Is Bush neuro-impaired?

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, December 16, 2004 02:09
VIEWED: 8191
PAGE 3 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 23, 2004 3:26 PM

SignyM

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

There you go again. You can't have a discussion about Iraq if you're going to ignore reality. 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. Did we find what every intelligence organization from Israel, Russia, Britian etc... said we'd find? Nope. But even the U.N., once again, has said it is VERY likely that many materials had crossed the border before Gulf War 2.

Face the facts. The U.N. imposed sanctions for 12 years ( lets not talk about the Food for Oil scam here), sent in Inspectors and imposed No-Fly zones for a REASON! Every politician from Clinton, Kerry, AlGore, Madeline Albright , Tony Blair.... you've seen the list, EVERY ONE said that Iraq posed a serious threat and Saddam must be dealt with , with force, if need be. Bush only acted on the Intel that EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN had, and because of the attacks of 9-11, it would have been incompetence for him NOT to act! This is REALLY annoying how folks refuse to look at this objectively and try to spin politics into a matter of national defense.

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

RUE

Saturday, October 23, 2004 5:27 PM

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

Well, there's the rub, isn't it. The inspectors were on the ground, inspecting to determine if Iraq was in compliance. Please explain IN DETAIL why force was necessary at the time, with links to back up any factual assertions you may make.

RUE

Saturday, October 23, 2004 6:05 PM

AURaptor
...No reply? I'll keep bumping this until you do.

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 23, 2004 6:05 PM

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

***UN inspectors: Saddam shipped out WMD before war and after
WorldTribune.com ^ | 6/11/04

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.***

Any questions?

p.s. It's Saturday. I've got a life. I'll check back later, much later.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1151984/posts

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

RUE

Saturday, October 23, 2004 7:42 PM

Well, AURaptor, as usual, you only got part of the story. What I like when people provide links is matching up what they said was in the link with what was really there.
So, a google search on: "demetrius perricos" un "security council" provided me with many, many news items. (Edited to add: Demetrius Perricos took over from Hans Blix.)
The first listing, oddly enough, addressed the second issue you failed to respond to at all, the issue of whether or not force was necessary, since UN inspectors were in Iraq verifying compliance.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/UN%20Security%20Council%20Re
solution%201441
It gives a good timeline of the events leading to the atack on Iraq. In part it says that because France had already stated they would veto ANY resolution which authorized immediate advance to war absent a second resolution, the US had to pull their request for an authorization. Instead, the US did this:

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.

In other words, the deadline was not a UN deadline agreed to by vote, but a US one echoed by England and Spain.
So, my question about the use of force still stands.

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

To go on to the claim of WMD that you made:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122311,00.html
http://www.novogate.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=2302&threadid=60906
http://www.fbbn.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?category=17&id=1072101891
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
Even the most right-wing of these, dripping with sarcasm and innuendo, repeat the same facts (speculation and innuendo stripped):
Ballistic missile components and other items were sold as scrap under US authorization. Most items had UN tags on them. The major issue is that these items could fall into the wrong hands and be reassembled or reverse-engineered into WMD by other countries. As the quote below reveals, your assertion that 'WMDs were shipped out of Iraq' before, during and after the invasion are not supported by the UN report.
from the FOX story:
"Perricos told the Security Council said U.N. inspectors do not know how much material that they had monitored orginated in Iraq.
U.N. inspectors were pulled out of Iraq just before the war began in March 2003, and the United States has refused to allow them to return, instead deploying its own teams to search for weapons of mass destruction.
Perricos suggested that the interim Iraqi government ... may want to reconsider "the whole policy for the continued export of metal scrap" which apparently started in mid-2003 and is regulated by the U.S.-led coalition. ...
The (UN) inspectors said they didn't know whether the items, which had been monitored by the United Nations, were at the sites during the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The commission, known as UNMOVIC, said it was possible some material was taken by looters and sold as scrap."
This is part of the larger problem of the lack of security in post-invasion Iraq, a problem the UN has been trying to get a handle on despite US opposition. I'm sure you've heard that an entire nuclear reactor site, previously shuttered, tagged and monitored by the UN, has been dismantled and dispersed right under the USer's noses. I would say it was down to the walls, but apparently the walls are gone too. But the fact that these previously-known, mothballed, tagged, and monitored items have been found in scrapyards around the world is not evidence of Iraq WMD stockpil

AURAPTOR

Saturday, October 23, 2004 9:51 PM

RUE - through all that you posted, nothing in the least addressed the post I made. You went on about deadlines and possible items that could or could not be used for illegal purposes. You can type / paste paragraphs of meaningless, irrelevent words that don't come near to addressintg the issues.

Fact is, for over 12 yrs, Saddam danced and scammed it's way around the UN sanctions. The inspectors main job was to verify that Saddam was doing what he SAID he was going to do, and NOT to go on some gorram goose chase, checking behind every dumpster, under every place matt ....the burden of proof was for Iraq to come clean, and it never did. Saddam was the villian here, and Bush, Blair and those who assisted the coalition are the good guys. I wish folks would friggen get a clue and realize that simple fact.

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

RICKKER

Sunday, October 24, 2004 1:31 AM

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?

AURAPTOR

Sunday, October 24, 2004 11:41 AM

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?

100,000 ? Hell, try like 2 million new jobs. Bush is the only won in the race. Period.

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

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:50 PM

Auraptor- I admit, you have me stumped. Here you are, an obviously intelligent person who uses that intelligence defend the indefensible, ignore the obvious and distort the plain facts until they fit into some view of the world that doens' even benefit you. It's like watching someone smart enough to assemble a gun and then stupid enough to blow their foot off with it.

In plain English, what the UN report said was that parts that they KNEW ABOUT AND WERE ALLOWED were moved and sold as scrap. There was nothing in the report that said that the parts were evidence of an active WMD program, or consituted a WMD threat.

To explain the newpaper report specifically, when they refer to "ballistic missiles" they are referring to short and medium-range Samoud missiles that were allowed Saddam for defensive purposes. Everyone knew about them, there is nothing new or unusual here.

As far as the WMD "components", they are referring to dual-use equipment like bioreactor vessels, used for making beer, antibiotics etc. Again, the UN knew about this stuff and was monitoring it to make sure that it WASN'T being used for WMD. And it wasn't.

Their concern was that the scrap would be sold to OTHERS where it COULDN'T be monitored.

How do you respond to that?

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 24, 2004 7:17 PM

If you remember, the USA destroyed a lot of WMD in Gulf War I. A lot of it was developed with USA-supplied equipment and materials. Supposedly, the hurry to destroy the WMD was to remove link between the Iraq's WMD and the USA. (In addition, the soldiers who destroyed the WMD and downwind were not in protective grear.)

In any case, the material was destroyed without being inventoried, so it was impossible in many cases to PROVE to UNMOVIC later on that so many liters of anthrax or Sarin were destroyed. In addition, apparently Saddam also destroyed WMD w/o recording the fact. The inspectors were not only looking for an "active" program, they were also trying to nail down what happened to past inventories. That was actually the difficult part.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE