Are These Memos Legitimate?

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

The PNAC Manifesto was written between 1997 and 2000 well before Bush became President, well before 9-11. How can you now write that the war in Iraq was not premeditated?

Good grief, Champ. I didn't see GW Bushes name anywhere as a creator of PNAC. Perhaps you could enlighten us. PNAC is a comprehensive strategy for Republicans dealing with the world in the 21 century. It was a fact that Saddam would have to be dealt with in the future. Clinton was talking about regime change in 1997 and Congress made it legitimate in 98. Why can’t you understand that?

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
-snip-
Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

Source -- PNAC
I am getting bored with your silliness, Champ. You just want to try to make President look bad IMO. You have nothing to offer excepted twisted logic.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Good grief, Champ. I didn't see GW Bushes name anywhere as a creator of PNAC. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Surely Squawk you're not this stupid? Are you telling me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Armitage, Jeb Bush, have had zero influence on Bushie's decision making? C'mon Squawk, you can do better than this. You'r e grasping for straws. You want all of us to believe that the current VEEP, the current Secretary of Defense, the former (until this year) #2 guy at the DOD, the former (until this year) #2 at the State Dept and the current UN Ambassador nominee had not influence in shaping America's Iraq invasion policy?

We're talking about the most influential members of the Bush Kremlin and you write that Bush's name was nowhere to be found.

Good grief Charlie Brown!

I was correct in my last post when I called you the high priest of spin on this board. You the man!

Squawk, spin us another fine reply, we await with baited breath!

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I have been taking lessons from the master, Champ. What difference would it make if GW Bush wrote the entire thing? I don't see anything wrong with it, in fact the Democrats probably have something similar. Ah, I take that back. They didn't want to do anything except talk about doing something. You ignored all the points I made Champ as usual. Reread and digest them.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

The problem with your "conspiracy theory" is that no one in Tony Blair's government is denying them. I also find it troubling that you slanted this thread so prejudicially.

The problem with your defense of them is that no one in Tony Blair's government is confirming them. I also find it troubling that you slant your spin on them as if they really have anything new to say and accept them on face value. The reporter has admitted he cannot produce originals and what he is presenting are documents he typed. Shades of Rathergate again.

You conveniently left this out from the story:

I also suggest that all of you read the material that Squawk linked in his post, it is very, very revealing, and troubling. Spin all you want Bushies, but we're talking smoking gun, and not from Democrats.

A smoking gun of no consequences.

Let me ask you something Squawk and all of you Bushniks? If all of these memos are factual then what does that mean?

Nothing.

If Clinton was impeached for having sex

Since he wasn't that point is moot.

and lying about it

And conspircy to suborn perjury and obstruct justice. The two are not comparable.

It was the Clinton administrations policy to remove Saddam, THEY passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, are you going to indict them too?

what should happen to the Bush Cabal if they conspired to lie to the world as to the reasons for invading Iraq?

What was the lie? What did they tell the world that they knew for a fact was not true and be specific.

How should Comrade Bush be held accountable?

For what he has done to rid us of Saddam and fight terrorism, appluaded.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Champs
How else do you explain 63% of America now regretting the war?

The propaganda campaign the left, including you, is engaged in.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

The problem with your defense of them is that no one in Tony Blair's government is confirming them. I also find it troubling that you slant your spin on them as if they really have anything new to say and accept them on face value. The reporter has admitted he cannot produce originals and what he is presenting are documents he typed. Shades of Rathergate again.

Denial, denial, denial. Your head is burried very deeply in the Iraqi sand. No one has said that these memos are phoney, only you. You know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

A smoking gun of no consequences.

Well we will just have to wait and see, won't we? This is not going away. You sound like Bob Haldeman in 1973....

I wrote: Quote:
"If Clinton was impeached for having sex"

Since he wasn't that point is moot.

You need to learn about American history and government. Clinton was impeached my scholarly friend. Do you know what that means? Apparently you do not. Why don't you ask someone who knows more about it than you do?

And conspircy to suborn perjury and obstruct justice. The two are not comparable.

Maybe you need to learn what NOT GUILTY in the USA means? Might as well look that up too...

It was the Clinton administrations policy to remove Saddam, THEY passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, are you going to indict them too?

If they had lied to the public about the reasons for invading another country where its dictator was contained and not a threat, dame right I would. Indict is a good word by the way....though it would be foolish to think that Bush will be impeached. What will happen is that Republicans will lose seats in Congress in 2006 and the White House to Hillary in 2008.

What was the lie? What did they tell the world that they knew for a fact was not true and be specific.

They used shady intelligence to justify a threat that didn't exist. They planned to invade Iraq way before 9-11. They misled the entire world as to the true reason for the invasion.

However, since you're completely incapable of deciphering the truth, since you and you alone can prove what the rest of the world can't, you will never accept the truth even if Bush admitted it! You would come up with something else to deny....

 

[vandree]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Originally Posted by ANAV
For those who think that Bush should be impeached, they must also believe all Senators and Congressmen who voted for the authorization of force must be removed from office as well. They based there votes on the same intelligence that Bush based his decision on invading.

You are missing the point about the impeachment. If the evidence revealed by the Downing Street Memo is true, then the President’s submission of his March 18, 2003 letter and report to the United States Congress would violate federal criminal law, including: the federal anti-conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, which makes it a felony “to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose...”; and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

What would the false statement be?

 

[vandree]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

This is the letter:

Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate




March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

First let me thank Squawker for taking down the offensive photo of the innocent Down syndrome child and apologize for being so vicious and crude in my reaction to them. There are some things that are just too smarmy for me to tolerate and Champ crossed that line by posting that picture. If he had any class at all, he’d apologize.

I on the other hand, apologize for the bad language I used and the gutter like attacks I threw at Champ in my outrage over his posting that picture.

Now, back to business.

This is almost comical. Champ posts a link and proclaims himself victorious unless anyone can disprove all the assertions made therein but refuses to account for the assertions made in links provided to counter his argument.

Do I detect a double standard here?

Ever hear of the PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY?

Yep. I’m very familiar with it.

Perhaps you need to follow this link and do some reading?

That’s quite a presumption on your part isn’t it? Could you be more arrogant and condescending toward someone you haven’t yet tested? Do you really think yourself so smart and the rest of us so ignorant before you have taken time to learn to whom it is you speak?

Do you have the attention span to read all 90 pages? Have you even heard of the PNAC?

90 pages? All 90 pages? You can’t be serious. No one reads 90 pages anymore do they?

You’re too funny Champ. You don’t even try to hide your elitist attitude do you?

Yes I read the whole thing and I agree with almost everything it said. Are you surprised?

Bush planned this war starting in 1998 while Clinton was in office! 9-11 gave him the "ammo" to attack combined with his LIES regarding the threat to the USA.

Do you realize how idiotic this idea is? A governor plans a war, before he wins election, contingent upon the missing ammo provided three year after he supposedly planned said war and you are still talking about the reasons for going to war being lies?

I fail to see the logic in this. This would be a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen. Perhaps it is you who is the liar and you who have no morality and you who have no respect for the human dignity we call life. Perhaps you are left with nothing more than humiliating innocent people with Down syndrome drumming up accusations you can’t prove.

What was that you were saying about a conspiracy unparalleled by any the USA has ever seen?

If you have the “attention span” or intellectual aptitude to realize the document you attribute to Bush wasn’t written by Bush and was written several years prior to him winning the presidential election, you might just realize how foolish you look.

I provide sources and facts, you provide insults.

No, you post inappropriate pictures of unfortunate children who aren’t capable of defending themselves as a means of insulting others on this board and pretend you are above the fray. I was direct and clear about my insults in response to your pathetic display.

You provide sources that do nothing to support your argument. You ignore sources that counter your argument. You aren’t being honest here and we all know it.

Are you trying to be a tough guy?

I made my point and it’s a shame you are too small to realize you crossed an ethical line.

Right, he lied about getting a BJ in the Oval (or is it Oral) Office...that's it pal, nothing else. He was also found NOT GUILTY. Does that register with you? Are you capable of understanding NOT GUILTY.

Not too bright are we? Arrogant as hell but dumber than a stick it seems. Weren’t you the one who questioned my attention span? You are too funny. Really now, a guy like you must have to try real hard to pretend to be so bright by trying to pretend everyone else is an idiot considering you cough up dog terds like this. I’m seriously rolling on the floor laughing at you.

Bullshit! Prove it with facts, not bluster. Your entire post is a rant, not one fact, nothing.

What have you proven with facts Champs? You have proven nothing and all you do is rant and rave about things you can’t prove. Don’t demand from me the things you, the smarter more enlightened and more capable reader/writer between us can’t do. If you think you are so much more intelligent than the rest of us, why aren’t you producing facts? Your “NOT GUILTY” post exemplifies your dishonesty and/or your ignorance. Yet you, demand “facts” from me?

Comrade, you need to read some of my other posts. The fact that you're showing off your illiteracy is cool, but aren't you embarrassed?

I’m not sure how that “showing off your illiteracy” thing works Einstein. Considering the fact that you began by challenging me to read more of your posts, followed by your accusations of me being illiterate can only lead to the conclusion that you are pressing the envelope of insanity. Yet it is you who thinks I should be embarrassed?

Your poll is meaningless because, as I pointed out in my original “illiterate” post, if the question asked by pollsters wasn’t revealed or wasn’t publicized with the results of the poll, it means jack. If you can’t wrap your little mind around that statistical fact don’t bother challenging my intellectual faculties in the future.

Who are "those that matter" anyway?

Good question. Those that matter begin with Iran, North Korea, China, Syria, etc…I don’t feel the French opinion is worth the paper it’s written on. I think the UK opinion matters but not the rag newspapers most prevalent over there, it’s the UK government that matters in the end.

 

[Squawker]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I didn't see anything in the memos, nor any of the UN reports that indicated clear and convincing evidense, Saddam was not a threat. The information was passed to President Bush by the Clinton Administration, who said on several occasions before and after the war started regime change was necessary. I guess like Champ said, we will have to see how it plays out. I think the memos are bogus, myself.

The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

It would be hard to prove President Bush knowingly gave false testimony to Congress. He has Clintons account to back him up -- that's a hoot by itself. Did Clinton lie when he said this?

In a televised address last night, President Clinton said he had ordered the assault because of the "clear and present danger" posed by Iraq's weapons-making programme.

When Saddam kicked the inspecters out, there was no way of knowing what he was up to. Pretty hard case for the Dem's to prove IMO.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Denial, denial, denial. Your head is burried very deeply in the Iraqi sand. No one has said that these memos are phoney, only you. You know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

Get a clue Champs, Bush didn’t deny the Dan Rather documents either. He lets things like this work themselves out. He’s a man of impeccable character and morality and that’s what disturbs you lefties the most.

Maybe you need to learn what NOT GUILTY in the USA means? Might as well look that up too...

You are dodging the facts Champs. Didn’t you just challenge me on my literacy abilities? Stop being such a moron. Clinton was impeached for lying to a Grand jury and you know it. The “NOT GUILTY” verdict had nothing to do with the impeachment process.

Clinton was disbarred for a reason. Care to explain why that happened oh “king of facts”?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

and The False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a felony to issue knowingly and willfully false statements to the United States Congress.

Clinton knowingly and willfully made false statements to the United States Congress and the American people.

Do you think he should have been impeached and removed from office or are you just too politically biased to apply the same standards to your party as you apply to a rival party?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I didn't see anything in the memos, nor any of the UN reports that indicated clear and convincing evidense, Saddam was not a threat.

I believe the point was to prove that he WAS a threat to the USA, and we all know that he was not.

The information was passed to President Bush by the Clinton Administration, who said on several occasions before and after the war started regime change was necessary.

I agree...I do! However, Bush invaded Iraq with 120K+ Army which Clinton was not prepared to do, nor did he plan on doing it. As we've been discussing Bush and his buds planned this exact scenario before taking office. I hope you cannot ignore that all of Bush's main guys are part of the PNAC? To suggest that he was in no way influenced by them makes no sense.

I guess like Champ said, we will have to see how it plays out. I think the memos are bogus, myself.

WIth all due respect, what are you basing this on? If they were "bogus" wouldn't someone in the British government say so? They're not denying them at all. Sometimes I can understand skepticism, but in this particular instance the authenticity is not in question. One could make an argument that nothing truly revealing was learned from these memos, but to say they are bogus is illogical based on all sides saying they are legitimate.

When Saddam kicked the inspecters out, there was no way of knowing what he was up to. Pretty hard case for the Dem's to prove IMO.

Are you forgetting that the inspectors were back in Iraq when we invaded? Turns out that these inspectors were 100% correct in their findings, and had Bush waited a month or two more then the need to invade would have been disproved. I believe that Bush wanted to invade all along so allowing the inspectors to complete their job would have really been bad politically for Bush.

It's so sad! 1700+ dead Americans, 12,000+ wounded. Saddam was contained, and there's lot of proof to back this up while there is nothing to justify the claim that he was a threat.

I think we need to remember that the reason we went to Iraq was because Bush said he had WMDs and he was a threat to Americans in the USA.

Let me ask you this? If Bush had said the main reason for going to Iraq was to liberate the country what would the reaction in the USA have been? Do you think Congress and the American people would have accepted that as THE reason for invading Iraq? I don't! I think the only way to get Congress and Americans to allow for the invasion was to scare us all into believing that if we did not attack Saddam would launch WMDs, including Nukes, against us here in the USA.

Pretty "f'd" up man, pretty "f'd:" up....

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

First let me thank Squawker for taking down the offensive photo of the innocent Down syndrome child and apologize for being so vicious and crude in my reaction to them. There are some things that are just too smarmy for me to tolerate and Champ crossed that line by posting that picture. If he had any class at all, he’d apologize.

I do apologize, sincerely. I didn't recognize that photo as a Downs Syndrome child. I actually compared the eyes in that photo to Squawks eyes in his signature. I never intended to offend anyone that way, and for my mistake I do apologize.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

I do apologize, sincerely. I didn't recognize that photo as a Downs Syndrome child. I actually compared the eyes in that photo to Squawks eyes in his signature. I never intended to offend anyone that way, and for my mistake I do apologize.

Accepted. I flew off the handle at you because my wife and I devote much of our free time helping families learn how to care for Down syndrome relatives and children. If you had experienced the beauty of such innocent souls first hand, as I have, you might understand my fury.

Alas, angry or not, my attacks were vulgar and tasteless. I offer my apologies once again for losing my cool.

This doesn’t mean I’m letting you off the hook or expecting you to post anything other than the confused befuddlement you’ve posted thus far but you’ve gained a measure of my respect (for what it’s worth from an illiterate) and I look forward to crossing blades with you on these forums in the future.

 

[vandree]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Do you think he should have been impeached and removed from office or are you just too politically biased to apply the same standards to your party as you apply to a rival party?

All I did was post the information, I did not express any opinion about it. But I will now. Yes, I think Bush lied about Iraq being a threat, about the WMDs and should be made accountable ; and while Clinton's lies were about his private life, Bush's lies resulted in people dying.

But that's my opinion. You can look at the facts here: http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Denial, denial, denial. Your head is burried very deeply in the Iraqi sand. No one has said that these memos are phoney, only you. You know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

I know no one in the British government has confirmed them and the only person who claims their veracity is the reporter who typed them. You know something the rest of the world doesn't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
A smoking gun of no consequences.

Well we will just have to wait and see, won't we? This is not going away. You sound like Bob Haldeman in 1973....

No we don't have to wait, they say what they say which is not much and certainly nothing new.

I wrote: Quote:
"If Clinton was impeached for having sex"

You need to learn about American history and government. Clinton was impeached my scholarly friend.

Yes and you mistakenly stated it was for sex, it was not.

Do you know what that means? Apparently you do not.

More so than you it appears.

Why don't you ask someone who knows more about it than you do?

I doubt anyone here knows more about the Clinton impeachment than I, it certainly appears more than you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And conspircy to suborn perjury and obstruct justice. The two are not comparable.

Maybe you need to learn what NOT GUILTY in the USA means? Might as well look that up too...

Perhaps you need to learn what contempt of court and plea bargin means, perhaps you REALLY need to learn that the Senate vote was not about guilte or innocence but about removal or not but the court and the plea barging WERE preciesly about his guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
It was the Clinton administrations policy to remove Saddam, THEY passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, are you going to indict them too?

If they had lied to the public about the reasons for invading another country where its dictator was contained and not a threat, dame right I would.

Since no one did that what is your point?

Indict is a good word by the way....though it would be foolish to think that Bush will be impeached. What will happen is that Republicans will lose seats in Congress in 2006 and the White House to Hillary in 2008.

Yeah and that's what the Democrats said last election. Of course I have no doubt the ability of the left to propagandize and misrepresent the facts to the unknowing public.

They used shady intelligence to justify a threat that didn't exist. They planned to invade Iraq way before 9-11. They misled the entire world as to the true reason for the invasion.

However, since you're completely incapable of deciphering the truth,

Now there is something you have yet to show.

you will never accept the truth even if Bush admitted it! You would come up with something else to deny....

Since you've yet to state much truth about Bush we'll have to wait and see I guess.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Yes, I think Bush lied about Iraq being a threat, about the WMDs and should be made accountable ; and while Clinton's lies were about his private life

Why can’t you call Clinton’s crime “perjury”? Clinton didn’t just lie; he committed perjury on several occasions. He was disbarred by one of the most liberal organizations in America.

I understand how boring that is compared to the conspiracy theories some you leftists like to dream up but these memos are as bunk and irrelevant as the Dan Rather documents were.

You guys are boring me by trying to dredge up the same old unsubstantiated accusations you’ve always had. If it had an ounce of credibility, don’t you think Boxer and Kennedy, the most insane of the insane lefties (Howard Dean excluded) would have taken the ball and run with it already?

News flash for the lost in liberal-land: this dog won’t hunt because there isn’t anything there!

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

:bravo: Stinger.

Concise, pointed, emotive and compelling. I’m not sure I should trust you though because that was rather lawyer like. (just kidding)

The lefties are going to lose every time they try to compare the morals Bush has to those Clinton lacked. You’d think they would have figured that one out by now.

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

:bravo: Stinger.

Concise, pointed, emotive and compelling. I’m not sure I should trust you though because that was rather lawyer like. (just kidding)

The lefties are going to lose every time they try to compare the morals Bush has to those Clinton lacked. You’d think they would have figured that one out by now.

:memorial_ Thanks! And no not a lawyer but when it comes to Clinton, bring it on !

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

All I did was post the information, I did not express any opinion about it. But I will now. Yes, I think Bush lied about Iraq being a threat, about the WMDs and should be made accountable ; and while Clinton's lies were about his private life, Bush's lies resulted in people dying.

But that's my opinion. You can look at the facts here: http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/muriel/path_of_war_timeline_613.htm

What was the lie? WMD? Well when did we find out Saddam had not stockpile WMD? What was the evidence? Why did the previous administration believe beyond a doubt that Saddam pocessed them? Why did the UN? And then why was Bush suppose to know differently?

And stockpiles of WMD were not the only reason nor a requirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701217_pf.html

Whether This War Was Worth It
In Analyzing Iraq, Consider the Effects of Having Done Nothing

By Robert Kagan
Post
Sunday, June 19, 2005

"The main concern of senior officials in both administrations was that, in the words of then-national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger, containment was not "sustainable over the long run." The pattern of the 1990s, "Iraqi defiance, followed by force mobilization on our part, followed by Iraqi capitulation," had left "the international community vulnerable to manipulation by Saddam." The longer the standoff continued, Berger warned in 1998, "the harder it will be to maintain" international support for containing Hussein. Nor did Clinton officials doubt what Hussein would do if and when containment collapsed. As Berger put it, "Saddam's history of aggression, and his recent record of deception and defiance, leave no doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination if he had the chance." Nor should we assume that, even if the United States and others had remained vigilant, Hussein could have been deterred from doing something to provoke a conflict. Tragic miscalculation was Hussein's specialty, after all, as his invasions of Iran and Kuwait proved."

You might read his entire editorial, he makes perfect sense.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Saddam had WMD! That is an indisputable fact that even the best spin masters here can’t deny.

The question is, and always has been “when and how did he get rid of his WMD’s”?

Do we really have to keep rehashing this old argument for those of you who are too ignorant or too politically entrenched to consider the facts?

If you deny he ever had WMD, you are a moron. If you call Bush a Liar, you must provide proof that he knew what Saddam did with his WMD despite the fact that not a single intelligence agency in the world that shared/shares information with the USA knew or knows to this day what happened to them.

It really is that simple. Do we have to re-fight this old argument again because some of you don’t have the intellectual aptitude to understand the cold, hard, indisputable facts?

 

[Stinger]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Saddam had WMD! That is an indisputable fact that even the best spin masters here can’t deny.

The question is, and always has been “when and how did he get rid of his WMD’s”?

Do we really have to keep rehashing this old argument for those of you who are too ignorant or too politically entrenched to consider the facts?

It's the only arguement they have, WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD WHERE ARE THE WMD

If you deny he ever had WMD, you are a moron. If you call Bush a Liar, you must provide proof that he knew what Saddam did with his WMD despite the fact that not a single intelligence agency in the world that shared/shares information with the USA knew or knows to this day what happened to them.

How about proof that Melosevic had GMBs (Graves of mass burials). Remeber when the Democrats wanted to go to war because Melosevic had GMS's? GMB's we never found. And we STILL have troops there. Any complaints? Any cries that Clinton and his adminsitration lied? Any cries to pull out of Bosnia?

It really is that simple. Do we have to re-fight this old argument again because some of you don’t have the intellectual aptitude to understand the cold, hard, indisputable facts?

It's not about intellect it's about gaining back political power by whatever propaganda and means possible. Just witness Durbin's comments this week, those were meant to hurt the Bush administration more than the troops.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: Are These Memo’s Legitimate?

Saddam had WMD! That is an indisputable fact that even the best spin masters here can’t deny.

The question is, and always has been “when and how did he get rid of his WMD’s”?

Agreed! Of course he had them, but even his own son pointed out that by 1995 they were gone. After that he bluffed and bluffed. Then, the UN weapon inspectors returned to Iraq.

For the umpteenth time, there were weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq prior to our invasion. They were doing there job, beautifully. Had Bush simply allowed them to complete their job he would not have had the political ammo needed to invade.

It's interesting that you ask the question “when and how did he get rid of his WMD’s” yet when we were getting the answer to your question we stopped the process and invaded instead. Logical?