Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I'm ok with wear and tear on a fella's body. FDR was not any less of a man for the loss of the use of his legs.
What I do not like is being lied to at every turn.
Make of that what you will.

---

What I 'make' of that is perhaps a thinly veiled slap at Bush ( since that's been parrotted so often ), yet never does anyone actually present a 'lie' from him. Go figure.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

I regret that I do not have the time right now to present the staggeringly long list (c'mon, AURaptor, what rock have you been hiding under?) but I have one that should be fresh in anyone's mind: in the last debate W shamelessly acted as if he had no recolection of his having deprioritized Osama B.... on national television. But then, I feel that your statement that nobody presents any lies from W is absolutely just as disingenuous--or just plain ignorant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor

I noticed that you didn't responed to my post. I feel left out!

TO expand on my point, Bush's first rationale for invading Iraq was WMD, his next was terrorism (and the flypaper theory of terrorism!), his third was because "Saddam was a bad man and a threat to the USA" (despite no WMD or connection to 9-11), his fourth was to spread democracy. He was wrong three times and probably the fourth too.

So, if he wasn't lying, then he believed each and every rationale. It's possible that depsite his best efforts he was misled the first time. But then he continued to rely on the same people a second, third, and fourth time. How do you explain this pattern?

---

Quote:

---

There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate

---

Quote:

---

The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken.

---

Quote:

---

Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one

---

Quote:

---

It's hard for these crime to "go along with the main one" because the "main one" never existed.

---

Quote:

---

There unquestionably WAS WMD in Iraq. And not 'decades' ago, but as recently as they days leading up to military action. The U.N. has even said so.

---

Quote:

---

EVERY ONE said that Iraq posed a serious threat and Saddam must be dealt with, with force, if need be.

---

Quote:

---

rue wrote:
Saturday, October 23, 2004 07:27
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There unquestionably WAS WMD in Iraq. And not 'decades' ago, but as recently as they days leading up to military action. The U.N. has even said so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to see documentation on that. And not some half-*ssed half-sentence strung together with another half-*assed half-sentence, but an extended quote, with a link

---

Quote:

---

At the Azores conference of March 16, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, and Spanish prime minister José María Aznar announced the imminent deadline of March 17 for complete Iraqi compliance, with statements such as "Tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world". This was seen as meaning war would almost certainly start very soon after that date. On the 17th, speeches by Bush and UK foreign secretary Jack Straw explicitly declared the period of diplomacy to be over, and that no further authorization from the UN would be sought before an invasion of Iraq.

---

Quote:

---

Please explain IN DETAIL why force was necessary at the time, with links to back up any factual assertions you may make.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rickker:
I was just visiting a web site of one of my favorite writers. I found this.
http://www.stormwolf.com/essays/president.html

A consise and point to point reason Bush is bad.

He was the worst choise four years and he's the worst choise now. He is a man of money for men of money. 100,000 new jobs? Even id he kept that promise three million jobs went overseas. And as soon as he was back on the campain trail one of the first sound bites I heard on the radio, 100,000 new jobs if reelected? can we really afford it?

---

Quote:

---

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Some 380 tons of explosives, powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads, are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

VIENNA, Austria (CNN) -- Some 380 tons of explosives, powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads, are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog says

---

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/index.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items...

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

---

Quote:

---

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© June 18, 2004, Rod D. Martin


In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

Perricos highlighted the proliferation danger to the Security Council, as well he should: UNMOVIC has no idea where most of the WMD material is today, just that it exists and it's gone; and anything in Syria is likely to be in Jerusalem or New York tomorrow.

This is the biggest news story of 2004 so far. Yet you haven't heard about it, have you?

You probably haven't heard about Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin either -- a socialist and no friend of America. Addressing a group of 700 university researchers and business leaders in Montreal last month, Martin stated bluntly that terrorists have acquired WMDs from Saddam. “The fact is that there is now, we know well, a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that many weapons that Saddam Huseein had, we don't know where they are…. [T]errorists have access to all of them,” the Canadian premier warned.

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”

Even though the UN says they do exist, now spread around the world.

It's not just the UN. Bill Clinton says they exist, even after the war: in a July 2003 interview with Larry King, the ex-president uncharacteristically defended George Bush, saying “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there [was]…a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for” in Iraq. Every intelligence agency in the world -- French, British, German, Russian, Czech, you name it -- agreed before the war; Jordanian intelligence can certainly confirm their opinion today.

So what's the deal? Why the relentless pretence that “Bush lied” when even the UN and Bill Clinton say he didn't? Why the absolute silence about “inconvenient” parts of various UN reports, such as the discovery of chemical and biological weapons plans, recipes and equipment; of bio-weapons agents in an Iraqi scientist's house; of a prison lab for testing bio weapons on humans; of complexes for manufacturing fuel for prohibited long-range missiles; of artillery rounds containing enough sarin to kill thousands of people, of similar shells containing mustard gas, two (but far from the only) of which were used in a terrorist attack against U.S. forces just weeks ago?

America cannot afford the answer to this “why”: that many on the left consider George W. Bush's defeat more urgent than al Qaeda's, his political death more essential than the possible physical death of millions of Americans.

The character of our foreign enemies has never been in doubt. The character of the enemy within -- from Dan Rather to Michael Moore -- has never been clearer. And the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

---

Quote:

---

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

---

Quote:

---

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- are YOU awake?? Grab some coffee, bring your normal skepticism to the table, and read this CAREFULLY:

Quote:

---

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

---

Now, where did it say that WMD were removed?

---

Quote:

---

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

---

Quote:

---

The tip of this terrorist sword was scarcely deflected on April 26th, when Jordanian intelligence broke up an al Qaeda conspiracy to detonate a large chemical device in the capital city of Amman. Directed by al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu al-Zarqawi -- the same man who personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last month -- the plotters sought to use a massive explosion to spread a “toxic cloud”, meant to wipe out the U.S. embassy, the Jordanian prime minister's office, the Jordanian intelligence headquarters, and at least 20,000 civilians (by contrast, only 3,000 died on 9/11). Over twenty tons of chemical weapons were seized from the conspirators, who were just days away from carrying out their plot.

One wonders where CNN and USA Today think twenty tons of nerve gas and sarin came from: Chemical Weapons-Mart? Yet their coverage, like most major media outlets, mentioned not a word about Saddam's smuggled WMDs, which -- according to liberal dogma -- “don't exist.”

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
A WMD "program" is not the same as WMD.

---

Quote:

---

And see my post on the "toxic cloud" story- WMD were almost certainly not involved.
The "smuggling of WMD" is an HIGHLY unsupported supposition.

---

Quote:

---

Did Saddam pose a credible threat? The answer is- NO.

---

Quote:

---

Again, some are willing to give a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein the benefit of a doubt

---

Quote:

---

Doubt was being removed by UNMOVIC. That's why it's called "verification" and not "good faith". The only thing the USA invasion did was scatter parts and equipment all through the Mideast.

---

Quote:

---

There is no 'lying' here. All reasons are accurate. The REASON we went into Iraq was that Saddam was ignoring UN Resolutions ( remember those ? ) and the agreement after the 1st Gulf War to abide by the cease fire terms which HE agreed with. Once it became crystal clear that Saddam wasn't going to 'play ball', another form of diplomacy was taken. Terrorist , torture, human rights violations , mass graves...all those things existed along with Saddam's refusal to abide by UN Resolutions. Pointing those abuses out is not ' lying ' about going to war, but simply bringing to light the OTHER attrocities and crimes that go along w/ the main one. It's not that hard to understand, really.

Oh,and neither Bush or anyone in his administration ever SAID that Saddam was directly involved w/ 9-11, so claiming THAT as another 'lie' is simply a non sequitur. It was speculated OUTSIDE the Administration by all manner of 'experts' and media, but not by Bush.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor- to give you an idea of how fine the screen is that UNMOVIC used to look for potential dual use equipment, even chlorine- required for water disinfection- was tagged as a "dual use" item. What they found were parts that COULD be used to make for WMD BUT WEREN'T.

---

Quote:

---

... he was to adhere to the rules of the UN to present any and all items deemed illegal...The UN Inspectors DID find and destroy 'some ' items, but not nearly enough to account for all that they KNEW Saddam had

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PirateJenny
Bascially what the poll showed was that the majority of people who support Bush was ignorant of the facts...

---