- Dec 8, 2004
- Reaction score
- State of Confusion
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:Well how about the Kay and Duelfer reports about what we did find? Plenty enough for me.
Plenty enough for the 2000 some odd soldiers who have given their lifes based on lies? The Kay report concludes there was no resumption of chem/bio weapons.
Stinger said:They were only concerning with nuclear which we knew he did not have a bomb but he did have in his pocession yellow-cake to make one out of and we had no control over what he did with it.
The yellow cake was destroyed before the war. Yet, still we had the administration lying to us about Saddam attempting to purchase yellow cake from Niger, which at the time, Saddam already had. Besides, yellow cake is worthless without the nuclear centrifuges...all of which give off radiation and gamma rays, easily detected by our surveillance satellites.
Stinger said:Well first I don't think you can site a NIE from before the invasion that made that uneqivical statement, but again it's not about what we didn't find it's about what we did find.
"Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to project a timeline for the completion of activities it does not now see happening." From the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. INR is the State Department's Internal Intellgence Agency."
***********************************************************************Stinger said:How about his testimony about what he did find?
NewsMax Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 10:58 a.m. EST
Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."
Boy, that sounds like Saddam had a real strong capability to wage war, doesn't it? LOL
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.
Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.
Gee, Baghdad wasn't successful...which means any long range missile program wasn't successful...and "intent" is not enough justification to take our nation to war.
The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.
Absolute nonsense here.
Stinger said:How about his direct statements that there was no connection? Why do you try to infer that they said there was when they were abundantly clear there was not direct connection?
Direct statements? You mean the statements after we were already at war when we couldn't find anything? Bush certainly made NO such statements before this war. The White House and everyone involved led many to believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Even after the brief skirmish, bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln and continued the deception by telling America "We have removed an ally of Al Queda."
Saddam and Al Queda were never allies, and it's never been proven they were allies.
Stinger said:How about that is a mistatement of what he said and he issue a clarification the next day. Throughout that interveiw he clearly stated "nuclear weapons PROGRAMS" and since he was also clear that Saddam had NEVER had a nuclear weapons how could he have reconstituted one? This is one of the most blantant misrepresentations the left makes. Chaney even went so far as to go back on Meet the Press and state again that in the one reference he had left out the word PROGRAM, and Russert agreed. So why do you and the left keep trying to misrepresent it?
Then why would the Bush administration scare us that Saddam is attempting to purchase yellow cake and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons?
Bush was NEVER clear that Saddam had no nuclear weapon
Stinger said:Because he had. And if you read the entire transcript it is perfectly clear. The administration NEVER claimed Saddam had a nuclear weapon. If there had been any indication he did there would not have been ANY discussion as to whether we needed to remove him, there would have been no question.
Bull! Why would Cheney say on Meet the Press, March 16th, 2003 "We believe Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons." This statement was made on national television just days before the war. Later...6 months, in fact, Cheney apologizes for that statement. ( after they realize they're not going to find anything) There's no spin to this...it was a deliberate lie....even Cheney admits he misspoke, and says "we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." Meet the Press Sept. 14th, 2003
Stinger said:You have yet to show a specific "lie", something they knew was factually wrong but said was true.
Before Cheney's statement in March of 2003 on Meet the Press, here's what the IAEA had to say....
"After 3 months of intrusive inspections, we have, to date, found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." March 7, 2003
So, here we have IAEA report on March 7th, 2003 saying there's nothing in Iraq, then we have Cheney telling America that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons on March 16th, 2003...then we invade Iraq on March 23, 2003.
Liar, liar, pants on fire...no other reasonable, and non-partisan way to look at this evidence. It is your own prejudice that disallows you to face the truth.
Stinger said:The evidence was overwhelming, it may have been wrong in some cases, but it was overwhelming. And the fact is what we found was reason enough to remove him.
ROTFL! Overwhelming my butt! There was plenty of evidence to the contrary...far more than to make any sane man pause before taking our nation to war! An unforgiveable act by a deceptive administration. And, please tell me...what exactly have we found in Iraq that justifies 2000 lifes of our best? Old munitions...outdated and worthless and of no threat to the United States.
Stinger said:You have yet to post one specific piece of evidence that Bush had in hand that refuted any of the evidence otherswise. You try to use information after the fact, but that was not what we believed. And you ignore what we did find.
I've refuted everything you've posted. Please tell all of us what we have found in Iraq that neccessitated this war?
Stinger said:See what? That Saddam left in power was a threat to the region and the world. That his plan to get the sanctions removed was well under way and had he been successful would have turned into a terrorist bonanza.
Go have a strong cup of coffee! We rolled over Saddam's army...with Clintons military, I might add, even the most conservative estimates say Saddam was a good 10 years away from any kind of WMD capability. Saddam was no threat to the region, world, or the U.S. after the first Gulf War.
Stinger said:You prefer to give Saddam the benifit of the doubt.
Not at all...I prefer the statements from independent investigators like the UN weapons inspectors, and the IAEA, and the Iraq Survey Group.
Stinger said:What was he doing with the yellow-cake? What was he doing the tons of organophosphate chemicals stored in pits dug at his ammo dumps? What was he doing with the proscribed missle testing?
Yellow cake means absolutley nothing without the ability to transform it into nuclear fissile material! Saddam had no such capability! If you're so worried about yellow cake, then we should've invaded Niger, since they had tons of the stuff...yet, Niger doesn't have a nuclear weapon, do they?
Organophosphate chemicals? You mean the stuff they use on tomato plants and vegetables? LOL!
Stinger said:In view of Saddam's past, in view of his violation of all cease-fire stipulations and UN resolutions, in view of UNSCOM saying he still was not complying even though there were 400,000 troops on his border. What sane man would not take action?
We had inspectors on the ground in Iraq stating there's nothing here! Sheesh! What more do you need from eye witrness accounts?! These inspectors did ask for about 3 more months to finish their inspections, just to be sure Saddam was harmless, but Bush had to start the bombing! After 12 years of sanctions, you mean to tell me Bush couldn't wait 3 more stinking months before taking us to WAR!!?? Absolute BS!
Stinger said:McCain endorsed the war.
And McCain was not part of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that did get to see the classified version of the NIE's report and voted 5-4 against giving Bush the authorization to take our nation to war.
The bottom line, the public did not commit troops, and billions of dollars to this invasion acting on the best information its government could provide, instead, we all fell victim to an intense marketing campaign conducted by a small group of influential radicals inside the Bush administration who were persuing their own narrow agenda...with a campaign of deliberate lies, half-retractions, misstatements and a devious attempt to entrap the American people.
Bush 38% approval rating...that says it all right there.
One last thing...you would be wise to get your information from somewhere other than Newsmax...a right arm of the republican/conservative movement, and certainly not unbiased reporting.