Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat

POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Monday, October 18, 2004 20:09
VIEWED: 12413
PAGE 2 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

*Chuckle*... if so why didn't the USA attack us? Hmm?

Oh God, please, just give us a reason. It would be nice to rid ourself the northern leach that is Canada. :) Actually I dont mean that. I hear there is some good snowboarding up there. Is that true?

GHOULMAN

Monday, October 4, 2004 8:48 PM

^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

RUXTON

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:33 PM

Jimnightshade:

First, Saddam did NOT use gas against his own people. The gas used was verified to have been Iranian, not Iraqi gas. Colin Powell still lies about this.

Second, Saddam HAD disarmed, as was recently reverified.

Third, he may have... he might have... he could have... he intended to.... All B/S. He DIDN'T. He did NOT pose a threat to anyone, including his own people, who were able to buy personal firearms during his administration.

It's sad to see intelligent people like you and a few others here unable or unwilling to look in the correct direction to find the agressors. The twin towers of WTC and Building Seven were PULLED, i.e., intentionally demolished. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm)

The FBI has admitted it does not know who was on those aircraft. You're buying into the "official" conspiracy theory, just like you're supposed to.

The temperature beneath the WTC rubble five days after 9/11/01 was still about 1300 degrees F, per satellite imagery and verified by on-site observers. That doesn't happen from kerosene fires. Nor does the immensely strong steel core, which made up a quarter of the towers' floor plan, collapse on itself from nothing. It was brought down intentionally. For that to have happened, the towers had to have thermite or other demolition exposives implanted BEFORE 9-11.

Please wake up before it's too late. Ghoulman knows well what he's talking about.

.........Ruxton

RUXTON

Monday, October 4, 2004 9:41 PM

JimNightShade:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

This is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, the product of the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

.........Ruxton

RUE

Monday, October 4, 2004 10:25 PM

This seems appropriate here, and goes some way to keeping a promise I made regarding Administration lies about WMD:

Condensed from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/international/middleeast/03tube.html
?oref=login&th=&pagewanted=print&position=

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence

In 2002 Bush administration senior members gave a series of speeches and interviews in which they asserted Saddam Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. Speaking in September, Vice President Dick Cheney said the United States now had "irrefutable evidence" - thousands of tubes made of high-strength aluminum, that were destined for clandestine Iraqi uranium centrifuges.

But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told the government's foremost nuclear experts doubted the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.

In the Beginning

The White House, embraced the theory the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior CIA analyst. (That analysis) was the primary basis for one of the agency's first reports on the tubes, which went to senior members of the Bush administration on April 10, 2001. The report asserted (the tubes) "have little use other than for a uranium enrichment program."

This alarming assessment was immediately challenged by the Energy Department, which builds centrifuges and runs the government's nuclear weapons complex. The next day, Energy Department officials ticked off a long list of reasons why the tubes did not appear well suited for centrifuges.

On Aug. 17, 2001, the Energy Department team published a secret Technical Intelligence Note, a detailed analysis that laid out its doubts about the tubes' suitability for centrifuges. The Energy Department experts concluded that using the tubes in "rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes." Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.

In late 2001, intelligence analysts at the State Department also took issue with (the CIA analyst's) work in reports prepared for Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

By the end of 2001, Energy Department analysts published a classified report that even more firmly rejected the theory that the tubes could work as rotors in a 1950's Zippe centrifuge.

From April 2001 to September 2002, the agency (CIA) wrote at least 15 reports on the tubes. Many were sent only to high-level policy makers, including President Bush, and did not circulate to other intelligence agencies. Over and over, the reports restated (the CIA analyst's) main conclusions for the C.I.A.

But in interviews, C.I.A. and administration officials disclosed that the dissenting views were repeatedly discussed in meetings and telephone calls.

Four agency officials insisted that Winpac analysts repeatedly explained the contrasting assessments during briefings with senior National Security Council officials. "We think we were reasonably clear about this," a senior C.I.A. official said. And a senior administration official confirmed that Winpac was indeed candid about the differing views.

Over the summer of 2002, the White House secretly refined plans to invade Iraq and debated whether to seek more United Nations inspections.

On Aug. 26, 2002, Mr. Cheney (laid) out a rationale for pre-emptive action against Iraq. "We now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon, we cannot really gauge. Intelligence is an uncertain business, even in the best of circumstances." But "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the ent

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:07 PM

^^^ tha'ts great guys and thanx!

Say, Did Jimnightshade fall asleep on the campaign trail?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
... SNIP! ...

Let me condense this even further...

The Ultra Right Wing, Fundamentalist, Oil backed White House had designs on Iraq even before 9/11 happened.

9/11 happened and they simply used that tragedy as an excuse to go take Iraqs Oil fields.

They needed evidence so they went and made some up.

How's that?

GHOULMAN

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

JIMNIGHTSHADE

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Quote:
Originally posted by JimNightshade:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ the campaign office getting boring?

^^^I have interests outside of politics.

So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

You mean, "lying". And Who started this post? Who keeps bringing up politics on this site? I think it's you. You live in a place where the news is slanted toward liberals. Don't believe me? Do the research. The point is I debate this issue elsewhere. Not on a forum dedicated to Firefly. I think you could find a more suitable place also. Not that I don't like hearing what people have to say, but it makes you look rather, petulant to bring it up here and not in a place where people expect to see a post about politics. And you never answered my previous question.

Vote Bush 2004

GEEZER

Tuesday, October 5, 2004 4:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
So now is the time to point out that Jimnightshade is a paid liar for the Republicans (as opposed to paid lieing Democrates... see other thread).

Ever hear of ETHICS? At anytime during your education had even the concept of ethics, honesty, or integrity, been forwarded?

Did anyone ever tell you that going online to represent, sell, shill, or hawk, while posing as a "fan" or regular with an online community is called LIEING? That it's dishonest, against every rule of net etiquette, and underhanded?

IMPEACH GWB!

Hey, Ghoul! It's nice to see that any time you might approach the point of being taken seriously, you manage to jump back into "Major Foil-hat Conspiracy Theorist" status with accusations like this. Keep up the good work.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE