Ted Kennedy, Still an embarresment to the country even in death

Onceler said:
I've answered that about a gazillion times, old timer. You just can't read.

The vote was more to force Saddam's hand on inspections. It wasn't a vote to "take him out," or "to invade" (you guys can't even get your apologist stories straight anymore).
Click to expand...

that is simply a ridiculous contention......you don't think anyone here takes the claim seriously, do you?......
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So why did Bush ignore the evidence from Scott Ritter and Hans Blix? Quite simply because he had made a decision to go to war in 2002 and then decided to unleash a propaganda war against the UN inspectors.
Click to expand...

I recommend you reread Blix's final report to the UN before the war began.......you seem to be mistaking what Blix said a year after the war began with what he said BEFORE it began......
 
Onceler said:
I'm actually starting to feel bad for bravo.

I mean, seriously - he has to wander through life like this.
Click to expand...


Don't get mad because I school you on a regular basis.....if you can't respond to the facts of my posts, just stfu
 
Onceler said:
I've answered that about a gazillion times, old timer. You just can't read.

The vote was more to force Saddam's hand on inspections. It wasn't a vote to "take him out," or "to invade" (you guys can't even get your apologist stories straight anymore).
Click to expand...


Here is the WHAT .....its in the resolution....read the fuckin' thing...

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
Click to expand...


and the WHY....its in the resolution....read the fuckin' thing...



1. defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
2. enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
Click to expand...





Schooling is easy, no competition at all.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I recommend you reread Blix's final report to the UN before the war began.......you seem to be mistaking what Blix said a year after the war began with what he said BEFORE it began......
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the transcript of Blix's testimony to Congress in March of 2003, just before BUSH MADE THE DECISION TO INVADE.

In that testimony, he said that inspectors had gained access to ALL suspected weapons sites.

But those dern Congressional Dems - they just forced Bush to invade!!!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I recommend you reread Blix's final report to the UN before the war began.......you seem to be mistaking what Blix said a year after the war began with what he said BEFORE it began......
Click to expand...

U.N. inspector: No evidence found before Iraq war
June 05, 2003

pixel.gif

U.N. inspectors found no evidence before the U.S.-led invasion in March that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said Thursday.

The comments come as U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar face mounting criticism from lawmakers in their countries over the weapons issue. (Critics blast Blair, Spain's Aznar pressed on WMDs)

"The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later," Blix told the U.N. Security Council in what is expected to be his final report.

pixel.gif

pixel.gif

But he also said that the former Iraqi regime was unable to account for chemical or biological weapons it claimed to have destroyed and that weapons inspectors were unable to clear up discrepancies before leaving Baghdad in advance of the invasion. "This does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might. There remain a long list of items unaccounted for," Blix said. "But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it was unaccounted for."

A U.S.-led invasion toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in April, but U.S. experts have yet to find the banned weapons the Bush administration said existed and posed a threat to the United States.

U.N. inspectors left Iraq the day before the invasion began in March, and the United States has expressed no interest in letting them return now that its troops control the country.

Blix said that Saddam's totalitarian rule had raised questions about the credibility of interviews of Iraqi scientists.
"I trust that in the new environment in Iraq in which there is full access and cooperation and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they know," he said, "it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know."
Before the war, President Bush and other administration officials said Iraq's suspected weapons programs and ties to al Qaeda posed a threat to the United States.

But nearly two months after the collapse of Saddam's government, all that has turned up are two trailers U.S. experts believe could have been used as mobile biological weapons laboratories. No such weapons were found in those facilities.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-06-05/...spectors-biological-weapons-iraq-war?_s=PM:US

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/06/12/blix.interview.cnna/
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
I suggest you read the transcript of Blix's testimony to Congress in March of 2003, just before BUSH MADE THE DECISION TO INVADE.
Click to expand...

I would love to, but I googled it and found no reference to it.....are you referring to this? http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA478237 or to his report to the UN?.....http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/blix_report.html

perhaps you could share a link for me....

looking through this I see no indication of Blix giving testimony to Congress in March of 2003....
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/iraq-wmd-timeline-2003.html
 
Last edited:
16 separate intelligence agencys and the intelligence agencys of France, Germany, the UK and other countrys, all agreed, at one time or another on the findings about Saddam and WMD.....thats the reason for the UN sanctions and UN Resolutions, voted on and passed unanimously were against Iraq ......

Thats what the decisions were based on and thats the reason the Iraq WAR Resolution was passed by a bi-partisan majority of the US congress......

and all the spin the world ain't gonna change history........
 
bravo said:
16 separate intelligence agencys and the intelligence agencys of France, Germany, the UK and other countrys, all agreed, at one time or another on the findings about Saddam and WMD.....thats the reason for the UN sanctions and UN Resolutions, voted on and passed unanimously were against Iraq ......

Thats what the decisions were based on and thats the reason the Iraq WAR Resolution was passed by a bi-partisan majority of the US congress......

and all the spin the world ain't gonna change history........
Click to expand...

Holy shit, you are like a cracked record stuck in the same groove. Here's something for you to read or more likely ignore by Scott Ritter. I have quoted a section of the article so that you've no excuse.

The US and Britain had both abandoned aggressive UN weapons inspections in the spring of 1998. UN weapons inspectors were able and willing to conduct intrusive no-notice inspections of any site inside Iraq, including those associated with the Iraqi president, if it furthered their mandate of disarmament. But the US viewed such inspections as useful only in so far as they either manufactured a crisis that produced justification for military intervention (as was the case with inspections in March and December 1998), or sustained the notion of continued Iraqi non-compliance so as to justify the continuation of economic sanctions. An inspection process that diluted arguments of Iraq's continued retention of WMD by failing to uncover any hard evidence that would sustain such allegations, or worse, sustain Iraq's contention that it had no such weaponry, was not in the interest of US policy objectives that sought regime change, and as such required the continuation of stringent economic sanctions linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation.
The British were never willing (or able) to confront meaningfully the American policy of abusing the legitimate inspection-based mandate of the UN inspectors. Instead, London sought to manage inspection-based confrontation by insisting that before any intrusive inspection could be carried out, it would have to be backed by high-quality intelligence. But even this position collapsed in the face of an American decision, made in April 1998, to stop supporting aggressive inspections altogether.
In the end, the British were left with the role of fabricating legitimacy for an American policy of terminating weapons inspections in Iraq, supplying dated intelligence of questionable veracity about a secret weapons cache being stored in the basement of a Ba'ath party headquarters in Baghdad, which was used to trigger an inspection the US hoped the Iraqis would balk at. When the Iraqis (as hoped) balked, the US ordered the inspectors out of Iraq, leading to the initiation of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign designed to ensure that Iraq would not allow the return of UN inspectors, effectively keeping UN sanctions "frozen" in place.
As of December 1998, both the US and Britain knew there was no "smoking gun" in Iraq that could prove that Saddam's government was retaining or reconstituting a WMD capability. Nothing transpired between that time and when the decision was made in 2002 to invade Iraq that fundamentally altered that basic picture.
But having decided on war using WMD as the justification, both the US and Great Britain began the process of fabricating a case after the fact. Lacking new intelligence data on Iraqi WMD, both nations resorted to either recycling old charges that had been disproved by UN inspectors in the past, or fabricating new charges that would not withstand even the most cursory of investigations.
The reintroduction of UN weapons inspectors into Iraq in November 2002 was counterproductive for those who were using WMD as an excuse for war. This was aptly demonstrated when, in the first weeks following their return to Iraq, the inspectors discredited almost all of the intelligence-based charges both the US and Britain had levelled against Iraq, while failing to uncover any evidence of the massive stockpile of WMD that Iraq had been accused of retaining.
Click to expand...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/27/truth-uk-guilt-iraq-chilcot
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Holy shit, you are like a cracked record stuck in the same groove. Here's something for you to read or more likely ignore by Scott Ritter. I have quoted a section of the article so that you've no excuse.

Thats because history don't change no matter how hard the democrats try to change it...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/27/truth-uk-guilt-iraq-chilcot
Click to expand...


Scott Ritter, the little pervert pedophile may have a different opinion than me .... even pedophiles are entitled to their own views....

It certainly doesn't make him right or me wrong.......or change the findings of the intelligence agencys or change the conclusions

expressed in the NIE's used by Bush to base his decisions on......or change the intell of the various European countrys gathered over the months before the war.


 
Last edited:
bravo said:
Scott Ritter, the little pervert pedophile may have a different opinion than me .... even pedophiles are entitled to their own views....

It certainly doesn't make him right or me wrong.......or change the findings of the intelligence agencys or change the conclusions

expressed in the NIE's used by Bush to base his decisions on......or change the intell of the various European countrys gathered over the months before the war.
Click to expand...

You are nothing if not predictable, I knew precisely what your reply would be. It's much easier to go for a cheap shot than actually address any of the issues, as that would entail a thought process.

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior IA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again. Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD.
No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
​
Click to expand...
 
bravo said:
No shit sweetlips.....what we know NOW and what we thought to be the facts THEN are 2 different things.....and your post is irrelevant anyway....but to humor you.....

Example...
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

NOW we know that Iraq had no WMD programs in 1998....were Levin, Daschel, Kerry and others Democrats lying when they made this claim ???
Of course the were not lying, they were just wrong.....
Click to expand...

In February 2002 Joe Wilson at the CIA's request went to Niger to investigate the allegations that Saddam was buying yellowcake uranium. He found no such evidence at all and filed his report with the CIA. Yet bush still decided to invade, based in part on the famous 16 words "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It was all a lie and a manipulation, and bush passed the Iraq Resolution in October 2002, eight months later, knowing this. The man didn't have an honest bone in his body, he wanted to invade Iraq and no facts were going to stand in his way.

What I Didn't Find in Africa
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
In February 2002 Joe Wilson at the CIA's request went to Niger to investigate the allegations that Saddam was buying yellowcake uranium. He found no such evidence at all and filed his report with the CIA. Yet bush still decided to invade, based in part on the famous 16 words "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It was all a lie and a manipulation, and bush passed the Iraq Resolution in October 2002, eight months later, knowing this. The man didn't have an honest bone in his body, he wanted to invade Iraq and no facts were going to stand in his way.

What I Didn't Find in Africa
Click to expand...


You really need to get a grip on reality, dear......
Just because Wilson didn't find out what was going on don't mean nothing was going on.......is it really any surprise that Bush put more faith in British intell. than Joe Wilson, anti-Bush left wing partisan ?

If you think Bush went to war with Saddam because he thought Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake in Niger, you have a very limited and narrow perspective on
what was going in the world from 1996 thru 2003.....
Saddams shopping habits in Africa were hardly the impetus for removing Saddam from power...even if he did believe the British governments bogus intell.......after all, it was Clinton's idea to rid Iraq of Saddam in the first place, BY....(before yellowcake) and before GW Bush.....Clinton made it US policy.....

No, Saddam's demise was in the making for a long time, it pre-dated GW and even Clinton.....the UN Resolutions (about 16 or 18 in number) that were passed unanimously by the entire UN condemning Saddam (and what we NOW know was his imaginary WMD) just might have had something to do with Bush's decision making and obviously the erroneous intelligence he was surrounded with from our own CIA and the 16 agency's that produce the NIE........

You should have been paying closer attention to the world for the last 15 years to get a handle on history as it was.....not as the DNC would like to re-write it....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bush passed the Iraq Resolution in October 2002 ?

Sorry Sweetie....The United States Congress passed the Iraq Resolution with a bi-partisan vote....not Bush

No resolution, no war......chew on that undeniable fact.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are nothing if not predictable, I knew precisely what your reply would be. It's much easier to go for a cheap shot than actually address any of the issues, as that would entail a thought process.
Click to expand...

If you think its of some value to debate every single piece of intelligence and conclusions from various pieces of intelligence, have a ball.....

What was believed in 1996, '97,'98,'99' 2000, '01, '02 or before or after is what it is.....

Clinton believed the intell given to him and Bush believed the intell given him......whether that intell was right or wrong is irrelevant......

What we knew in 2004 in not what we knew in 2002.....etc......

Every UN Resolution that passed then with unanimous votes were all wrong, we now know......so whats the point in debate.....
They voted on what they believed to be the facts as of that day and hour......they didn't vote on knowledge not available until 5 years later.....

Is that simple truth and logic that far beyond your thinking ability........and your closed BDS affected brain.?
 
Onceler said:
Who made the decision to invade Iraq, bravs?
Click to expand...


GW made the final decisions on what method he would employ in handling Saddam and Iraq, by virtue of the power given to him by the Congress through the Iraq WAR Resolution that authorized him to use the US military to deal with Saddam and achieve the aims mentioned in the resolution......

Congress voted to give Bush the power to use whatever means he deemed necessary, in de facto, voting for whatever he decided, including invasion and occupation....

and that will be the last time I explain it to you.....the resolution isn't Hamlet....its easily understood by high school students and even below that level...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top