.              

Bush's bogus war


By PAUL KNOX

06/25/03: (Globe & Mail) All governments shade the truth. Most resort to deception when the going gets tough. Saddam Hussein is gone and so is his regime. So who cares if George W. Bush fiddled with the facts on Iraq's banned-weapons programs and its reported links to al-Qaeda?

I care. The Bush administration's dissembling about the invasion of Iraq and its self-delusion about the consequences are directly related to the disturbing events now unfolding there. All of us are likely to feel the effects as a confused, angry superpower grows ill at ease with its self-appointed role.

Time magazine reports that in March, 2002, Mr. Bush told a group of senators at the White House: "F -- Saddam, we're taking him out." In public he said no such thing, instead initiating a parade of torqued and misleading statements about Iraq's threat to the United States.

In October, he said Iraq "possesses and produces" chemical and biological weapons and "is reconstituting" its nuclear-weapons program. Yet the Defence Intelligence Agency at that time was reporting no hard evidence of Iraqi possession of banned weapons. He also said Iraq had continuing ties to al-Qaeda, and had trained its operatives in the use of banned munitions. Those statements went much further than the U.S. intelligence consensus, according to an exhaustive report on Sunday in The Washington Post.

At the end of January, in the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush offered a tale of Iraqi attempts to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa. The CIA, and possibly Vice-President Dick Cheney, knew this to be bogus. Last month, Mr. Bush trumpeted the news that U.S. weapons teams had found "biological laboratories" in Iraq. That was another leap into the abyss. It now appears the mobile units either had been deactivated or had nothing to do with germ warfare.

There is, of course, no doubt that Iraq at one time had illegal weapons. The question was whether they were dismantled, lost, buried beyond exhumation and detection or simply too old and decrepit to threaten anyone.

Even before the invasion, the evidence was so dubious that those in favour of war were recasting it as a campaign on behalf of oppressed Iraqi civilians. That is almost unbelievably cynical.

There would have been no quick-exit fantasies if humanitarianism had been driving U.S. Iraq policy. Civilian policing would have been integrated into planning from the start. It would have been tough to avoid the current situation, in which soldiers who thought they'd been sent to take out a death-dealing tyrant find themselves confronting rebellious civilians. But at least the need for a long-term civilian occupation administration would have been acknowledged.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but the resort to deception is common to both campaigns. In 1964, after hearing allegations of attacks on two U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese patrol boats, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving then president Lyndon Johnson a free hand in pursuing the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. The first was a trivial incident, and not unprovoked. Mr. Johnson later admitted that he had no idea whether the second attack actually took place. Neither his doubts nor those of a key naval commander were shared with the public.

Sound familiar? Action based on faulty, partial or misleading information is bound to be bad policy and worse strategy. It will come to grief either because it is the wrong thing to do or because it leads to a loss of public trust.

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is accused of manipulating intelligence reports to boost the case for war. His critics include not only former cabinet ministers and senior intelligence officials, but also the leader of the Conservative Party, whose MPs helped him win parliamentary approval for the invasion.

The spectacle of Margaret Thatcher's political heirs rounding on Mr. Blair ought to make self-respecting Republicans sit up and take note. The next time Mr. Bush decides on the basis of proprietary intelligence that the time is ripe for a pre-emptive strike, who will believe him? Deception-driven policy-making is exceptionally dangerous in an age of instantaneous broad-spectrum news. Actions are far more likely to be jeopardized while they are still in progress, instead of merely being criticized after the fact. Iraqis opposed to the U.S. occupation may be emboldened by real-time, televised accounts in their own language of U.S. and British investigations into who knew what, and when.

Official duplicity may be an immutable fact of life. So should be the quest to expose its corrosive effects. The United States is in danger of forgetting the most important lesson it learned in Vietnam. The end may seem to justify the means, but all too often the means deform the end.

pknox@globeandmail.ca

© Copyright 2003 Globe & Mail
_________________________________________________________________

US Senate leader says weapons of mass destruction not main cause of Iraq war
Thu Jun 26,10:02 AM ET



Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Republican leader in the Senate said that Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction was not the main justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq.


AFP/File Photo

 

"I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC television's Today Show.


Even without the discovery of alleged chemical and biological weapons, Frist said Americans still welcome the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


"If you talk to most of the American people today, to have Saddam Hussein and his rogue regime out of there is something the American people want, it's something they deserve," the Republican leader said.


"We know he has used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands and thousands of his own people ... as well as outside of the country," he said.


Frist said Saddam's brutal record as a dictator alone was sufficient justification for his ouster.


"When you have a terrorist and people who harbor terrorists, and they've had weapons of mass destruction which they're used to kill their own people, invade other nations with those weapons ... to have him removed is something the American people want, they need and they feel much more secure with."


Frist added that he was not surprised that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq.


"The weapons of mass destruction that we're talking about today are new. They're little viruses, they're bacteria, they're chemicals, things you can't see, you can't touch, you can't smell. So intelligence is tough," he said.


"The administration made decisions based on the very best intelligence that we have available today," Frist insisted.

...point made by Frist: "We've been able to sell it to enough of the Suckers so we'll just keep spinning away from the proven LIES."

We call them LIES, though we can't for the life of us make it stick. Maybe we're wrong. No!! How silly of me. We're NEVER wrong!

I know. Let's just keep repeating it over and over and over. I was looking in the playbook, and that's really the only play we got. There is no chapter on facing the truth, so that's something we can't do. Oh well, I can turn blue in the face as well as the rest of my comrades.

It would be very beneficial indeed if more of you fascists went blue in the face. Can't accept the truth about Georgie-Porgie, huh? Maybe you should make friends with D. Nile.

"Can't accept the truth about Georgie-Porgie, huh?"

THE truth, yes. YOUR truth, no.

So, one truth for us, one for them? Is that how it works? Where are the WMDs? Where is the electricity and water in Iraq? Why did that looting go unchecked?

Oh yeah: 'An end to major operations...' Isn't that what Shrub said a few weeks ago? And weren't you Neo-con saps saying 'We won' in Afghanistan and Iraq? Who's zoomin' who?

Libby, did you ever hear of the fact that you can't prove a negative? I can't prove that most rock stars are not robots who came out of ufos, but I still don't think that they are. The burden of proof would be on anyone who wanted to claim that they are robots. Similarly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Bush was telling the truth when he said that he knew that there are WMDs in Iraq is on them, not on people who disbelieve the story. It all comes down to this - where are these alleged weapons of mass destruction, for the sake of which thousands of lives were lost?

The onus is on you and yours my weeping friend. That WMD existed in quantity in Iraq is simply a matter of public record. To try and deny that will lower your credibility to zero. There, however, is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that these WMD were ever destroyed by Sadam. All we know is that he ruled under harsh sanctions for years because of an unwillingness or inability to provide such evidence. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe anything other than he had WMD. Now given the amount of time that appeasers and handwringers like yourself, and the UN and France and all the rest of that ilk gave him before we liberated Iraq, who knows where they are now.

You are simply not allowed to directly help someone hide something and then complain about the efforts of others to find it.

So now what? Does the US have the right to keep invading countries until it finds the alleged WMDs? Or do we just say who cares? The main point was to get rid of Saddam? Either one gives Bush dictatorial powers to make war any time he wants to.
Bush claimed that there were massive numbers of wmds in Iraq that threatened both the United States and Israel. There is no way that all traces of these things could be hidden from both the UN inspectors and now the Anglo/American occupation force.

frescaw is as always lying and spinning to the end. To make an honest statement is apparently beyond frescaw’s very limited capabilities.

Example:

“That WMD existed in quantity in Iraq is simply a matter of public record. “

Cite your source as you are so fond of saying.

Articles prior to the build up to the recent debacle are not acceptable.

The onus is on you to prove the positive statement that Saddam had in his possession banned weapons and the capability to manufacture more as those are the claims you are defending.

Of course no such evidence exists and you will not provide it.

As always a lying apologist for mass murder.

“There is absolutely NO REASON to believe anything other than he had WMD.”

Based on what?

Your reputation? ROFL!

“Now given the amount of time that appeasers and handwringers like yourself, and the UN and France and all the rest of that ilk gave him before we liberated Iraq, who knows where they are now.”

Total and unadulterated Bull Shit. Cite you evidence. Where did he move the nonexistent weapons to?

You have no, none, zero, nada, nothing, not one shred, of evidence to back up this inflammatory slur.

The moral High Ground is occupied by those who argued that there was no evidence to justify this invasion and all of it’s attendant mayhem and murder. “I think” is not sufficient to justify invading another country only an “I know” backed up with hard evidence is. You cannot provide one shred of factual evidence to back up your claims. You are a LIAR. A rather filthy one too in that you seek to justify murder and conquest. Or are you an advocate of “Compassionate Conservative Murder”?

Repeatedly the Bush Junta has been caught in out and out lies in their attempt to justify this Crime Against Humanity.

There is absolutely no reason to accept one word of what you have to say. It is founded only in your PR and PsyOps Textbooks. In other words how to lie and defame decent people.

You are not Scum. You would have to come up several notches to reach that exalted level.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

hehehe dio!

You're not only trying to dig yourself out of a hole but it's a hole you dug in the first place.

First of all, Do your own research, the public record is full of documentation of Iraq's WMD.

I would suggest first searching any of a number of YOUR OWN POSTS where you vilify America for "giving" him, as you said, WMD in the first place.

Where'd they go. Sadam just destrotyed them all and hid this from the world for more than a decade.

I'd reiterate how the onus is on you to disprove what can only be accepted as the truth.

Something existed.
There is no evidence of it being destroyed, nor any reason for it having been destroyed.
Therefore, it is safe to assume it still exists.

I would reiterate this. but since YOU are incapable of accepting aby responsibility for your actions, it would be a waste of time.

You and your buddies who cry crocodile tears for the Constitution as you seek to destroy the country are simply murderers. Thankfully, you're too self involved and inneffectual to be anything more than a figure of fun.

The WMD are scattered thanks ENTIRELY to you and yours. Hopefully we'll find some. Saying they never existed is just plain evil on your part at this point.

How does it feel to be the mother of a million dead?

DIO CRIED, MILLIONS WILL DIE it really is as simple as that.

As expected frescaw is unable to produce anything other than insults.

No evidence.

Nothing other than schoolyard taunts and avoiding the issue.

Conclusion: frescaw is a knowing and willing liar.

frescaw is nothing more than a simpleminded apologist for evil, and an accessory to mass murder by knowing and willing support of those crimes and attempting to help try to bury the evidence of the crimes.

frescaw is nothing more than a mouthpiece parroting what it is told to say.

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

I hand you evidence on a platter and you are afraid to take it.

You are Pathetic.

WMD. The weapons that simply disappeared.

..."You can't prove a negtative."

Yet that's what you're trying to do.

You're trying to prove Saddam didn't have WMD.

And failing miserably.

Blix, Gore, Annan, loads of Democrats said he had 'em.

What will it take for you guys to accept the truth?

I'm guessing, nothing will make you change your mind. You've said as much. You said any WMD found would be planted by the coalition.

Just can't admit you're wrong, can you? I know Dio can't. He'll yell and whine until he's dead that black is white, because HE says it is, and anyone who disagrees is a paid shill.

You grasp of reality is tenuous at best, Dio. Give it up before you're totally gone.

It really is that simple.

Yes, he had them Daveman. But now, at best, the only claims are that he had two mobile trucks for a chemical program, and that inside the brains of the scientists, they could do more.

That's really all that the Bush folks point to at this juncture. Oh, wait, I forgot about the few spar parts of a centrifuge found under a rose bush (never mind the fact that to enrich uranium, one needs THOUSANDS of centrifuge machines and an operation the size of a small city).

Look buddy, he had them. By 1998, most of them were gone. Even the thousands of tons of serin and anthrax that Bush claimed in the State of the Union Address was a known lie. I repeat -- a known lie. Those finished chemical products had a shelf life of 3 years max. It was proven that Iraq didn't have a large scale chemical program operating by 1998. That's in UN documents from the weapons inspectors...not just Scott Ritter's take. The only question open for debate was if they had small scale production (like those two stupid mobile trucks). But nevertheless, Bush got on TV and told the world a known lie, and his underlings did the same over and over about thousands of tons of chemical weapons.

Thousands of tons translates into a minimum of 4 million pounds. Just in case your wondering, it's hard to hide 4 million pounds of anything, and certainly not under a rose bush.

Look, I really don't give a crap if you hate liberals. I really don't give a crap if you hate anarchists or other leftists. But what I don't get is that people like you don't seem to want to call something a lie when it's a clear lie. That's cognitive dissonance -- your brain literally can't let you perceive facts before you nose. This isn't a partisan issue. I really don't give a rats ass about democrats or any partisan politics. When a democrat lies, I'll point it out. When a republic lies, I'll point it out. That's the patriotic duty of an active citizen in a democracy.

hell, maybe you're not a sleep walker and you're really paid to post or something.

It was quite dark out when the man came from behind the store.
The police officer stood shaking in the midnight light.
The man looked at the officer as the alarm rang into the night air.
The officer yelled "Stop!!!"
The man raised his hand.
The officer shot.
As the officer approached he saw that the mans hands were holding a sign.
There was no gun, no knife, and no excuse.
The sign said,"I am deaf and dumb".
The officer tucked a gun under the mans waistband and
called for backup.

...didn't Saddam 'fess up and avoid the war?

Why do you keep apologizing for him?

You're not doing it intentionally, I know. But in your mad rush to vilify Bush, that's what you're doing.

Saddam's gone. It's okay; you can say it: "It's a good thing."

The usual reply to that is, "Yeah, it's good, but BUSH yadda yadda yadda...!"

BTW, I'm curious...whatever happened to the dire predictions of half-a-million dead Iraqi civilians? As I write this, the Iraq Body-Count-O-Meter maxes out at 7,243.

While every civilian death is a tragedy, it's hardly been the bloodbath so rabidly predicted, has it?

Just shows how much the American military values human life.

is that a response to my post?

if so, you need to do a better job.

let me know and I'll come back -- but so far I think you didn't address what I said but only introduced other points (which I will address after you address my points)

...any photos of engorged donkey penises that I could masturbate to?

I hate having to do this sort of thing. But, it's what people with my political outlook have been reduced to.

That was me. I'm so clever!

The so-called weapons of mass destruction (a relatively new and ambiguous phrase) that Hussein had were presumably used against Iranian forces in the war that the US encouraged and prodded him to launch. The US and British governments and corporations from both countries were more than happy to provide him with the means to launch chemical/gas attacks against Iranian troops. That was twenty years ago. But you rightwingers apparantly have convinced yourself that Hussein still had them a few months ago, apparantly after refusing to use them in his desperate struggles against the Iranian, US and UK forces. If you are arguing that he still had "massive" numbers of these weapons this spring the burden of proof is certainly on you to show what happened to them. Where are they?
Also, please remember that most types of chemical and biological weapons as well as suitcase nukes have a kind of shelf life; they cannot be stored for many years and then used against the US, Israel, or some other peace loving nation. After a while their only use is as museum pieces, but I don't think we'll find them in any Iraqi museums - they have already been looted by the same type of Iraqis who formed an instant identification with the invading troops.

Although Meyer spreads his opinions in somewhat a caustic manner, I must admit that I'm starting to wonder. Where are those WMD that American troops fought, died, and worse killed to prevent their usage.

I've thought quite a bit about this, and you lefties have a point, although you want to beat it to death.

I mean, if I were a dictator with WMD, and a country invaded mine, why wouldn't I use them? It doesn't make any sense. It was a lose-lose situation for Hussein. If he had them and didn't use them, he knew he was going to lose and they'd be revealed to the world. If he had them and used them, then the war would have been justified.

Only two solutions remain. Either he had them, but had deployed them, possibly to another Arab country like maybe Syria? or he honestly didn't have any.

Hmmm.

It would be very difficult to transport the quantity of
alledged material without a footprint. We certainly have the NSA and their spy systems for such information.

But it really depends on what we're talking about here, and how much of it.

The administrations argument was that there was just soooo much of this stuff unaccounted for, there was something fishy going on. And if he disposed of 99% of it, and only made 1 bomb, he's still guilty. Right?

Now I've seen cutting edge technology and sattelite spy systems at work, and it's not as advanced as you may believe. Although, it's an interesting point...

Yes, that was a valid response.

He had 'em. Everybody and their dog knows he did.

But if had none last November, why did he offer no proof of their destruction?

Wouldn't that have saved a lot of trouble on everyone's part? Especially his, since he's probably gone to the Great Disco Palace in the Sky (or, infinitely more likely, getting his stomach roasted in hell)?

I saw a report on DEEBKAFile that said they were buried in the Bekaa Valley. Unsubstantiated, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me.

If we dig up every square meter of Iraq, every rose bush, every basement and find nothing, then I'm going to get worried. Who did he give the stuff to? We KNOW he had thousands of liters of anthrax. If it's not in Iraq, where is it?

"Gutless coward"?
Works for me if it works for you I guess.....

Does anybody have...
by daveman • Friday June 27, 2003 08:31 AM



...any photos of engorged donkey penises that I could masturbate to?

You are one sick puppy. Seek help.

printable version - email this article
View article without comments

Bush's bogus war
by C/O Diogenes Thursday June 26, 2003 04:30 AM


I thought it would be an interesting comparison to pair together the following two articles. Interesting how the spin changes when the lies become too exposed.



.              

Bush's bogus war


By PAUL KNOX

06/25/03: (Globe & Mail) All governments shade the truth. Most resort to deception when the going gets tough. Saddam Hussein is gone and so is his regime. So who cares if George W. Bush fiddled with the facts on Iraq's banned-weapons programs and its reported links to al-Qaeda?

I care. The Bush administration's dissembling about the invasion of Iraq and its self-delusion about the consequences are directly related to the disturbing events now unfolding there. All of us are likely to feel the effects as a confused, angry superpower grows ill at ease with its self-appointed role.

Time magazine reports that in March, 2002, Mr. Bush told a group of senators at the White House: "F -- Saddam, we're taking him out." In public he said no such thing, instead initiating a parade of torqued and misleading statements about Iraq's threat to the United States.

In October, he said Iraq "possesses and produces" chemical and biological weapons and "is reconstituting" its nuclear-weapons program. Yet the Defence Intelligence Agency at that time was reporting no hard evidence of Iraqi possession of banned weapons. He also said Iraq had continuing ties to al-Qaeda, and had trained its operatives in the use of banned munitions. Those statements went much further than the U.S. intelligence consensus, according to an exhaustive report on Sunday in The Washington Post.

At the end of January, in the State of the Union address, Mr. Bush offered a tale of Iraqi attempts to buy yellowcake uranium in Africa. The CIA, and possibly Vice-President Dick Cheney, knew this to be bogus. Last month, Mr. Bush trumpeted the news that U.S. weapons teams had found "biological laboratories" in Iraq. That was another leap into the abyss. It now appears the mobile units either had been deactivated or had nothing to do with germ warfare.

There is, of course, no doubt that Iraq at one time had illegal weapons. The question was whether they were dismantled, lost, buried beyond exhumation and detection or simply too old and decrepit to threaten anyone.

Even before the invasion, the evidence was so dubious that those in favour of war were recasting it as a campaign on behalf of oppressed Iraqi civilians. That is almost unbelievably cynical.

There would have been no quick-exit fantasies if humanitarianism had been driving U.S. Iraq policy. Civilian policing would have been integrated into planning from the start. It would have been tough to avoid the current situation, in which soldiers who thought they'd been sent to take out a death-dealing tyrant find themselves confronting rebellious civilians. But at least the need for a long-term civilian occupation administration would have been acknowledged.

Iraq is not Vietnam, but the resort to deception is common to both campaigns. In 1964, after hearing allegations of attacks on two U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese patrol boats, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving then president Lyndon Johnson a free hand in pursuing the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. The first was a trivial incident, and not unprovoked. Mr. Johnson later admitted that he had no idea whether the second attack actually took place. Neither his doubts nor those of a key naval commander were shared with the public.

Sound familiar? Action based on faulty, partial or misleading information is bound to be bad policy and worse strategy. It will come to grief either because it is the wrong thing to do or because it leads to a loss of public trust.

In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is accused of manipulating intelligence reports to boost the case for war. His critics include not only former cabinet ministers and senior intelligence officials, but also the leader of the Conservative Party, whose MPs helped him win parliamentary approval for the invasion.

The spectacle of Margaret Thatcher's political heirs rounding on Mr. Blair ought to make self-respecting Republicans sit up and take note. The next time Mr. Bush decides on the basis of proprietary intelligence that the time is ripe for a pre-emptive strike, who will believe him? Deception-driven policy-making is exceptionally dangerous in an age of instantaneous broad-spectrum news. Actions are far more likely to be jeopardized while they are still in progress, instead of merely being criticized after the fact. Iraqis opposed to the U.S. occupation may be emboldened by real-time, televised accounts in their own language of U.S. and British investigations into who knew what, and when.

Official duplicity may be an immutable fact of life. So should be the quest to expose its corrosive effects. The United States is in danger of forgetting the most important lesson it learned in Vietnam. The end may seem to justify the means, but all too often the means deform the end.

pknox@globeandmail.ca

© Copyright 2003 Globe & Mail
_________________________________________________________________

US Senate leader says weapons of mass destruction not main cause of Iraq war
Thu Jun 26,10:02 AM ET


Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Republican leader in the Senate said that Iraq (news - web sites)'s weapons of mass destruction was not the main justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq.


AFP/File Photo

 

"I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC television's Today Show.


Even without the discovery of alleged chemical and biological weapons, Frist said Americans still welcome the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).


"If you talk to most of the American people today, to have Saddam Hussein and his rogue regime out of there is something the American people want, it's something they deserve," the Republican leader said.


"We know he has used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands and thousands of his own people ... as well as outside of the country," he said.


Frist said Saddam's brutal record as a dictator alone was sufficient justification for his ouster.


"When you have a terrorist and people who harbor terrorists, and they've had weapons of mass destruction which they're used to kill their own people, invade other nations with those weapons ... to have him removed is something the American people want, they need and they feel much more secure with."


Frist added that he was not surprised that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq.


"The weapons of mass destruction that we're talking about today are new. They're little viruses, they're bacteria, they're chemicals, things you can't see, you can't touch, you can't smell. So intelligence is tough," he said.


"The administration made decisions based on the very best intelligence that we have available today," Frist insisted.






add your comments

Translation of the second article's...
by Diogenes Thursday June 26, 2003 04:32 AM






...point made by Frist: "We've been able to sell it to enough of the Suckers so we'll just keep spinning away from the proven LIES."



add your comments

Holding My Breath
by Libby Ral Thursday June 26, 2003 04:43 AM






We call them LIES, though we can't for the life of us make it stick. Maybe we're wrong. No!! How silly of me. We're NEVER wrong!

I know. Let's just keep repeating it over and over and over. I was looking in the playbook, and that's really the only play we got. There is no chapter on facing the truth, so that's something we can't do. Oh well, I can turn blue in the face as well as the rest of my comrades.



add your comments

Yes, blue in the face
by Brian OConnor Thursday June 26, 2003 05:33 AM






It would be very beneficial indeed if more of you fascists went blue in the face. Can't accept the truth about Georgie-Porgie, huh? Maybe you should make friends with D. Nile.



add your comments

BOC
by t Thursday June 26, 2003 05:57 AM






"Can't accept the truth about Georgie-Porgie, huh?"

THE truth, yes. YOUR truth, no.



add your comments

Selective truth
by Brian OConnor Thursday June 26, 2003 06:43 AM






So, one truth for us, one for them? Is that how it works? Where are the WMDs? Where is the electricity and water in Iraq? Why did that looting go unchecked?

Oh yeah: 'An end to major operations...' Isn't that what Shrub said a few weeks ago? And weren't you Neo-con saps saying 'We won' in Afghanistan and Iraq? Who's zoomin' who?



add your comments

WMDs
by Meyer London Thursday June 26, 2003 07:40 AM






Libby, did you ever hear of the fact that you can't prove a negative? I can't prove that most rock stars are not robots who came out of ufos, but I still don't think that they are. The burden of proof would be on anyone who wanted to claim that they are robots. Similarly, the burden of proof is on those who claim that Bush was telling the truth when he said that he knew that there are WMDs in Iraq is on them, not on people who disbelieve the story. It all comes down to this - where are these alleged weapons of mass destruction, for the sake of which thousands of lives were lost?



add your comments

Meyer Your are unequivically wrong
by fresca Thursday June 26, 2003 07:51 AM






The onus is on you and yours my weeping friend. That WMD existed in quantity in Iraq is simply a matter of public record. To try and deny that will lower your credibility to zero. There, however, is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that these WMD were ever destroyed by Sadam. All we know is that he ruled under harsh sanctions for years because of an unwillingness or inability to provide such evidence. There is absolutely NO REASON to believe anything other than he had WMD. Now given the amount of time that appeasers and handwringers like yourself, and the UN and France and all the rest of that ilk gave him before we liberated Iraq, who knows where they are now.

You are simply not allowed to directly help someone hide something and then complain about the efforts of others to find it.





add your comments

Who knows where they are?
by Meyer London Thursday June 26, 2003 08:19 AM






So now what? Does the US have the right to keep invading countries until it finds the alleged WMDs? Or do we just say who cares? The main point was to get rid of Saddam? Either one gives Bush dictatorial powers to make war any time he wants to.
Bush claimed that there were massive numbers of wmds in Iraq that threatened both the United States and Israel. There is no way that all traces of these things could be hidden from both the UN inspectors and now the Anglo/American occupation force.



add your comments

They exist only in frescaw's marching orders and spin of the day.
by Diogenes Thursday June 26, 2003 09:40 AM






frescaw is as always lying and spinning to the end. To make an honest statement is apparently beyond frescaw’s very limited capabilities.

Example:

“That WMD existed in quantity in Iraq is simply a matter of public record. “

Cite your source as you are so fond of saying.

Articles prior to the build up to the recent debacle are not acceptable.

The onus is on you to prove the positive statement that Saddam had in his possession banned weapons and the capability to manufacture more as those are the claims you are defending.

Of course no such evidence exists and you will not provide it.

As always a lying apologist for mass murder.

“There is absolutely NO REASON to believe anything other than he had WMD.”

Based on what?

Your reputation? ROFL!

“Now given the amount of time that appeasers and handwringers like yourself, and the UN and France and all the rest of that ilk gave him before we liberated Iraq, who knows where they are now.”

Total and unadulterated Bull Shit. Cite you evidence. Where did he move the nonexistent weapons to?

You have no, none, zero, nada, nothing, not one shred, of evidence to back up this inflammatory slur.

The moral High Ground is occupied by those who argued that there was no evidence to justify this invasion and all of it’s attendant mayhem and murder. “I think” is not sufficient to justify invading another country only an “I know” backed up with hard evidence is. You cannot provide one shred of factual evidence to back up your claims. You are a LIAR. A rather filthy one too in that you seek to justify murder and conquest. Or are you an advocate of “Compassionate Conservative Murder”?

Repeatedly the Bush Junta has been caught in out and out lies in their attempt to justify this Crime Against Humanity.

There is absolutely no reason to accept one word of what you have to say. It is founded only in your PR and PsyOps Textbooks. In other words how to lie and defame decent people.

You are not Scum. You would have to come up several notches to reach that exalted level.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.



add your comments

ROFL
by fresca Thursday June 26, 2003 09:53 AM






hehehe dio!

You're not only trying to dig yourself out of a hole but it's a hole you dug in the first place.

First of all, Do your own research, the public record is full of documentation of Iraq's WMD.

I would suggest first searching any of a number of YOUR OWN POSTS where you vilify America for "giving" him, as you said, WMD in the first place.

Where'd they go. Sadam just destrotyed them all and hid this from the world for more than a decade.

I'd reiterate how the onus is on you to disprove what can only be accepted as the truth.

Something existed.
There is no evidence of it being destroyed, nor any reason for it having been destroyed.
Therefore, it is safe to assume it still exists.

I would reiterate this. but since YOU are incapable of accepting aby responsibility for your actions, it would be a waste of time.

You and your buddies who cry crocodile tears for the Constitution as you seek to destroy the country are simply murderers. Thankfully, you're too self involved and inneffectual to be anything more than a figure of fun.

The WMD are scattered thanks ENTIRELY to you and yours. Hopefully we'll find some. Saying they never existed is just plain evil on your part at this point.

How does it feel to be the mother of a million dead?

DIO CRIED, MILLIONS WILL DIE it really is as simple as that.



add your comments

Summay
by Diogenes Thursday June 26, 2003 10:23 AM






As expected frescaw is unable to produce anything other than insults.

No evidence.

Nothing other than schoolyard taunts and avoiding the issue.

Conclusion: frescaw is a knowing and willing liar.

frescaw is nothing more than a simpleminded apologist for evil, and an accessory to mass murder by knowing and willing support of those crimes and attempting to help try to bury the evidence of the crimes.

frescaw is nothing more than a mouthpiece parroting what it is told to say.

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.



add your comments

more parroting
by fresca Thursday June 26, 2003 10:31 AM






I hand you evidence on a platter and you are afraid to take it.

You are Pathetic.

WMD. The weapons that simply disappeared.



add your comments

AS you Masters of Logic like to say,
by daveman Thursday June 26, 2003 10:42 AM






..."You can't prove a negtative."

Yet that's what you're trying to do.

You're trying to prove Saddam didn't have WMD.

And failing miserably.

Blix, Gore, Annan, loads of Democrats said he had 'em.

What will it take for you guys to accept the truth?

I'm guessing, nothing will make you change your mind. You've said as much. You said any WMD found would be planted by the coalition.

Just can't admit you're wrong, can you? I know Dio can't. He'll yell and whine until he's dead that black is white, because HE says it is, and anyone who disagrees is a paid shill.

You grasp of reality is tenuous at best, Dio. Give it up before you're totally gone.

It really is that simple.


SO WHERE ARE THE WMD'S AGAIN?

Are you loonies STILL trying to prove a negative?

Fools.