No WMD found and Bush ratings at new low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

That's a VERY over simplistic summation of the process of events that lead to war. "Bush and his cabinet" made claims based on evidence presented to them by various factions of the U.S. government that no one seems to want to blame anymore. I think the onus now is to blame Bush and forget that the CIA gave him his information, the U.S. Congress gave him the authority (largely based on the SAME information) and the people supported the idea - most polls showed that they supported it with or WITHOUT WMD.

---

Kind of dodgy if you ask me. Bush is the President, not the CIA or Congress. It was Bush and his people that went to Congress and the U.N. asking for this war. This isn't some conspiracy by the CIA or Congress to screw Bush over so please quit acting like he's innocent.
And I'd like to see these "polls" where people supported this war without WMD. Recent trends would indicate that the like of WMD has made people a little doubtful about this whole thing.

Quote:

---

Saddam himself wouldn't let the inspectors fulfill their obligations.
Let's put this more simply, since we're being simple about it - if you were missing a $20.00 bill from your wallet and your friend was standing in front of you with his hands behind his back and claimed to be innocent but refused to show you his hands, what would you do?

You'd make him turn around, more than likely. Saddam, by analogy, did the same thing.

---

Then beat the shit out of him only to find out that he didn't have right? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

And, for all of you that say that Bush wasn't really "elected", please pull your heads out of your ass and listen up:

The United States is NOT a Democracy. The biased media says it, the newspapers say it and even most of your high school professors will say the same.

They are all wrong

See, the "founding fathers" (you know, that illustrious group that created the laws for this country - largely considered to be among the best models of government ever created) wanted a checks and balance system for every conceivable aspect of the government. Be that the exectutive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch, and the people themselves.

What?

Yeah, that's right. Why did they do this? Because in certain instances in history (see: Nazi Germany) the "mob rules" aspect of Democracy failed. That's why we have an Electoral College (this is the "balance") in place for the popular vote.

Each state has a particular amount of Electoral votes that are cast by the respective party that wins the state. In 99.9% of instances, the voter has voted per his party affilation, but he doesn't have to.

Bush was fairly elected - he won more Electoral votes. Anything else that you come up with is revisionist history and fairy tales.

---

Now pull your head out of your ass and listen: We've already had this discussion in countless other threads, but Rhydant's not arguing what the system entails. We all know how it works. The argument is that Bush bascially "cheated" to get elected. He manipulated the process you described to get elected, even though he didn't win. And so the history books will say he won, but people who payed attention know that not everything was kosher.

Quote:

---

Final Analysis: Bush is being put on the proverbial chopping block and all of the fuckwads who stood behind him cheering are now standing aside because they aren't courageous enough to stand up for what they said they believed in in the first place.

Sorry, I give Congress and the CIA just as poor a mark as I'd give Bush. Even worse for those that all of sudden "changed their mind" and are acting like Bush decieved them for the bovine masses that will believe it.

It's ignorant to think that Congress didn't get the same info that Bush got. Period.

---

I can't say for the CIA, but I believe that Congress was duped just like everyone else by a president with a hidden agenda. And Bush is being put exactly where he belongs. Republicans didn't hesitate to crucify Clinton for a blowjob, an offense I consider minor compared to lying to start a war.

SC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

So stating a FACT(Bush got less votes total then Gore) is suddenly revisionist history?

---

That *DOESN'T MEAN SHIT*. What part of that don't you understand? Please read and re-read the constitution so you UNDERSTAND our system before making asinine commentary about the implications of "total votes" and what part it plays in a national election. I don't care if Gore got 10,000,000,000 more votes than Bush. In this country, he lost the election, fair and square, like it or not.

Saying anything else, including tossing "total vote" numbers around, is profoundly ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

What about the reports that the CIA told Bush that the info couldnt be verified and CIA´s insistince in fall that the Niger claim not be used after wich Bush of course used in in his state of the union addres in January. And saying congress had acces to the same inteligence as Bush and his cabinet is just bulshit. many times the following line was used: We cannot share all the intelligence we have becouse that would jeapordise the safety of oure sources.
YOU are the one partaking in revisionist history.

---

Let's be realistic here. "We cannot share all of the intelligence..." was directed, generally speaking, at the *public* not at *Congress*. If you think that the Congressional leaders of import do not have contacts within the CIA that "share the wealth", then you, sir, are in need of an education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Look back at my posts from earlier this year, I provided links and solid arguments why the bush cabinet claims were not holding water, why the nuclear and chemical claims were bulshit and why the so called irrefuteable evidence was a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated claims designed to scare people into submision.
The war came and went and ive been proven right but hey thats not to youre liking, suddenly im a revisionist.
Youre blind faith for this administration and its croocks makes me sick.

---

No, you take selective evidence that suits your needs from the same liberal sources that say the U.S. is a Democracy and put your trust in such information, much of which is subject to serious conjecture.

To characterize me as having "blind faith" in the Bush administration is a clear example of your lack of reading comprehension skills. I said I blamed BOTH (Bush & Congress) equally for the Iraq war since it could not have been accomplished without authorization from both branches of the government. You are the one giving Congress a proverbial "free pass" because you make the completely asinine assumption that they are being lead around on a leash by "W", which could hardly be further from the truth.

You are trying to do a classic character assasination of George Bush and those immmediately under him while sweeping the rest of those responsible under the rug. To absolve Congress of equal responsibility isn't warranted, fair, or unbiased.

That's how I see it. You have a fixation on GWB without looking for answers to the much larger, more serious issues at hand here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Kind of dodgy if you ask me. Bush is the President, not the CIA or Congress. It was Bush and his people that went to Congress and the U.N. asking for this war. This isn't some conspiracy by the CIA or Congress to screw Bush over so please quit acting like he's innocent.
And I'd like to see these "polls" where people supported this war without WMD. Recent trends would indicate that the like of WMD has made people a little doubtful about this whole thing.

---

Congress and Bush are equally responsible. Period. That's all I've said. I've never said or acted like "he's innocent". Had Congress truly believed that the war was unjustified, they should have voted that way. Don't put words in my mouth, kthx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Then beat the shit out of him only to find out that he didn't have right? :rolleyes:

---

Er, yeah. Happens in world diplomacy all the time. Wakey wakey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

Now pull your head out of your ass and listen: We've already had this discussion in countless other threads, but Rhydant's not arguing what the system entails. We all know how it works. The argument is that Bush bascially "cheated" to get elected. He manipulated the process you described to get elected, even though he didn't win. And so the history books will say he won, but people who payed attention know that not everything was kosher.

---

1.) "We all know how it works". No, we all DON'T know how it works. That is patently obvious.
2.) Bush "cheated"? Really, did he cast extra votes himself? Did you know that the actual recount found MORE votes for Bush than for Gore in Florida? Please. This is all sujective anyway and inarguable. The whole Florida recount is a black eye on this country's voting process - and it was initiated by GORE not by BUSH.
3.) Bush manipulated nothing, it was Gore who tried to manipulate Florida's voting process and Bush's group took it to the Supreme Court. If the role was reversed, Gore would've followed the exact same path and it's proven by his actions in Florida. To blame Bush for following a legal process and then calling him a cheater is ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spacecowboy

I can't say for the CIA, but I believe that Congress was duped just like everyone else by a president with a hidden agenda. And Bush is being put exactly where he belongs. Republicans didn't hesitate to crucify Clinton for a blowjob, an offense I consider minor compared to lying to start a war.
SC

---

Clinton was a liar, thief, crook, adulterer, Bin Laden enabler, and much more. If the best analogy you can come up with is that he got a blowjob and Bush caused a war, then I'm stupified.

Sorry, Congress was not in the dark and they certainly have their own means by which to gather information and vote accordingly. To lay this whole deal in Bush's lap and giving others that are responsible a free pass is just plain dumb.

Here's a link from 11/25/02, that clearly shows the U.S. public supported the war with or without finding WMD:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-usat_x.htm

As I said, Saddam was defiant and "hiding something behind his back" and the U.S. public felt this way:

Despite the reluctance of the public to go to war, the poll shows that most Americans are ready to commit troops if Saddam remains defiant:


87% say an attack is justified if weapons of mass destruction are found and Saddam refuses to destroy them.

84% say an attack is justified if Iraq repeatedly blocks inspectors from suspected weapons sites.

64% say an attack is justified if inspectors are blocked from even one suspected site.

52% say an attack is justified if production facilities but no weapons are uncovered.

See that number - 84% said it was justified if Iraq blocks weapon inspectors (which they did) and 64% said it was justified if they did that even ONCE. ONCE. Do you see the implication behind that?

So, I say, yet again that this entire thread is about Bush bashing, revisionist history, and letting those responsible slip-slide away.

Everyone is responsible - Bush, his cabinet, Congress, the people of the United States.

And, no, I didn't even vote for Bush. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOVESKI

Imagine his presidency if there were no 9/11....


He would have no platform to get re-elected. Pretty sad.

---

If there was no 9/11, who knows what would have happened? He would have done things OTHER than what he did. It would have been totally different. He probably would've focused more on domestic issues, and who knows he could have been very good or very bad. Of course if there was no 9/11 he wouldn't have spent his time responding to 9/11. But he would've done other things. You know, a fork in the road?

This is a very ignorant statement... your logic is "Bush spent his entire presidency fighting 9/11 so if there was no 9/11 he would have done nothing" but that's fucking grade-school logic.

And yes, Almaci, listen to haohmaru. You're not American so maybe you don't know how the whole system works but its very easy for a person to win an election without getting more votes than the other guy. And shit, if Al Gore won his fucking home state (Tennessee), like every other guy in every election always does, he would've won...

And Rhydant you may think the electoral college system blows but look, California has 33 million people while Wyoming has something like 500,000. Hell man, Los Angeles County has six times the population of Wyoming! If the system was based purely on the popular vote than Wyoming would have practically no say in the election. Do you want California (of all places) picking and choosing the presidents in every election? That's what would basically happen if the system was based on the popular vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

He could have the "economy is shit and I haven't been able to do anything to turn it around" platform. :)

---

The current president has nothing to do with the economy... ESPECIALLY if its sluggish and they are trying to provide a spark. Roosevelt's reforms didn't end the Great Depression, World War II did. Japan has been in a recession for the past decade. And so forth. Take a fucking freshman economics class, and you'll learn that governmental economic policies can slow down an economy, but cannot speed one up which is recessed. That's just beyond the powers of the government.

If it was possible for the government to pick up an economy in a recession, there would never be recessions.

I'm so tired of hearing this garbage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Here's a link from 11/25/02, that clearly shows the U.S. public supported the war with or without finding WMD:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-usat_x.htm

As I said, Saddam was defiant and "hiding something behind his back" and the U.S. public felt this way:

Despite the reluctance of the public to go to war, the poll shows that most Americans are ready to commit troops if Saddam remains defiant:


87% say an attack is justified if weapons of mass destruction are found and Saddam refuses to destroy them.

84% say an attack is justified if Iraq repeatedly blocks inspectors from suspected weapons sites.

64% say an attack is justified if inspectors are blocked from even one suspected site.

52% say an attack is justified if production facilities but no weapons are uncovered.

---

Just for the record though I would like to point out that a large percentage of the American public also believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind/a major funder of the 9/11 attacks... further proving that the American public will believe/go along with whatever the media tells them they should... and the American media was pretty fucking gung ho about this war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

The current president has nothing to do with the economy... ESPECIALLY if its sluggish and they are trying to provide a spark. Roosevelt's reforms didn't end the Great Depression, World War II did. Japan has been in a recession for the past decade. And so forth. Take a fucking freshman economics class, and you'll learn that governmental economic policies can slow down an economy, but cannot speed one up which is recessed. That's just beyond the powers of the government.

If it was possible for the government to pick up an economy in a recession, there would never be recessions.

I'm so tired of hearing this garbage...

---

See that smiley face? I was being facetious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

Just for the record though I would like to point out that a large percentage of the American public also believed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were behind/a major funder of the 9/11 attacks... further proving that the American public will believe/go along with whatever the media tells them they should... and the American media was pretty fucking gung ho about this war.

---

Yeah - the same media that's now turning on Bush and his cabinet. The lashings with the wet noodle should be evenly distributed among all of those repsonsible, not the select group that the media chooses.

Oh, and this http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemi...miraqgas2.html is what happened under Clinton's watch. I guess he was too busy getting blown to notice that thousands of people just died with <gasp> chemical weapons that Saddam supposedly destroyed (and, thereby, didn't have) after the first Gulf war.

Wait... you mean he DID have chemical weapons? You mean there might have been a basis for assuming he had more without it being turned into a big conspiracy theory? You mean that Bush might REALLY have thought he had more and it wasn't a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes? You mean we still might find something?

Christ, you people are quick to jump on and off of bandwagons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

That *DOESN'T MEAN SHIT*. What part of that don't you understand? Please read and re-read the constitution so you UNDERSTAND our system before making asinine commentary about the implications of "total votes" and what part it plays in a national election. I don't care if Gore got 10,000,000,000 more votes than Bush. In this country, he lost the election, fair and square, like it or not.

Saying anything else, including tossing "total vote" numbers around, is profoundly ignorant.




Let's be realistic here. "We cannot share all of the intelligence..." was directed, generally speaking, at the *public* not at *Congress*. If you think that the Congressional leaders of import do not have contacts within the CIA that "share the wealth", then you, sir, are in need of an education.



No, you take selective evidence that suits your needs from the same liberal sources that say the U.S. is a Democracy and put your trust in such information, much of which is subject to serious conjecture.

To characterize me as having "blind faith" in the Bush administration is a clear example of your lack of reading comprehension skills. I said I blamed BOTH (Bush & Congress) equally for the Iraq war since it could not have been accomplished without authorization from both branches of the government. You are the one giving Congress a proverbial "free pass" because you make the completely asinine assumption that they are being lead around on a leash by "W", which could hardly be further from the truth.

You are trying to do a classic character assasination of George Bush and those immmediately under him while sweeping the rest of those responsible under the rug. To absolve Congress of equal responsibility isn't warranted, fair, or unbiased.

That's how I see it. You have a fixation on GWB without looking for answers to the much larger, more serious issues at hand here.



Congress and Bush are equally responsible. Period. That's all I've said. I've never said or acted like "he's innocent". Had Congress truly believed that the war was unjustified, they should have voted that way. Don't put words in my mouth, kthx.



Er, yeah. Happens in world diplomacy all the time. Wakey wakey.



1.) "We all know how it works". No, we all DON'T know how it works. That is patently obvious.
2.) Bush "cheated"? Really, did he cast extra votes himself? Did you know that the actual recount found MORE votes for Bush than for Gore in Florida? Please. This is all sujective anyway and inarguable. The whole Florida recount is a black eye on this country's voting process - and it was initiated by GORE not by BUSH.
3.) Bush manipulated nothing, it was Gore who tried to manipulate Florida's voting process and Bush's group took it to the Supreme Court. If the role was reversed, Gore would've followed the exact same path and it's proven by his actions in Florida. To blame Bush for following a legal process and then calling him a cheater is ludicrous.



Clinton was a liar, thief, crook, adulterer, Bin Laden enabler, and much more. If the best analogy you can come up with is that he got a blowjob and Bush caused a war, then I'm stupified.

Sorry, Congress was not in the dark and they certainly have their own means by which to gather information and vote accordingly. To lay this whole deal in Bush's lap and giving others that are responsible a free pass is just plain dumb.

Here's a link from 11/25/02, that clearly shows the U.S. public supported the war with or without finding WMD:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-usat_x.htm

As I said, Saddam was defiant and "hiding something behind his back" and the U.S. public felt this way:

Despite the reluctance of the public to go to war, the poll shows that most Americans are ready to commit troops if Saddam remains defiant:


87% say an attack is justified if weapons of mass destruction are found and Saddam refuses to destroy them.

84% say an attack is justified if Iraq repeatedly blocks inspectors from suspected weapons sites.

64% say an attack is justified if inspectors are blocked from even one suspected site.

52% say an attack is justified if production facilities but no weapons are uncovered.

See that number - 84% said it was justified if Iraq blocks weapon inspectors (which they did) and 64% said it was justified if they did that even ONCE. ONCE. Do you see the implication behind that?

So, I say, yet again that this entire thread is about Bush bashing, revisionist history, and letting those responsible slip-slide away.

Everyone is responsible - Bush, his cabinet, Congress, the people of the United States.

And, no, I didn't even vote for Bush. :P

---

Bla bla bla.
Inspectors were not blocked, had full acces to go wherever they wanted and did so.
Despite that Bush and his cabinet repeatedly claimed that was not true and continued to insist that sites already cleared by UN inspections were used for WMD production.
I have maintained my line al trough this conflict, you have not yet you now have the gall of acusing me of character assasination while all youre doing is exactly that with regards to me.
And yes we talked about the US electoral system many times before and there too I maintained my line that the current system gives in insane amount of power to local swing minorities(like the Brooklyn Jews or the Florida Cuban americans) at the expense of the majority of the rest of the US.
With regards to Clinton, you know I feel he should be in prison but hey look what youre doing, CHARACTER ASSASINATION.
Get youre head out of youre ass and smell the, urmmm nevermind ^_^

Bush sucks, Clinton sucked, Gore would have sucked, Bush Sr. sucked, Reagan sucked (and in fact is one of the people who is majorly at fault behind 9/11, since Bin Laden was partially his fault (or maybe I'm confused... which administration was it that helped train and fund Bin Laden?))... I say fuck this country... it's time for some good old Communism. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Christ, you people are quick to jump on and off of bandwagons.

---

It is the American way... jump on whatever bandwagon the media encourages you to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Yeah - the same media that's now turning on Bush and his cabinet. The lashings with the wet noodle should be evenly distributed among all of those repsonsible, not the select group that the media chooses.

Oh, and this http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemi...miraqgas2.html is what happened under Clinton's watch. I guess he was too busy getting blown to notice that thousands of people just died with <gasp> chemical weapons that Saddam supposedly destroyed (and, thereby, didn't have) after the first Gulf war.

Wait... you mean he DID have chemical weapons? You mean there might have been a basis for assuming he had more without it being turned into a big conspiracy theory? You mean that Bush might REALLY have thought he had more and it wasn't a deliberate attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes? You mean we still might find something?

Christ, you people are quick to jump on and off of bandwagons.

---

So Haomaru, how exactly did this: Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988

Happen under Clinton´s watch?

This is the attack that happened under Reagan/Bush Sr and for wich the US and CIA claimed it was Iran who did the attack.
This is a report about the taking of samples to prove the use of sarin 5 years later.
Whats next, ya gonna blame Clinton for Pearl harbour now?

I think someone should now post an OWNED image for Haomaru

As for the rest, I already provided explanations for the lack of his chemical agents that he used to have.
The rudimentary(WW2 level chemical weapons) he had have a shelf life of a few years tops and as much was stated when UN inspectors left in 98(they left becouse Clinton was gonna start bombing, they werent thrown out as claimed) and by the time they left would have turned to useles and relatively harmless sludge.
Yes he did have em and did use em against Iran and against the Kurds in the North in the 80s, with US blessing I might add since hey Rumsfeld shook his hand and called him a great friend and ally of the US and the US covered up for him and blamed Iran for the gas attacks.
The inspections and embargo however ensured that the programs were halted and that he couldnt make new stockpiles of weapons grade chemicals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

Bla bla bla.
Inspectors were not blocked, had full acces to go wherever they wanted and did so.
Despite that Bush and his cabinet repeatedly claimed that was not true and continued to insist that sites already cleared by UN inspections were used for WMD production.
I have maintained my line al trough this conflict, you have not yet you now have the gall of acusing me of character assasination while all youre doing is exactly that with regards to me.
And yes we talked about the US electoral system many times before and there too I maintained my line that the current system gives in insane amount of power to local swing minorities(like the Brooklyn Jews or the Florida Cuban americans) at the expense of the majority of the rest of the US.
With regards to Clinton, you know I feel he should be in prison but hey look what youre doing, CHARACTER ASSASINATION.
Get youre head out of youre ass and smell the, urmmm nevermind ^_^

---

Were not blocked -> IN YOUR OPINION, many have said otherwise and that's far from a a conclusive fact.

I'm not "character assasinating" you at all. You're putting words in my mouth and I was never one to accept that. I never will be.

"Brooklyn Jews and Floridian Cubans?" What? I don't even want to know where you're going with that. =P

Er, no, a character assasination doesn't consist of a few posts in a thread, it consists of posts over a six month period, multiple threads, questionable facts, and a general hate for the object being posted about. I don't fall into those categories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Almaci

So Haomaru, how exactly did this: Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988

Happen under Clinton´s watch?

This is the attack that happened under Reagan/Bush Sr and for wich the US and CIA claimed it was Iran who did the attack.
This is a report about the taking of samples to prove the use of sarin 5 years later.
Whats next, ya gonna blame Clinton for Pearl harbour now?

I think someone should now post an OWNED image for Haomaru

As for the rest, I already provided explanations for the lack of his chemical agents that he used to have.
The rudimentary(WW2 level chemical weapons) he had have a shelf life of a few years tops and as much was stated when UN inspectors left in 98(they left becouse Clinton was gonna start bombing, they werent thrown out as claimed) and by the time they left would have turned to useles and relatively harmless sludge.
Yes he did have em and did use em against Iran and against the Kurds in the North in the 80s, with US blessing I might add since hey Rumsfeld shook his hand and called him a great friend and ally of the US and the US covered up for him and blamed Iran for the gas attacks.
The inspections and embargo however ensured that the programs were halted and that he couldnt make new stockpiles of weapons grade chemicals.

---

Er, no. I was referring to the fact that it was conclusively proven, under his presidency, that Saddam used chemical weapons in Iraq against his own people which he (Saddam) denied for years including during the Clinton presidency. Bill was apparently too busy with other issues to seriously address it in any manner.

See, it wasn't until 1995 that it was conclusively proven to have been Sarin at all:

http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemi...msaringas.html

Once again, under Bill's watch (but he was looking elsewhere).

"These scientific results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Iraqi government has consistently lied to the world on denying that these attacks occurred," said PHR and HRW. "They also send a clear signal that chemical weapons attacks cannot be launched in the belief that the natural elements will quickly cover up the evidence."

The U.S. "blamed Iran"? Uh, where would that be in print and who said it? I'd like to see it. Saying that was done with the "US' Blessing" is *quite* a stetch as well, as are most of your "facts".

Selective quotes from "the other side" <chuckle>

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton 1998

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle 1998

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter 1998

"[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." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerr

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status.* In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos

Bush character assasination? Oh yes. See any presidential hopefuls up there doing a 180? See any ex U.N. staffers saying that Almaci is full of shit and Saddam was seeking more WMD's and probably has them?

Oh, I think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

it's time for some good old Communism. :)

---

In Communism, you don't play video games, video games play YOU!

[/family guy ref]

Oh yeah, what happened in the Bush/Gore election happened in the Bush Sr./Clinton election. Bush won the popular vote, but Clinton won the electorial. No one said a damn thing. So imo, either THAT should have been bitched about as well as this, or neither should. Maybe I'm being too Kantian...

Oh yeah, I've taken some econ classes and diff is right - even my professor, who was a Bush-hating, Clinton loving lib admitted to it - a government, as far as we've seen, can do nothing to really push an economy out of its trends. Which is sooooooooo funny, considering Americans vote with their wallets.

Is the economy sucking while so-and-so is in office? I won't vote for him again! Wait, am I getting a nice paycheck and employment security. The President must be watching out for me!!! Four more years!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bbobb

It is the American way... jump on whatever bandwagon the media encourages you to.

---

Nah, more like the world's way - in general, people will believe whatever the self-proclaimed know-it-alls and media tell you to. All you have to do is say the same thing, over and over, and make sure everyone else says it. Soon enough, people will follow suit.

Don't give me this bullshit like the American norm is somehow more sheepish than the rest of the world. That's some sort of self-loathing you've got going, to believe our mainstream is somehow stupid, but LO! the norm in the rest of the world is really, really unbiased, free-thinking peoples not lead around by the media voiceboxes. They're sooooo cool and independent. Not like us fuckers... :p