy when the deficit forces higher taxes.

Only thing worse than tax and spend, is not taxing and spending. :)

I'm not sure that the tax cuts by themselves were such a horrid thing (Generally I'd prefer a surplus that can be used for things like social security rather then a deficit, but ideally the government should be breaking even.), but a tax cut, a new department (Homeland Security) and two wars in the same term aren't very fiscally sound,

If I handled my finances the way the government does (And it is the government as a whole not just Bush, congress has to okay these things, though I suppose the War Powers Act kind limits their ability to say, nope, no war for you!) did I'd be bankrupt before I could blink twice.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 03:42 PM

Pure nonsense. Where you got the idea that we would use nuclear weapons in that situation I have no idea. It must have come from one of your "I love nuclear war" friends. Secondly, Clinton was far from weak militarily. Our military was plenty strong to mount any offensive necessary. According to you, our military seems to be doing just fine in Iraq--who did Bush inherit that military from?

When we got into Iraq what did we find? A country that was practically impotent militarily. Iraq, under Clinton went from being a country that rolled over Kuwait and seriously threaten Saudi Arabia, to a country that could barely spit on us when we rolled in this time. How did that come about? Well, pal, it came about under Clinton, unless you were sleeping during the nineties.

As to your wishful thinking about WMD's,.....well, that's what it really is at this point since nobody can find them. You might as well claim that Saddam had a stash of intercontinenal ballistic missles aimed at every city in the US, because the evidence for both is nonexistant.

Again you avoid the facts. Bush told the Iraqis we'd "respond in kind" if they used WMD. Have you really forgotten? Did you not watch the news at all last year? It makes more sense than your "black helicopter" friends...

Clinton was a weak military leader. I didn't say the military was weak, he was (you should read more closely), and no one feared him. That's obvious. He was a creampuff militarily, only bombing Iraq once, when he was going on trial as a diversion.

As far as weapons, I don't know what Iraq you're talking about, but the one I was in had plenty of firepower. Your statements on their military are extremely inaccurate. Check the web site for a few pictures. Yes, those are missles. You don't seem to have a clue about the equipment they had. Talk about sleeping through the 90's, and the last couple of years...

I can only assume you haven't seen the link to the UN's findings on the WMD, or you wouldn't be making such ridiculous statements about them. Here it is again if you're having trouble finding it: AGAIN

Anyway, your posts are entertaining, if not accurate at all...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 12:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 12:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Sep 22 2004, 07:51 AM

6. Fails to protect america from terrorism--first major terrorist attack on continental american soil.

7. Fails to get the perpetrator of such terrorism, and instead attacks a country that poses no immediate threat to us.

8. Alienates most of the rest of the world by arrogantly ignoring the UN.

9. Lies to the american people about the reasons for going to war.

10. Fails to articulate an exit plan for a war that we shouldn't be in anyway.

Since you've already been well answered on the first five, I'll address the rest myself.

6. This is a copout, and you know it. This is actually a great triumph, as he brought America through one of the most disastrous attacks in history.

7. No, we don't have OBL yet, unless you believe the conspiracy theories about it. We're still working on it, but feel free to chip in and help whenever you get tired of backseat driving. -The attack on Iraq was just, so it doesn't really apply in your complaint.

8. The UN is a puppet organization that no one pays attention to anyway unless they want something from them. Rwanda ignored them, Somalia ignored them, Iraq ignored them, etc... they have no real purpose in today's world.

9. The President never lied. I've posted the CIA report before (maybe you should read it); if I were in his position, I would have responded to it as well. If he hadn't people like you would be crying that he should have. That's a fact.

10. He has stated that we'll exit when we feel Iraq is ready to stand on its own. I'll go along with his plan even though it means I'll probably end up back in Iraq again. Won't really affect you, but feel free to complain.

Yes, certainly an excellent president that the military members can actually respect.

6. Had Bush paid attention to the advice of the Clinton Adm. we might not have been attacked at all. The Clinton Administration specifically warned Bush's camp that Osama was probably up to something and that they should carry through with Clinton's plans for preventative action. Bush did nothing, and we know what happened. Second, Bush brought us through nothing. WE brought ourselves through it; Bush simply exploited american fear to con us into an illconceived and poorly thought out war.

7. The attack on Iraq was just? You forgot one word; "The attack on Iraq was just stupid". And by the way, how was putting all this energy and manpower into Iraq supposed to get Osama?

8. Typical "right wing blather". The UN represents the world community. By thumbing our nose at it, we thumb our nose on the rest of the world. Really bad idea.

You sound like a pre-world war I isolationist.

9. The CIA report was dreadfully short on facts and long on maybe's and perhap's and we thinks. The fact is Bush and his gang of "Let's make the middle east into a capitalistic (oh, excuse me, democratic) society whether the like it or not", wanted the Iraq war from the moment they took office. That's the real fact.

I'm sorry you may end up back in Iraq. You should not have to be there and democratizing Iraq is not really our job. I sincerely hope no harm comes to you.

But that is just the point, Bush doesn't seem to give a damn about what happens to our young men. Reforming the middle east into a democracy is not our job. Those people will have a democracy when THEY want it, not when WE want it. We didn't have to invade Russia to convince them to democratize. The people chose it. The Iraqi's will chose it. But they are a long way from that as long as WE are there. As long as we're there terrorists will use us as turkey shoots. We should never have gone in. Since we are there we probably have to stay, but not under Bush. He has shown that he has no clue what he is doing.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 03:59 PM

6. Had Bush paid attention to the advice of the Clinton Adm. we might not have been attacked at all. The Clinton Administration specifically warned Bush's camp that Osama was probably up to something and that they should carry through with Clinton's plans for preventative action. Bush did nothing, and we know what happened. Second, Bush brought us through nothing. WE brought ourselves through it; Bush simply exploited american fear to con us into an illconceived and poorly thought out war.

7. The attack on Iraq was just? You forgot one word; "The attack on Iraq was just stupid". And by the way, how was putting all this energy and manpower into Iraq supposed to get Osama?

8. Typical "right wing blather". The UN represents the world community. By thumbing our nose at it, we thumb our nose on the rest of the world. Really bad idea.

You sound like a pre-world war I isolationist.

9. The CIA report was dreadfully short on facts and long on maybe's and perhap's and we thinks. The fact is Bush and his gang of "Let's make the middle east into a capitalistic (oh, excuse me, democratic) society whether the like it or not", wanted the Iraq war from the moment they took office. That's the real fact.

6. You obviously haven't read the 9/11 commission report. Clinton bears as much blame as Bush. Your hatred of Bush blinds you on this. Stop trying to make Clinton look like a hero whaen the commission said the opposite.

7. Absolutely. Only "stupid" to the armchair quartebacks.

8. Right back at you and your "left-wing blather..." The UN is useless in today's world. Do you really have a clue what they do now?

9. Did you even read the report? I doubt you did. Your "facts" sound a lot like your own wishful thnking, short on REAL facts...

We're in Iraq, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 04:08 PM

We're in Iraq, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in.

You're father may have said, "We're in Viet Nam, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in."

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Traci@Sep 22 2004, 06:12 PM

You're father may have said, "We're in Viet Nam, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in."

And he would have been right.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined+Sep 22 2004, 06:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Sep 22 2004, 06:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traci@Sep 22 2004, 06:12 PM

You're father may have said, "We're in Viet Nam, and we have to see it through, no matter what you think of our reasons for going in."

And he would have been right.

Do you base that on anything historical or just misplaced pride?

[Outshined]

I base it on experience, dear.

[Guest Traci]

Originally posted by Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 06:45 PM

I base it on experience, dear.

That's nice. And please don't call me "dear." It seems patronizing to me.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Sep 22 2004, 06:51 AM

Best president? Let's see......under his watch....

1. Stock market crashes

I wonder just how intellectually honest Cal is in the discussion - al lright, you got me; I don't wonder. But let's see if he wants to post more honestly.

Let's start with item number 1:

Cal says that under Bush's watch the stock market crashed. For that matter there was a 7.9 earthquake in the Alaskan interior (Nov 5 2002). Cal mentions the stock market but not geological activity because he IMPLIES that President Bush has some cupability in the crash of 2000-2002.

Note: Cal calls it a crash - other's call it a downturn, still others call in a bear market while some call it a correction. Whatever it was, it doesn''t rank among the 10 worst downturns in recent history.

So please Cal, tell us all, What did Bush do to cause, promote, or sustain the stock market trend and activity you are referring to and how would, oh, say John Kerry, (or Mr Father-of-the-Internet, Al Gore) have made it better...

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Traci@Sep 22 2004, 06:52 PM

That's nice. And please don't call me "dear," you patronizingly pathetic patriot.

It's a euphemism, kid. And "pathetic" coming from you is practically a compliment, considering the knowledge you've demonstrated of everything else.

Grow up a little, eh?

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Traci+Sep 22 2004, 08:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traci @ Sep 22 2004, 08:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Sep 22 2004, 06:45 PM

I base it on experience, dear.

That's nice. And please don't call me "dear," you patronizingly pathetic patriot.

oh my...it's bad to be a patriot?? good thing thomas jefferson wasn't a patriot!

[Traveler]

Point #1: No WMD’s in Iraq? The brilliant logic says that if Saddam had WMD’s he would have used them. And of course everyone knows he did not hide any weapons but fought the USA with everything he had. This logic will keep our country safe and insure no WMD’s from Iraq will ever find their way into the hands of teariest.

Point #2: No connection to teariest in Iraq. Iraq had no military plans except for national defense - they conformed to the mandates of the UN and there was no misuse of the oil for food funds. Current reports that the UN was involved in billions going towards weapons in Iraq just are not true? Lets bet our security and the lives of our children on that one.

Point #3: 9/11 and the reason to go to war in Iraq were the result of intelligence blunders. And what great president cut the budget, pulled out all the ground intelligence for exclusive surveillance by satellite creating the worse intelligence decline ever in the history of our country? Was this the same president that fired the Naval commander for going and getting a downed American piolet that took photos of the mass graves in the former Yugoslavia - that just happened to implicate the side the president said we must help? (A real president would have honored both) Or the President the bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his lies about sex with a white house aid and said he did it because he could?

Yes by George if you can’t trust one political party by darn you can trust the other. Pardon me, is my sarcasm showing?

The Traveler

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Traveler@Sep 22 2004, 09:27 PM

Point #1: No WMD’s in Iraq? The brilliant logic says that if Saddam had WMD’s he would have used them. And of course everyone knows he did not hide any weapons but fought the USA with everything he had. This logic will keep our country safe and insure no WMD’s from Iraq will ever find their way into the hands of teariest.

Point #2: No connection to teariest in Iraq. Iraq had no military plans except for national defense - they conformed to the mandates of the UN and there was no misuse of the oil for food funds. Current reports that the UN was involved in billions going towards weapons in Iraq just are not true? Lets bet our security and the lives of our children on that one.

Point #3: 9/11 and the reason to go to war in Iraq were the result of intelligence blunders. And what great president cut the budget, pulled out all the ground intelligence for exclusive surveillance by satellite creating the worse intelligence decline ever in the history of our country? Was this the same president that fired the Naval commander for going and getting a downed American piolet that took photos of the mass graves in the former Yugoslavia - that just happened to implicate the side the president said we must help? (A real president would have honored both) Or the President the bombed an aspirin factory to draw attention away from his lies about sex with a white house aid and said he did it because he could?

Yes by George if you can’t trust one political party by darn you can trust the other. Pardon me, is my sarcasm showing?

The Traveler

I read your post and I thought: "I think he might be being sarcastic" to myself. You did pretty good.

[Outshined]

Cal asked why Iraq didn't use WMD on the US troops in the war if he had them. For the same reason he didn't use them in '91.

I was doing some redng on the Carnegie Foundation's Intelligence site, and this quote caught my eye:

there was no history of Saddam's Iraq using WMD against enemies capable of inflicting unacceptable retaliatory damage. Though Saddam had used chemical weapons against helpless Kurdish villages and Iranian infantry in the 1980s, he did not use them against U.S. or Israeli targets in the 1991 Gulf War.

[Outshined]

And one of the most notable experts mantioning Syria as a destination for Iraq's WMD is none other than David Kay, head inspector of the US program. Article

David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.

[Guest Traci]

Whom among us is the teariest? I'll admit that I do tend to well-up easily, but I've yet to blubber after reading any posts at this particular site.