ANAV said:OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml
Hoot said:What a load of rubbish...it says right at the end of your second link that inspectors found the 'stash' before the war began, and throughout both links, it states that Saddam did not have the capacity to enrich that uranium to weapons grade material.
It's just another big scare tactic by SnoozeMax to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.
At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?Hoot said:It's just another big scare tactic ..... to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.
I will stop saying he lied when he admits that he is not a veteran and deserted his military duty.KCConservative said:At what point will you stop saying he lied and start proving he lied?
Deegan said:There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, just the fact that his worst enemy(Iran) was already years ahead of him, speaks volumes. We were keeping him unable to do this, through sanctions, and close policing of his activities, but after the oil for food scandal, we could see this was not working. What was also obviously not working was punishing Saddam through these sanctions, as it didn't punish Saddam, but starved his people. This is exactly why I supported a pre-emptive strike, WMD's or not, he had to be removed from power, it was just one less mad man for the world to be preoccupied with, and history has shown us that's always worth fighting for.
Old and wise said:I will stop saying he lied when he admits that he is not a veteran and deserted his military duty.
Hoot said:What a load of rubbish...it says right at the end of your second link that inspectors found the 'stash' before the war began, and throughout both links, it states that Saddam did not have the capacity to enrich that uranium to weapons grade material.
It's just another big scare tactic by SnoozeMax to defend a president who lied to all of us, and lied again to us on Veterans Day.
Stinger said:Yes he had obtained before the war and had partially enriched some of it, enough to make a bomb with. And between the time he kicked the inspectors out and we kicked him out he had control over it. And as Kay and Duelfer both documented he had begun to rebuild his nuclear lab and had already engaged in some experimentation.
But we should have left him alone according the Democrats................now.
KCConservative said:Yes, I'm sure he would have complied had we only given him an 18th resolution. :mrgreen:
I guess we'll have to go into the way back machine just before the Pentagon accidentally destroyed the records. Go figure. The one piece that would've helped him out, gone. What are the odds?KCConservative said:Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.
KCConservative said:So you're saying that he didn't lie but that you only say it due to his service record?
I think we're stuck in a circle here...
Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.
Incapable? That's cute, but the charge was that he was awol from duty, dodged the draft, etc. Do you have anything to offer the discussion at hand? Better yet, the thread is about Saddams weapons.aps said:LOL I see that KCConservative is incapable of refuting my post. There, there, KC. I hope the fact that your president is not a veteran does not affect your love for him.
KCConservative said:Incapable? That's cute, but the charge was that he was awol from duty, dodged the draft, etc. Do you have anything to offer the discussion at hand? Better yet, the thread is about Saddams weapons.
KCConservative said:Okay, when will you stop saying he is not a real veteran and start proving it? Remember, ole Danny Rather is enjoying an early retirement for failing to prove this lie.
ANAV said:OK, it's a fact that Saddam had a 500 ton stockpile of uranium. Some of it may or may not of been enriched, depending upon who you listen to. Whether or not it was or was not enriched, while important, is not the most important question. A more important question is why the UN inspectors did not know about it. Why was Saddam keeping it a secret if he had no plans to create a weapon?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/2/220331.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/12/103450.shtml
Deegan said:There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam wanted to restart his nuclear program, just the fact that his worst enemy(Iran) was already years ahead of him, speaks volumes. We were keeping him unable to do this, through sanctions, and close policing of his activities, but after the oil for food scandal, we could see this was not working. What was also obviously not working was punishing Saddam through these sanctions, as it didn't punish Saddam, but starved his people. This is exactly why I supported a pre-emptive strike, WMD's or not, he had to be removed from power, it was just one less mad man for the world to be preoccupied with, and history has shown us that's always worth fighting for.
shuamort said:I guess we'll have to go into the way back machine just before the Pentagon accidentally destroyed the records. Go figure. The one piece that would've helped him out, gone. What are the odds?
Documents that could have decided a dispute over President George W Bush's days in the military 30 years ago have been destroyed, the Pentagon says.
BWG said:No, YOU asked for PROOF that he is not a real veteran.
Post #8 this thread
I'm going to concede this one, aps. Besides, your gloating is kind of cute. So has the president lied or not?aps said:Thanks BWG for pointing out that I was merely rising to his challenge.
Awww, KC, guess you can't stand that you cannot refute my post. It'll be okay. :lol: :lol: :lol:
KCConservative said:I'm going to concede this one, aps. Besides, your gloating is kind of cute. So has the president lied or not?
KCConservative said:Yes, I'm sure he would have complied had we only given him an 18th resolution. :mrgreen:
ProudAmerican said:LMAO. nice.
and as far as Bushes "lie" the left should just try reading my sig.
aps said:So if I lie, then it's okay for you to lie? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I don't give a rat's a$$ what Clinton said in 1998. What was presented to us by the White House in 2002 and 2003 was not an accurate reflection of what was shown in intelligence reports (which intelligence reports were created AFTER Clinton left office). The Bushies were put on notice as to doubts about intelligence provided to the United States and they failed to relay those doubts to the American people. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is. Sorry, but the right's continued assertion that Clinton said X while in office isn't going to take away the fact that Bush furthered the inaccurate intelligence. He's the one that did a thorough investigationn and got us into this war.
There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war and that question the President's integrity. Restore integrity to the White House? My a$$....................
there sure is, its called a biased media with an agenda.There is a reason that the majority of Americans think Bush misled us into this war
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?