WMD were found in Iraq. Final proof Saddam had 'em

[Kelly the Dog]

Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

 

Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one.  Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews.

60609[/snapback]

If you read that story you posted yourself, you would find that there is no proof or disproof of the yellowcake story. There are only lies made by Wilson about his visit and his wife and documents. Especially the last paragraph speaks about the forged documents, saying Wilson could not know forged dicuments were indeed forged. It does not say they were not forged, and indeed does say they are forged. Don't you think if the CIA had any proof of yellowcake sales whatsoever they would be touting it everywhere? Because they don't, and they even say they are "highly skeptical" of other unproved reports by the Brits. There is no proof whatsoever to the Iraqis and yellowcake. There are theories by a foreign intelligence which will not totally shy from their comments but won't back them either. There is no proof of yellowcake at all, in fact.

[Bad Things]

Why does it matter now?

60622[/snapback]

 

Why does it matter?

What the heck is that for question?

[Alaska Darin]

Why does it matter?

What the heck is that for question?

60632[/snapback]

I'll pretend I understand your question, despite the terrible way it was phrased.

 

Because we can continue to play "Monday Morning QB" for the forseeable future with no positive coming from it, or we can move on and work towards actual solutions to why our government feels it's entitled to act like the international Gladdys Kravitz. Regardless of which cluster of thieves holds the Executive.

[MichFan]

Kelly, my quote was:

 

In fact, Great Britain is standing by the validity of this intelligence and Joe Wilson's investigation was shown to be less than reliable.

 

I believe this article does in fact reinforce what I stated.

[MichFan]

Mich...

Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified?

 

Absolutely.

 

Woodward's book cites Bush stating that he wanted to be a second term president but if it was a choice between that and removing Saddam from power, he would pursue Saddam. I think he erred in identifying the options. In fact, if George W. Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein from power, he would be unelectable today. The American people would not have accepted the notion of Saddam still being in power in Iraq and U.N. resolutions being scaled back. The fact that he is even in this race is a sign he made the right decision.

 

BTW - nice edit on your original post.

[Bad Things]

Absolutely.

 

Woodward's book cites Bush stating that he wanted to be a second term president but if it was a choice between that and removing Saddam from power, he would pursue Saddam.  I think he erred in identifying the options.  In fact, if George W. Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein from power, he would be unelectable today.  The American people would not have accepted the notion of Saddam still being in power in Iraq and U.N. resolutions being scaled back.  The fact that he is even in this race is a sign he made the right decision.

 

BTW - nice edit on your original post.

60697[/snapback]

Thanks (Edit.) Hindsight helped you with your post, so I thought it should help me too.

 

Anyway... I'm sorry if I'm thick-skulled, (Which I KNOW I am) but I don't seem to understand your logic.

Are you stating that if "w" didn't start claiming a link between Iraq/911 and Saddaam/Bin Laden directly following Sept 11th, and if we didn't rush to war against the wishes of most of the world... Bush would be unelectable because he didn't remove Saddaam from power?

But... since he ("w") claimed (lied) that Iraq had this HUGE stockpile of weapons that he was going to use against us makes him ("w") correct even thought it's now been proved false??

[Bad Things]

I'll pretend I understand your question, despite the terrible way it was phrased. 

 

Because we can continue to play "Monday Morning QB" for the forseeable future with no positive coming from it, or we can move on and work towards actual solutions to why our government feels it's entitled to act like the international Gladdys Kravitz.  Regardless of which cluster of thieves holds the Executive.

60641[/snapback]

 

Simply stated Darin... we must learn from History to improve our future.

In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again.

By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

[MichFan]

What I'm saying is people are is just quibbling over the details at this point. No "war on terror" would have been perceived as credible by a majority of the American people if Saddam Hussein were allowed to stay in power and have sanctions rolled back. I'm a big picture guy and in the big picture this will be proven the right thing to do (as long as Bush wins, that is).

[MichFan]

In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again.

By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them. Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Could this be an official "I told you so" post?

 

 

Didn't one "troll" way back in December 2002 throw out the idea that Iraq didn't have them and that we would find nothing when we invaded?

 

I am not sure who that troll was ... But, he was accused of "stirring the pot" and causing trouble?

 

I think that is when you could post here as a guest... I am not sure?, I was new to the board?

 

Boy... That person really caught some flak... Good thing certain posters were away, because they would have ripped that "prophetic troll" a new one on how Iraq is going to "push buttons" on our advancing soldiers.

 

Boy I wish we could go back 2 years an pull the post. Might seem very fitting and sane now...

 

O well. Don't worry, WMD's will show up one day and you guys will put that "troll" in his place.

 

Next time you get caught up in the "heart"... Think things through first.

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'll pretend I understand your question, despite the terrible way it was phrased. 

 

Because we can continue to play "Monday Morning QB" for the forseeable future with no positive coming from it, or we can move on and work towards actual solutions to why our government feels it's entitled to act like the international Gladdys Kravitz.  Regardless of which cluster of thieves holds the Executive.

60641[/snapback]

 

Monday morning QBing?

 

WTF?

 

Where were you before the war?

 

You guys just turned your ears off... Refused to listen to the facts.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them.  Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

60774[/snapback]

 

No because Colin Powell told the world that Iraq has WMD's and they were ready to use them on short notice.

 

I think the hawks won out.

[Bad Things]

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them.  Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

60774[/snapback]

It's sooooo convenient to frame the topic as "seeing a gathering risk". (Boy that sounds so nice.)

The F-UP occurred when we actually invaded a soveriegn nation, killing thousands of innocents, more than a thousand of our troops, spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, discrediting ourselves on the world stage, all based on Bullsh1t and fear.

 

Two weeks to wipe out a country with an army that didn't fight... Saddaam hiding in a hole... boy that was sure a gathering risk!

[ExiledInIllinois]

It's sooooo convenient to frame the topic as "seeing a gathering risk".  (Boy that sounds so nice.)

The F-UP occurred when we actually invaded a soveriegn nation, killing thousands of innocents, more than a thousand of our troops, spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, discrediting ourselves on the world stage, all based on Bullsh1t and fear.

 

Two weeks to wipe out a country with an army that didn't fight... Saddaam hiding in a hole... boy that was sure a gathering risk!

60795[/snapback]

 

But, but, but, SH was killing... U and Q were raping and pillaging!

 

Never trust an exile!

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them.  Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

60774[/snapback]

Give me one indication that Saddam ever had any plans, ideas, desires or even motives to attack the United States in any way like 9/11, even after we attacked him.

[swede316]

One thing about it that always gets me though, Alot of you say we've never once been attacked by Saddam Hussein, now for those of us in the know, I believe that U.S. pilots have been fired on every day for that last 13 years since gulf war one. You'd think it would be easy to say, "I'm sorry you don't think the military constitues being attacked, but tell it to a Navy/Marine pilot who flew over Iraq after the "surrender"..... You always always miss that one.

[Kelly the Dog]

One thing about it that always gets me though, Alot of you say we've never once been attacked by Saddam Hussein, now for those of us in the know, I believe that U.S. pilots have been fired on every day for that last 13 years since gulf war one. You'd think it would be easy to say, "I'm sorry you don't think the military constitues being attacked, but tell it to a Navy/Marine pilot who flew over Iraq after the "surrender"..... You always always miss that one.

60849[/snapback]

You mean the planes that were constantly bombing him?

[swede316]

They only fired when they were lit up..A hostile action.

[Alaska Darin]

Simply stated Darin... we must learn from History to improve our future.

In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again.

By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

60743[/snapback]

Except we're not learning from history. History tells us if we continue to give our government huge sums of money, they'll continue to do VERY stupid things with it.

 

Once again, it's the 30,000 foot view that so few people seem to understand. The liberals are more than happy to do just this, yet B word like school girls when the other side is in power and get their chance at the brass ring.

 

If you're willing to cede so much power to a central "authority" then you are getting EXACTLY what you deserve.

 

Welcome to Jolly Ol' England, American style.

[Kelly the Dog]

They only fired when they were lit up..A hostile action.

60866[/snapback]

Firing on bombers flying over a no-fly zone is a hostile action? Actually, I am not on authority on the matter but it seems to me that not only were they shooting at us illegally at times but we were flying over illegal areas and constantly bombing all kinds of targets that were not just them firing at us. That seemed to me from the start to be a complete wash.