WMDs & The UN Inspectors...

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, he was.

You didnt read what I posted, did you.
If you did, you would see the -clear- intent to retain whatever he could in order to restart the nukle program as soon as sanctions were lifted, and a clear intention to hide whatever could be hidden in order to get the sanctions lifted.

The ISG proved that there were no weapons, no running programs, and no current capacity to build them which completely debunks the administrations battle cry for war.

Tell me:
-What happened to the materials, weapons amd programs known to be there in december 1998
-How, exactly, were so many people and so many national inter services wrong about Iraq?

1. The U.S. wouldn't have vetoed the proposal to remove sanctions - we all know that never would have happened

Hmm... interesting, -your- skills at fortune telling. Its especially ironic, given what you typed, below

2. Saddam would have remained in power - Since the administration claims to be an expert at fortune telling why don't we ask them what the next
winning lotto numbers will be. Saddam could very well have been deposed in that time.

LOL
What evidence is there of THAT?

3. Saddam didn't have a legitimate reason to have wmds - as long as Iran exists Saddam has a right to defend himself.

Just like everyone has a right to a gun, until they show they cant be trusted with same. Saddam demonstrated that he couuld not be trusted, and as such, the WMDs became too serious a threat.

 

[tecoyah]

Just a bit of a sideline here but, If indeed there were WMDs in Iraq, they were of little (if any) threat to the United States. Thus My question.....was it worth the lives of 2,000 American soldiers thus far....to "Not" find them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just a bit of a sideline here but, If indeed there were WMDs in Iraq, they were of little (if any) threat to the United States.

Because....?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You didnt read what I posted, did you.
If you did, you would see the -clear- intent to retain whatever he could in order to restart the nukle program as soon as sanctions were lifted, and a clear intention to hide whatever could be hidden in order to get the sanctions lifted.

I did read it. It's a possibility but intent wasn't the reason we were given to go to war. Everyone has intent..you can bet that if Europe and Asia thought that America was going to fall they'd be the falling over eachother to carve up the first slice. There is and was a present threat who has a proven chemical, biological, and nuclear arsenal and the missile technology to deliever them to our shores. It's amazing that people use the excuse that Saddam carted off these magical weapons that dissapear when we get there. There are no sattelite photos showing any weapons or materials being moved from anywhere. There's no evidence...period.

Tell me:
-What happened to the materials, weapons amd programs known to be there in december 1998
-How, exactly, were so many people and so many national inter services wrong about Iraq?

1.According to the report they were all destroyed in 1991.
2.No one knew if Saddam was developing weapons , it was speculated based on ambiguous information from men whos story changed depending on which way the wind was blowing and who was shoving cash in their pocket. There was never any evidence and the administration twisted that lack of evidence into vast arsenals and running programs.

Hmm... interesting, -your- skills at fortune telling. Its especially ironic, given what you typed, below

I didn't say it would happen I said it could happen.

LOL
What evidence is there of THAT?

Well lets see, the Kurds were opposed to Saddam. We could have fulfilled our promise from 10 years ago to help them in a coup. I would have supported aiding an Iraqi revolt..I don't support barging into Iraq guns blazing and pampering the Iraqis with our tax dollars.

Just like everyone has a right to a gun, until they show they cant be trusted with same. Saddam demonstrated that he couuld not be trusted, and as such, the WMDs became too serious a threat.

Thats not true. Again, Saddam only used them during the Iran-Iraq War and because the Kurds hade sided with the Iranians who had seized the towns that were gassed to drive them out. No one even knows with any semblance of certainty who gassed the Kurds. Even if it was Saddam, he had a right to defend himself against Iran.

 

[M14 Shooter]

1.According to the report they were all destroyed in 1991.

Thats not what it says
And if its true - doesnt that mean the 'lies' started long before GWB came into office?
AND that doesnt answer my question as to how, exactly, were so many people and so many national inter services wrong about Iraq?

There was never any evidence and the administration twisted that lack of evidence into vast arsenals and running programs.

Which administration is that?
And if there was never any evidence, how, exactly, were so many people and so many national inter services wrong about Iraq?

I didn't say it would happen I said it could happen.

I see.
When YOU say 'it could happen' its a valid point.
When I say it, its not.
Convenient, that.

Thats not true. Again, Saddam only used them during the Iran-Iraq War and because the Kurds hade sided with the Iranians who had seized the towns that were gassed to drive them out.

Lets see:
-Invaded Iran w/o porvocation
-Used WMDs aganst Iran
-Used WMDs against Kurd civilians
-Invaded Kuwait w/o provocation

Given that resume, please explain why you would trust him with WMDs

No one even knows with any semblance of certainty who gassed the Kurds.

Oh, THAT'S rich.

 

[tecoyah]

Because....?

Because.....there was only one means of delivery that carried any possible success, human transportation to this country. This I would hope...we can agree is not a reason to invade a country, or kill thousands of people. Sadam and Iraq had no means of sending a missle, aircraft, or amphibious assault to the shores of the country that virtually, unilaterally invaded his country. Dont get me wrong....I for one, am not upset that he is gone. Still, I cannot seem to justify this loss of life, and general Kaos over the attempt to remove a non-threat to my country. We invaded a freakin' country man.....you sure as hell better have a good explanation in place if you do that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because.....there was only one means of delivery that carried any possible success, human transportation to this country.

Boy, do YOU have a limited imagination.

This I would hope...we can agree is not a reason to invade a country, or kill thousands of people.
LOL
Um... no. Mostly because your premise is unsound.

 

[tecoyah]

And so....again...this is the point where I would hope you prove my premis incorrect, as I am sure you will with relevant Data that shows me the capabilities of Iraq to strike at America with weapons of mass distruction...mind you, without using the aforementioned Human carriers of said distruction.
I would hope you do not resort to the usual quips that come about in this back and forth battle of wits, and actually provide some level of Data that can be used to justify invasion, If by chance you do....It Will Be A First.

And I honestly (seriously) hope you can.

I can certainly show you the relevant documentation concerning the "Lack" of such a capability....should you require it.

 

[tecoyah]

And so....again...this is the point where I would hope you prove my premis incorrect, as I am sure you will with relevant Data that shows me the capabilities of Iraq to strike at America with weapons of mass distruction...mind you, without using the aforementioned Human carriers of said distruction.
I would hope you do not resort to the usual quips that come about in this back and forth battle of wits, and actually provide some level of Data that can be used to justify invasion, If by chance you do....It Will Be A First.

And I honestly (seriously) hope you can.

I can certainly show you the relevant documentation concerning the "Lack" of such a capability....should you require it.

Oh...and by the way.....one does not have the luxury of using exessive "Imagination" to justify invasion....OK?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Thats not what it says
And if its true - doesnt that mean the 'lies' started long before GWB came into office?
AND that doesnt answer my question as to how, exactly, were so many people and so many national inter services wrong about Iraq?

Yes, it is what it says. "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
The intelligence services weren't wrong, it's the administration that was and is wrong. The acctual intelligence reports say that there was no evidence. It was all assumed.

I see.
When YOU say 'it could happen' its a valid point.
When I say it, its not.
Convenient, that.

The comparrison was with the administration which said that it would happen.

Lets see:
-Invaded Iran w/o porvocation
-Used WMDs aganst Iran
-Used WMDs against Kurd civilians
-Invaded Kuwait w/o provocation

Given that resume, please explain why you would trust him with WMDs

1. Iran was sponsoring a Shi'ite group called Da'wa which had openly declared war on the regime and attempted to assasinate Saddam, his sons, and government ministers on numerous occasions. I call that provoacation.
2. No one really knows who used WMDs. Originally the U.S. blamed Iran, a few years later we blamed both Iran and Iraq, and now it's all Saddam. Nothing changed in that period of time other than who we wanted to go to war with.
3. The Kurds were NOT all civilians. They had sided with the Iranian troops and had seized towns along with the Iranian troops. Interesting that those were the only towns gassed.
4. Iran attacked Kuwait long before Iraq and Iran was the primary agressor. A reasonable person could argue that Saddam thought that by invading Kuwait he could drive the Iranians out.
5. Look what we did to Dresden during WW2. Why do you trust the U.S. with wmds?

Oh, THAT'S rich.

Only because it's true. The U.S. originally blamed Iran for the gassings.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes, it is what it says. "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
The intelligence services weren't wrong, it's the administration that was and is wrong. The acctual intelligence reports say that there was no evidence. It was all assumed.





The comparrison was with the administration which said that it would happen.




1. Iran was sponsoring a Shi'ite group called Da'wa which had openly declared war on the regime and attempted to assasinate Saddam, his sons, and government ministers on numerous occasions. I call that provoacation.
2. No one really knows who used WMDs. Originally the U.S. blamed Iran, a few years later we blamed both Iran and Iraq, and now it's all Saddam. Nothing changed in that period of time other than who we wanted to go to war with.
3. The Kurds were NOT all civilians. They had sided with the Iranian troops and had seized towns along with the Iranian troops. Interesting that those were the only towns gassed.
4. Iran attacked Kuwait long before Iraq and Iran was the primary agressor. A reasonable person could argue that Saddam thought that by invading Kuwait he could drive the Iranians out.
5. Look what we did to Dresden during WW2. Why do you trust the U.S. with wmds?




Only because it's true. The U.S. originally blamed Iran for the gassings.

Well, let's just get down to brass tacks.

You clearly believed Saddam was wrongly removed.

The remedy for that would be to return him to power.

Do you support that remedy?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Well, let's just get down to brass tacks.

You clearly believed Saddam was wrongly removed.

The remedy for that would be to return him to power.

Do you support that remedy?

There really is no remedy now..he's already on trial. So we're faced with three possibilities 1. Despite all probability the referendum passes 2. The referendum fails in which case the current government would dissolve and Iranian theocracy takes over which would be worse than Saddam 3. Civil war breaks out sooner rather than later and Iranian theocracy takes old in several provinces making the threat of Iranian invasion extremely likely.

 

[Harshaw]

OK . . . you didn't answer the question. You believe he was wrongly removed. Should, in your opinion, he be restored? Yes or no? Not "could." SHOULD.

1. Despite all probability the referendum passes

It's expected to pass.

2. The referendum fails in which case the current government would dissolve

No, the current government would remain in place and draft a new Constitution. Where do you get this stuff? Or is this simply what you're hoping for?

and Iranian theocracy takes over which would be worse than Saddam

I address this separately because it's a separate issue and is not implied by the former premise, though you try to make it seem so.

The Shiite majority of Iraq and its leadership has made it clear many times over that they have no interest in Iranian leadership or its style of government.

3. Civil war breaks out sooner rather than later and Iranian theocracy takes old in several provinces making the threat of Iranian invasion extremely likely.

Predicitions of imminent civil war have been on the tongues of those really hoping for one since, oh, the invasion had even been completed.

What's the term? "The soft bigotry of low expectations?" I give the Iraqi people more credit than that. Why don't you?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

OK . . . you didn't answer the question. You believe he was wrongly removed. Should, in your opinion, he be restored? Yes or no? Not "could." SHOULD.

Again, that depends on how many and what factors are involved.

It's expected to pass.

Not really. Only 3 of the provinces have to give a down vote for it to fail. It's a constant worry.

No, the current government would remain in place and draft a new Constitution. Where do you get this stuff? Or is this simply what you're hoping for?

No, the current government would be forced to dissolve and a new elections would have to take place. That is whats in the constitution the Iraqi's have compiled and that is what was agreed upon by the drafters.

I address this separately because it's a separate issue and is not implied by the former premise, though you try to make it seem so.

The Shiite majority of Iraq and its leadership has made it clear many times over that they have no interest in Iranian leadership or its style of government.

That is what we call a lie. Not only is the Da'wa party funded and supported by Iran, it had acctually helped the current Iranian theocracy come to power. In fact, the only reason it's taken so long to even come up with a draft for the constitution is because the Shi'ites demanded that Islamic law be included.

Predicitions of imminent civil war have been on the tongues of those really hoping for one since, oh, the invasion had even been completed.

What's the term? "The soft bigotry of low expectations?" I give the Iraqi people more credit than that. Why don't you?

It's a fact that civil war is iminent. The Kurds want their own state, if the Shi'ites don't get what they want they're going to fight for their own state, the Sunis are the only ones that want a unified Iraq and they're in the minority. The only reason the Kurds have agreed so far is because they were designated a large chunk of profit percentage from the oil industry. It'll happen.

 

[Harshaw]

Again, that depends on how many and what factors are involved.

Evasion. Answer the question.

I can only start to assume you think he should be.

Not really. Only 3 of the provinces have to give a down vote for it to fail. It's a constant worry.

It's expected to pass, nonetheless.

With Iraq's majority Shi'ite Arabs and ethnic Kurds in the north both backing the text, the draft constitution is expected to easily obtain the needed nationwide majority vote to pass in mid-October. But ratification would fail if two-thirds of voters in at least three of the country's 18 provinces vote "no."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050830-121721-8735r.htm

I know there's a group of you who want Iraqi demcracy to fail, but they keep refusing to live down to your expectations.

No, the current government would be forced to dissolve and a new elections would have to take place. That is whats in the constitution the Iraqi's have compiled and that is what was agreed upon by the drafters.

Elections for a new goverment are already scheduled for December one way or the other. There will be no dissolution of government.

Even if the constitution is rejected, the December vote for a permanent National Assembly will be held, and the new parliament will have until the end of 2006 to produce a new draft constitution.

Same link.

That is what we call a lie. Not only is the Da'wa party funded and supported by Iran, it had acctually helped the current Iranian theocracy come to power. In fact, the only reason it's taken so long to even come up with a draft for the constitution is because the Shi'ites demanded that Islamic law be included.

That is what we call "converse accident," a fallacy of applying what is true for a few to a whole at large.

It's a fact that civil war is iminent. The Kurds want their own state, if the Shi'ites don't get what they want they're going to fight for their own state, the Sunis are the only ones that want a unified Iraq and they're in the minority. The only reason the Kurds have agreed so far is because they were designated a large chunk of profit percentage from the oil industry. It'll happen.

Complete rubbish.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Evasion. Answer the question.

I can only start to assume you think he should be.

It's not evasion it's the truth. It depends on the circumstances.

It's expected to pass, nonetheless.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050830-121721-8735r.htm

I know there's a group of you who want Iraqi demcracy to fail, but they keep refusing to live down to your expectations.

People hope it will pass it doesn't mean it's expected to. Here's a reason why it will eventually fail from your own source and from an additional source.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME


http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11596700.htm

Elections for a new goverment are already scheduled for December one way or the other. There will be no dissolution of government.

There will be a dissolution of the elected body if the referendum fails until a new vote is cast.

That is what we call "converse accident," a fallacy of applying what is true for a few to a whole at large.

he Shi'ites are in the majority second only to the Kurds. Get real. Hopes and dreams alone don't win freedom.

Complete rubbish.

Then why did the Kurds curb their movement for independance? They demanded certain things if they were to remain a part of Iraq including a large share of oil profit percentage and both deputy prime minister posts.

 

[Harshaw]

It's not evasion it's the truth. It depends on the circumstances.

Then you think he should be. Explain the circumstances under which it should happen.

People hope it will pass it doesn't mean it's expected to. Here's a reason why it will eventually fail from your own source and from an additional source.

It didn't say "hope"; it said "expected."

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME

Has nothing to do with the referendum vote, and warrants a big, fat, "well, duh!" Syria doesn't want an Arab democracy on its border. That's kind of one of the points of doing it in the first place.

Not that you care. You'd rather have the entire world under dictatorship than have Bush be right about . . . anything.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L11596700.htm

Again, has nothing to do with whether or not the referendum will pass or fail. As for bumps in creating a constitution? Perhaps you should go back and study the creation of our own.

In fact, perhaps you should research the process that led to independence in the first place.

But again, you show your low expectations which the Iraqis have consistently failed to live down to.

The thing is, you WANT them to fail. It's as simple as that.

There will be a dissolution of the elected body if the referendum fails until a new vote is cast.

No, there won't. No idea where you get that idea. That would be insanely stupid. No one would set up a system like that.

he Shi'ites are in the majority second only to the Kurds. Get real. Hopes and dreams alone don't win freedom.

You, of course, failed to understand what I wrote.

There are some Shiites who feel that way. You take those some -- a minority -- and apply it to ALL Shi'ites. That's a fallacy.

(And what does it mean, they're in the "majority," but "second only" to the Kurds? That's nonsensical.)

Then why did the Kurds curb their movement for independance? They demanded certain things if they were to remain a part of Iraq including a large share of oil profit percentage and both deputy prime minister posts.

Even taken as 100% at its bleakest possible interpretation, this does not imply imminent civil war. I don't think you actually understand the term.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Then you think he should be. Explain the circumstances under which it should happen.

If an Iranian theocracy threatens to take over I'd support a return to dictatorship.

It didn't say "hope"; it said "expected."

In reality it is hope. Just wait until November..I hope your foot is tasty.

Has nothing to do with the referendum vote, and warrants a big, fat, "well, duh!" Syria doesn't want an Arab democracy on its border. That's kind of one of the points of doing it in the first place.

Acctually it does. If you're too blind to see that the insurgency has some influence in Iraq then you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Even some of the insurgency members managed to get on the ballot.

Not that you care. You'd rather have the entire world under dictatorship than have Bush be right about . . . anything.

Thats not true. Just because Bush isn't right about anything doesn't mean I don't want him to be right about something.

Again, has nothing to do with whether or not the referendum will pass or fail. As for bumps in creating a constitution? Perhaps you should go back and study the creation of our own.

In fact, perhaps you should research the process that led to independence in the first place.

But again, you show your low expectations which the Iraqis have consistently failed to live down to.

The thing is, you WANT them to fail. It's as simple as that.

The Iraqi's have a history of failing. It's as simple as that.

No, there won't. No idea where you get that idea. That would be insanely stupid. No one would set up a system like that.

Unless of course the U.S. would agree to setup another interim government until the people could vote again..which we did.

You, of course, failed to understand what I wrote.

There are some Shiites who feel that way. You take those some -- a minority -- and apply it to ALL Shi'ites. That's a fallacy.

I didn't fail to understand what you wrote, I recognized it as the hogwash it is. The Shi'ites overwhelmingly want Islamic law to be dominant hence why they've demonstrated and proped up their Imams as leaders.

Even taken as 100% at its bleakest possible interpretation, this does not imply imminent civil war. I don't think you actually understand the term.

Thats the way it is. Look it up. It is a fact that there will be a civil war. The Shi'ites and Kurds have been at odds with eachother for decades, the Kurds will petition for independance if their demands are not met, and the two majorities being the Kurds and Shi'ites, a civil war is unavoidable. Get real.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so....again...this is the point where I would hope you prove my premis incorrect, as I am sure you will with relevant Data that shows me the capabilities of Iraq to strike at America with weapons of mass distruction...mind you, without using the aforementioned Human carriers of said distruction.

There are lots of ways to deliver a WMD to the US, the most obvious of which is one of the hundredts of thousands of shipping containers that enter the US each year. It arrives at a poir, it gets put on a train, it hooks to a truck, if winds up (pick anywhere in the US).

And, its nearly impossible to stop.
Especially if you send several.

 

[Harshaw]

If an Iranian theocracy threatens to take over I'd support a return to dictatorship.







In reality it is hope. Just wait until November..I hope your foot is tasty.





Acctually it does. If you're too blind to see that the insurgency has some influence in Iraq then you shouldn't be posting in this thread. Even some of the insurgency members managed to get on the ballot.




Thats not true. Just because Bush isn't right about anything doesn't mean I don't want him to be right about something.






The Iraqi's have a history of failing. It's as simple as that.






Unless of course the U.S. would agree to setup another interim government until the people could vote again..which we did.








I didn't fail to understand what you wrote, I recognized it as the hogwash it is. The Shi'ites overwhelmingly want Islamic law to be dominant hence why they've demonstrated and proped up their Imams as leaders.







Thats the way it is. Look it up. It is a fact that there will be a civil war. The Shi'ites and Kurds have been at odds with eachother for decades, the Kurds will petition for independance if their demands are not met, and the two majorities being the Kurds and Shi'ites, a civil war is unavoidable. Get real.

Dude . . .

At this point, all you're doing is screaming "IS TOO!!!!" at the top of your lungs.

 

[tecoyah]

There are lots of ways to deliver a WMD to the US, the most obvious of which is one of the hundredts of thousands of shipping containers that enter the US each year. It arrives at a poir, it gets put on a train, it hooks to a truck, if winds up (pick anywhere in the US).

And, its nearly impossible to stop.
Especially if you send several.

Yes....you could send a shipment of Mustard Gas, Nukes, or any manner of WMD through customs....it might even make it.You could take a cruise and blow up a US port....you could send a letter to someone in the US coated with plague....you could use your imagination to come up with any number of scenarios.
Now, if you would...please go back and actually Read the question before you attempt to reply this time. (yes I do realize that was about as good as I can expect). We are dealing with a question of Justification here, and I doubt anyone can accept the costs of this war based on the possability of someone getting weapons from Iraq....and shipping them to the U.S. If that were the case we would literally need to invade every single country that has the capability of producing weapons.
Perhaps you would like to try again?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Dude . . .

At this point, all you're doing is screaming "IS TOO!!!!" at the top of your lungs.

No, I've provided facts ie reality. You've provided nothing but hopes and dreams. If you think Bush is right about this after all of the things he's been utterly wrong about then you should grab a bag of pretzles and join him..just don't count on him to know how to chew his food.

 

[Harshaw]

No, I've provided facts ie reality. You've provided nothing but hopes and dreams. If you think Bush is right about this after all of the things he's been utterly wrong about then you should grab a bag of pretzles and join him..just don't count on him to know how to chew his food.

You've given nothing but fantasy, an anti-Bush wet dream. I mean, considering that you think Saddam should be returned to power is enough to kneecap your credibility in the first place, but . . .

Why is it that you want so desperately for democracy in Iraq to fail?

 

[Hoot]

I'm going back to an earlier discussion in this thread, but in all seriousness, how do you provide proof that a particular wmd has been destroyed?

Take polaroids?

Have your generals witness and sign a notarized statement that the wmd's have been destroyed?

Show a burned up rocket casing and tell the inspectors that it contained nerve gass?

The whole idea of Saddam having to provide proof that he didn't have wmd is ridiculous...how do you provide that proof? By allowing the inspectors to do their job...something that was happening, on the ground, in Iraq, before Bush pulled the inspectors out to start this war.

The burden of proof was not on Saddam to prove he didn't have wmd, but on Bush's shoulders to prove to America that Saddam was such an immediate threat that we have to invade Iraq, spend billions each month and sacrifice about 2000 of our best and put 10,000 in permanent disability.

Bush has not met his burden of proof to the American people.

By the way, Cheney told us on "Meet the Press," ( March 16, 2003) that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons...this was before the invasion....a deliberate lie to the American people...no way to spin that one. Six months later, Cheney relented and said " Yeah, I did misspeak..we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." Meet the Press Sept 14, 2003.

I call this a lie...a far worse lie than someone hiding an affair.

 

[Harshaw]

I'm going back to an earlier discussion in this thread, but in all seriousness, how do you provide proof that a particular wmd has been destroyed?

Take polaroids?

Have your generals witness and sign a notarized statement that the wmd's have been destroyed?

Show a burned up rocket casing and tell the inspectors that it contained nerve gass?

The whole idea of Saddam having to provide proof that he didn't have wmd is ridiculous...how do you provide that proof? By allowing the inspectors to do their job...something that was happening, on the ground, in Iraq, before Bush pulled the inspectors out to start this war.

The burden of proof was not on Saddam to prove he didn't have wmd, but on Bush's shoulders to prove to America that Saddam was such an immediate threat that we have to invade Iraq, spend billions each month and sacrifice about 2000 of our best and put 10,000 in permanent disability.

Bush has not met his burden of proof to the American people.

By the way, Cheney told us on "Meet the Press," ( March 16, 2003) that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons...this was before the invasion....a deliberate lie to the American people...no way to spin that one. Six months later, Cheney relented and said " Yeah, I did misspeak..we never had any evidence that Saddam had acquired a nuclear weapon." Meet the Press Sept 14, 2003.

I call this a lie...a far worse lie than someone hiding an affair.

This has been covered at length. Go back and read the thread.