WMD Found

[xrayzebra]

Okay, Here you go. I cant wait for the "another election time ploy" group
to post.



Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Thursday , June 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

• Click here to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report.

He added that the report warns about the hazards that the chemical weapons could still pose to coalition troops in Iraq.

"The purity of the agents inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal," Santorum read from the document.

"This says weapons have been discovered, more weapons exist and they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

The weapons are thought to be manufactured before 1991 so they would not be proof of an ongoing WMD program in the 1990s. But they do show that Saddam Hussein was lying when he said all weapons had been destroyed, and it shows that years of on-again, off-again weapons inspections did not uncover these munitions.

Hoekstra said the report, completed in April but only declassified now, shows that "there is still a lot about Iraq that we don't fully understand."

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq.

Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.

He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.

"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them.

Hoekstra and Santorum lamented that Americans were given the impression after a 16-month search conducted by the Iraq Survey Group that the evidence of continuing research and development of weapons of mass destruction was insignificant. But the National Ground Intelligence Center took up where the ISG left off when it completed its report in November 2004, and in the process of collecting intelligence for the purpose of force protection for soldiers and sailors still on the ground in Iraq, has shown that the weapons inspections were incomplete, they and others have said.

"We know it was there, in place, it just wasn't operative when inspectors got there after the war, but we know what the inspectors found from talking with the scientists in Iraq that it could have been cranked up immediately, and that's what Saddam had planned to do if the sanctions against Iraq had halted and they were certainly headed in that direction," said Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard and a FOX News contributor.

"It is significant. Perhaps, the administration just, they think they weathered the debate over WMD being found there immediately and don't want to return to it again because things are otherwise going better for them, and then, I think, there's mindless resistance to releasing any classified documents from Iraq," Barnes said.

The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

At the same time, congressional Republicans have stayed highly united, rallying around a White House that has seen successes in the last couple weeks, first with the death of terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then the completion of the formation of Iraq's Cabinet and then the announcement Tuesday that another key Al Qaeda in Iraq leader, "religious emir" Mansour Suleiman Mansour Khalifi al-Mashhadani, or Sheik Mansour, was also killed in a U.S. airstrike.

Santorum pointed out that during Wednesday's debate, several Senate Democrats said that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, a claim, he said, that the declassified document proves is untrue.

"This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false," he said.

As a result of this new information, under the aegis of his chairmanship, Hoekstra said he is going to ask for more reporting by the various intelligence agencies about weapons of mass destruction.

"We are working on the declassification of the report. We are going to do a thorough search of what additional reports exist in the intelligence community. And we are going to put additional pressure on the Department of Defense and the folks in Iraq to more fully pursue a complete investigation of what existed in Iraq before the war," Hoekstra said.

FOX News' Jim Angle and Sharon Kehnemui Liss contributed to this report.



Copyright 2006 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.

[Nbadan]

Unusable - that about says it all. Santorum is an idiot.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Right, just because a shell can't disperse chemical weapons like it is intended doesn't mean they can't take the sarin out of it and use it somewhere else. Good call Dan.

[Burly_Man]

To quote Professor Bainbridge:


Everybody knows Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and in his war with Iran. It would be astonishing if we hadn't found some munitions. But there's nothing new here to suggest that Iraq had a WMD program sufficiently threatening to justify the war.

500 WMD Shells: Big Deal (http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2006/06/500_wmd_shells_.html#more)

[spurster]

One wonders about the reading ability of some posters here.

the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said

[SA210]

:lmao at this thread

[boutons_]

Santorum is in deep trouble electorally, with his approval ratings among his voters right down there with dubya's.

[ChumpDumper]

Asked why the Bush administration, if it had known about the information since April or earlier, didn't advertise it, Hoekstra conjectured that the president has been forward-looking and concentrating on the development of a secure government in Iraq. :lol

The administration knew they couldn't sell this stuff as the imminent threat we were supposed to be shitting our pants about.

[boutons_]

The lies and insanity continue, the sheeple play right along.

[fyatuk]

Right, just because a shell can't disperse chemical weapons like it is intended doesn't mean they can't take the sarin out of it and use it somewhere else. Good call Dan.

Had nothing to do with an inability to disperse. The chemicals themselves have degraded to an unusable level.

This isn't exactly news. A year or two ago an IED went off exposing soldiers to cyclosarin. It was discovered that is was pre-Gulf War and no longer toxic.

Another report before the invasion listed 15 chemical weapons capable artillery shells (a prohibited item) found during a UN inspection.

Finding 500 old units with decayed and impotent chemical weapons is not exactly important news.

[xrayzebra]

Oh boy, about what I expected. 500 is no number. Lies and insanity continue,
Laughing boy. Who's lies are beginning to crumble once again. The liberal,
regressive, dimm-o-craps. Once more their little world comes tumbling down.
What a sorry bunch of liberals we have on this forum. Never admitting what
they are. Just we support the troops. We love our government. Remember
humanity. Yeah.....okay.....go tell that to someone who believes you. Talk
amongst yourselves. Smoke if you gottem!

[xrayzebra]

Had nothing to do with an inability to disperse. The chemicals themselves have degraded to an unusable level.

This isn't exactly news. A year or two ago an IED went off exposing soldiers to cyclosarin. It was discovered that is was pre-Gulf War and no longer toxic.

Another report before the invasion listed 15 chemical weapons capable artillery shells (a prohibited item) found during a UN inspection.

Finding 500 old units with decayed and impotent chemical weapons is not exactly important news.


Oh pray tell, why were the lefties so upset when we wanted to destroy
all our "degraded" chemical weapons? Hmmmmmmm!

[xrayzebra]

....bump........

Still waiting for all the other great rebuttals.......

[Dimm-O-Crap]

Oh boy, about what I expected. 500 is no number. Lies and insanity continue,
Laughing boy. Who's lies are beginning to crumble once again. The liberal,
regressive, dimm-o-craps. Once more their little world comes tumbling down.
What a sorry bunch of liberals we have on this forum. Never admitting what
they are. Just we support the troops. We love our government. Remember
humanity. Yeah.....okay.....go tell that to someone who believes you. Talk
amongst yourselves. Smoke if you gottem!

You rang?

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, and you have no answer, like the rest of dimm-o-craps.

Well, ahh, eraaah, welllllll, we almost got the big lie to stick, didn't we......hey,
NYT and CBS and NBC and BBC and the rest of you. Come on come to my
rescue.......you know.....Where is Dan Rather when we need him.........

[Dimm-O-Crap]

Just admit it. The whole repug administration are a bunch of lying, stealing, murdering pieces of low-life trash wanna be's who lie and pretend as if they are Christians.

They are nothing like a christian.

They will do anything and say anything to win and steal any election or story and spin anything and lie and cheat their way to hell.

Just because you won't admit this doesn't mean it's not true.

We will Impeach Bush!

[xrayzebra]

Oh my. I think I have angered dimm-o-crap and dimm-o-craps in general. Did you
take your prozac today.

Why do you want to impeach Bush. Then you will have Chenney to contend with.
But you got Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi. The three muskateers. Oh, I forgot
Kennedy. The swimmer. And his son, who is now on his way to the House to vote.
Oh, yes, don't want to forget Kerry, the wounded Viet Nam veteran. Who lobbied
for North Viet Nam and is now working for Al Qaeda. Has he registered as a
representative for a foreign power?

You are such a grand bunch. I would call you a gay bunch, but then Barney would
get upset. Cause the queers have reserved that name for them. Of course they
aren't gay. They are miserable because they want to marry each other and the
normal people want let them. I know, I know that is not nice to say. I am
homophobic, it's a disease you know. So you must respect it and not make
fun. You dimm-o-craps taught me that.

[Dimm-O-Crap]

Oh my. I think I have angered dimm-o-crap and dimm-o-craps in general. Did you
take your prozac today.

Why do you want to impeach Bush. Then you will have Chenney to contend with.
But you got Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi. The three muskateers. Oh, I forgot
Kennedy. The swimmer. And his son, who is now on his way to the House to vote.
Oh, yes, don't want to forget Kerry, the wounded Viet Nam veteran. Who lobbied
for North Viet Nam and is now working for Al Qaeda. Has he registered as a
representative for a foreign power?

You are such a grand bunch. I would call you a gay bunch, but then Barney would
get upset. Cause the queers have reserved that name for them. Of course they
aren't gay. They are miserable because they want to marry each other and the
normal people want let them. I know, I know that is not nice to say. I am
homophobic, it's a disease you know. So you must respect it and not make
fun. You dimm-o-craps taught me that.

America needs a change, maybe a President with some actual combat experience.

[xrayzebra]

Yeah, like Kerry, the Wounded Viet Nam Veteran. Or Hillary, fighting the wars of
the WH bedroom with Barbara Streisand and Lewinsky.

[Dimm-O-Crap]

I'm sorry but Dubya's fight with a pretzel doesn't qualify as "combat".

:lol

[xrayzebra]

He fought a pretzel? I didn't know that. Is that like Kennedy and his buddies
and the waitress sandwich?

[fyatuk]

Oh pray tell, why were the lefties so upset when we wanted to destroy
all our "degraded" chemical weapons? Hmmmmmmm!

What exactly is your point with this statement?

Not sure how the heck it applies to what I stated.

[Nancy Pelosi]

Oh, I like this person dimm-o-crap. He understand the needs of the people. And has the pluse of the nation.

[Dimm-O-Crap]

June 22nd, 2006 3:14 pm
Poll: Santorum approval rating declines
By Peter Jackson / Associated Press

Article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060621/ap_on_el_se/senate_poll)

Sen. Rick Santorum's approval rating has skidded to a four-year low, the latest sign of distress for the outspoken conservative and ally of President Bush, according to a poll released Wednesday.

The lead for Santorum's Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Bob Casey, has stretched to 18 percentage points since early May.

Casey leads Santorum by 52 percent to 34 percent — the biggest margin since October, when the numbers were the same, according to the Quinnipiac University poll.

Only 38 percent of respondents said they approved of the way Santorum, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, is handling his job. Forty-five percent said they disapproved and 16 percent did not express an opinion.

It was the first time Santorum's approval rating dropped below 40 percent since Quinnipiac began measuring it in June 2002.

Bush's approval rating in the state rebounded somewhat in the latest poll, to 34 percent from 30 percent in May. The proportion of Pennsylvania voters who approved of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq increased to 35 percent from 29 percent.

"Senator Santorum appears to be his own worst enemy in his battle for re-election," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Connecticut-based university's polling institute.

In the May survey, Casey, the son of late Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey, led Santorum by 49 percent to 36 percent.

More than 40 percent of Casey's supporters said they are more against electing Santorum to a third term than for Casey, the poll showed.

Virginia Davis, a Santorum campaign spokesman, said polls are unreliable at this stage in the campaign. :lmao Santorum plans to air the first statewide TV commercials of his campaign on Friday, she said.

Larry Smar, a spokesman for the Casey campaign, agreed that it is too early to read too much into the polls but that Casey's continuing strength in polling bodes well for the November election.

Quinnipiac conducted telephone interviews with 1,076 Pennsylvania voters between June 13 and Monday. The results carry a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Nbadan]

What are the chances Santorum admits he's wrong?


Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were already acknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Fox’s Alan Colmes broke the news to Santorum. Watch it:Think Progree (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/21/dod-disavows-santorum)

[SA210]

^^^

but..but...but...he had weapons......

:lol @ Repubs

[2centsworth]

Hilarious watching the Republicans say that the weapons are enough to wipe out the world, and then hear the democrats say there is nothing more than a few firecrackers.

[ChumpDumper]

I can't believe Santorum was expecting a bump from this.

The search continues.

[2centsworth]

I can't believe Santorum was expecting a bump from this.

The search continues.
when did he say he was expecting a bump? also, are we sure what they found is nothing?

[Ocotillo]

also, are we sure what they found is nothing?

Nah, they found a unicorn and a leperchaun and the Easter Bunny's cache of eggs too.

[scott]

Senior US Intelligence Officials: No WMDs Found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/)

[Marklar MM]

frichen...you posted what I just posted before me.

[2centsworth]

Senior US Intelligence Officials: No WMDs Found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/)

sounds like it's some old stuff that was never destroyed, far from the stockpiles we're looking for.

[scott]

sounds like it's some old stuff that was never destroyed, far from the stockpiles we're looking for.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3d/Obiwankenobi.jpg

These aren't the stockpiles you are looking for.

[smeagol]

xray? Where are you?

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[boutons_]

June 23, 2006

For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over

By SCOTT SHANE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, June 22 — The United States government abandoned the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq long ago. But Dave Gaubatz has never given up.

Mr. Gaubatz, an earnest, Arabic-speaking investigator who spent the first months of the war as an Air Force civilian in southern Iraq, has said he has identified four sites where residents said chemical weapons were buried in concrete bunkers.

The sites were never searched, he said, and he is not going to let anyone forget it.

"I just don't want the weapons to fall into the wrong hands," Mr. Gaubatz, of Denton, Tex., said.

For the last year, he has given his account on talk radio programs, in Congressional offices and on his Web site, which he introduced last month with, "A lone American battles politicians to locate W.M.D."

Some politicians are outspoken allies in Mr. Gaubatz's cause. He is just one of a vocal and disparate collection of Americans, mostly on the political right, whose search for Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons continues.

More than a year after the White House, at considerable political cost, accepted the intelligence agencies' verdict that Mr. Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990's, these Americans have an unshakable faith that the weapons continue to exist.

The proponents include some members of Congress. Two Republicans, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a news conference on Wednesday to announce that, as Mr. Santorum put it, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said.

Such official statements are unlikely to settle the question for the believers, some of whom have impressive credentials. They include a retired Air Force lieutenant general, Thomas G. McInerney, a commentator on the Fox News Channel who has broadcast that weapons are in three places in Syria and one in Lebanon, moved there with Russian help on the eve of the war.

"I firmly believe that, and everything I learn makes my belief firmer," said Mr. McInerney, who retired in 1994. "I'm amazed that the mainstream media hasn't picked this up."

Also among the weapons hunters is Duane R. Clarridge, a long-retired officer of the Central Intelligence Agency who said he thought that the weapons had been moved to Sudan by ship.

"And we think we know which ship," Mr. Clarridge said in a recent interview.

The weapons hunters hold fast to the administration's original justification for the war, as expressed by the president three days before the bombing began in 2003. There was "no doubt," Mr. Bush said in an address to the nation, "that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

The weapons hunters were encouraged in February when tapes of Mr. Hussein's talking with top aides about his arsenal were released at the Intelligence Summit, a private gathering in northern Virginia of 600 former spies, former military officers and hobbyists.

"We reopened the W.M.D. question in a big way," said John Loftus, organizer of the conference.

In March, under Congressional pressure, National Intelligence Director John D. Negroponte began posting on the Web thousands of captured Iraqi documents. Some intelligence officials opposed the move, fearing a free-for-all of amateur speculation and intrigue.

But the weapons hunters were heartened and began combing the documents for clues.

Mr. Gaubatz, 47, now chief investigator for the Dallas County medical examiner, said he knew some people might call him a kook.

"I don't care about being embarrassed," he said, spreading snapshots, maps and notebooks documenting his findings across the dining room table in an interview at his house. "I only brought this up when the White House said the hunt for W.M.D. was over."

( so why not before? )

Last week, Mr. Gaubatz achieved a victory. He presented his case to officers from the Defense Intelligence Agency in Dallas. The meeting was scheduled after the intervention of Mr. Hoekstra and Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, second-ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Weldon spoke with Mr. Gaubatz last month in a lengthy conference call.

Mr. Hoekstra "has said on many occasions that we need to know what happened to Saddam's W.M.D.," his spokesman, Jamal Ware, said. Mr. Hoekstra "is determined to make sure that we get the postwar intelligence right," Mr. Ware added.

( hmm, too fucking bad they did get the PRE-war intelligence right, or stand up to the WHIG's pressure to suppress all doubts about pre-war intelligence. dickhead was going to war, NO FUCKING MATTER WHAT )

The authoritative postwar weapons intelligence was gathered by the Iraq Survey Group, whose 1,200 members spent more than a year searching suspected chemical, biological and nuclear sites and interviewing Iraqis.

The final report of the group, by Charles A. Duelfer, special adviser on Iraqi weapons to the C.I.A., concluded that any stockpiles had been destroyed long before the war and that transfers to Syria were "unlikely."

"We did not visit every inch of Iraq," Mr. Duelfer said in an interview. "That would have been impossible. We did not check every rumor that came along."

But he said important officials in Mr. Hussein's government, with every incentive to win favor with the Americans by exposing stockpiles, convinced him that the weapons were gone.

Mr. Duelfer said he remained open to new evidence.

"I've seen lots of good-hearted people who thought they saw something," he said. "But none of the reports have panned out."

The hunt clearly appeals to the sleuth in Mr. Gaubatz, who was in the Air Force for 23 years, much of it investigating murder, drug and other criminal cases for the Office of Special Investigations. He retired in 1999 and worked as an investigator for Target, the retail chain, but soon returned to the investigations agency as a civilian.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Mr. Gaubatz spent a year learning Arabic and in February 2003 was sent to Saudi Arabia and then Iraq after the war began.

Stationed near Nasiriya, he and a colleague headed out in a utility vehicle at 6 a.m. and spent their days talking with anyone they saw — Bedouin tribesmen, farmers, hospital workers, former military officers, police officers and city bureaucrats.

Eventually, by his account, Iraqis led him to four places where they said they thought that chemical weapons were hidden in underground bunkers or, in one case, under the Euphrates River.

"We were very excited," he recalled. "We could hardly wait to get back and do our reports."

An official of the investigating agency who was granted anonymity to discuss a former employee said Mr. Gaubatz was known as "a gung-ho, good agent."

When the sites identified to him were not searched, he said, he called the 75th Exploitation Task Force every other day, and later the Iraq Survey Group, pleading with whoever answered to send a team with heavy digging equipment.

He recalled: "They'd say, 'We're in a combat zone. We don't have the people or the equipment.' "

His informants grew angry. "They said, 'We risked our lives and our families to help you, and nothing's happened,' " Mr. Gaubatz recounted.

He was disillusioned.

"I didn't imagine it would be a battle to get them to search," he said. "One of the primary reasons for going into combat was the W.M.D."

( no, it was THE PRIMARY LIE justifying dickhead's war mania. )

Mr. Gaubatz came home in mid-July 2003, and settled in with his wife, Lorrie, a teacher, and their daughter, Miranda, 7. He continued to lobby for searches, but his Iraqi informers and Air Force colleagues have told him that there were no searches, he said.

At his two meetings last week with officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency — meetings that the agency confirms occurred but will not otherwise discuss — he reviewed satellite photographs of the supposed weapons sites with the officers.

"They're very interested," he said.

Yet, he added, "I'm still afraid they might not follow through."

He has revised his Web site to put the nation on notice. "My Web site will remain open," he wrote, "until the sites are searched."

[2centsworth]

( no, it was THE PRIMARY LIE justifying dickhead's war mania. )

clinton, kerry and the rest of the high ranking Dems thought there were WMDs too. Remember Operation Desert Fox?

[boutons_]

Only the WHIG had full access to the intelligene.

They cherry picked supporting evidence and suppressed any doubts about that evidence.

And so the fuck what if the some Dems believed there were WMDs? Do you think they had better and different WMD evidence that WHIG?

The point is that dickhead and neo-cons wanted this war NO MATTER WHAT, and the decision to go into Iraq was made before the 2000 election.

[fyatuk]

Only the WHIG had full access to the intelligene.

They cherry picked supporting evidence and suppressed any doubts about that evidence.

And so the fuck what if the some Dems believed there were WMDs? Do you think they had better and different WMD evidence that WHIG?

The point is that dickhead and neo-cons wanted this war NO MATTER WHAT, and the decision to go into Iraq was made before the 2000 election.

Not entirely true. The Senate intelligence committee (that Kerry is/was a part of) has full access to all data gathered by the various intelligence agencies, and in fact it is required they get the same briefings as the President. AKA those particular senators had the exact same information as Bush.

[2centsworth]

Only the WHIG had full access to the intelligene.

They cherry picked supporting evidence and suppressed any doubts about that evidence.

And so the fuck what if the some Dems believed there were WMDs? Do you think they had better and different WMD evidence that WHIG?

The point is that dickhead and neo-cons wanted this war NO MATTER WHAT, and the decision to go into Iraq was made before the 2000 election.
repeat Operation Desert Fox.

[SA210]

Senior US Intelligence Officials: No WMDs Found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/)
:lmao man, where is xray? :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

when did he say he was expecting a bump?Come on -- dude is grasping for traction in a lost reelection bid.
also, are we sure what they found is nothing?Well, it's not what we were supposed to be shitting our pants over, is it?

[jochhejaam]

What does it tell you about some people when the desire to spread democracy is labeled an evil plot devised by neocons?

What is to be said about people who are callling for a cessation in the war against terrorism (e.g., pulling out of Iraq), a war where a victory is not guaranteed even if we continue the battle?

If you think the reasoning for invading Iraq was faulty (admittedly our intellilgence agencies overstated the WMD aspect), fine, but there's a bigger picture that many seem to be missing here.

[SA210]

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet support war?

[Oh, Gee!!]

This thread needs a little Yonivore to "punch it up" a bit.

[Extra Stout]

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet support war?
Only a few sects of Christianity are strictly pacifistic; for example, the Quakers and Mennonites.

Most use the Augustinian just war theory as a guide.

IIRC, most sects asserted that the invasion of Iraq did not meet the requirements of just war theory. Most of those which claimed it did were conservative American evangelical denominations.

[2centsworth]

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet support war?
There are plenty of Wars in the bible. It's thou shall not murder, not kill.

[rascal]

Iraq didn't even have the capability of dropping a fire cracker over US air space.

[rascal]

There are plenty of Wars in the bible. It's thou shall not murder, not kill.
Wrong, Its thou shalt not kill. Murder is just a form of a kill. Or a type of killing.

[SA210]

There are plenty of Wars in the bible. It's thou shall not murder, not kill.

Wrong, Its thou shalt not kill. Murder is just a form of a kill. Or a type of killing.

And also,

In the bible,

God made war with the nations.

This was war by command. Nations were executed in righteous war by God, using the Isrealites. And the Last War will be the same.

Wars of today are Not made by God. We are NOT to start wars, finish them or be associated with them in anyway.

Simple, "You must not kill" . No exceptions. You can read I and II Kings and I and II Samuel to see the difference.

[rascal]

And also,

In the bible,

God made war with the nations.

This was war by command. Nations were executed in righteous war by God, using the Isrealites. And the Last War will be the same.

Wars of today are Not made by God. We are NOT to start wars, finish them or be associated with them in anyway.

Simple, "You must not kill" . No exceptions. You can read I and II Kings and I and II Samuel to see the difference.




Makes sense to me. Those who kill will have to face judgement on it in the end. You will be judged not only on your actions but on your heart and mind. No one will escape their true nature. So do not support the killing of others or you will have to answer to it.

[SA210]

Makes sense to me. Those who kill will have to face judgement on it in the end. You will be judged not only on your actions but on your heart and mind. No one will escape their true nature. So do not support the killing of others or you will have to answer to it.
For the 1st time on this forum, someone has agreed that this is true.

[smeagol]

All I want to know is: Where the fuck is xray?

[xrayzebra]

And also,

In the bible,

God made war with the nations.

This was war by command. Nations were executed in righteous war by God, using the Isrealites. And the Last War will be the same.

Wars of today are Not made by God. We are NOT to start wars, finish them or be associated with them in anyway.

Simple, "You must not kill" . No exceptions. You can read I and II Kings and I and II Samuel to see the difference.



I take it then we are not to defend ourselves. But be slaughtered like
sheep. Like the two young men were a few days ago.

[xrayzebra]

All I want to know is: Where the fuck is xray?


I be here. But not for long. Have a life other than this computer...LOL

[2centsworth]

Wrong, Its thou shalt not kill. Murder is just a form of a kill. Or a type of killing.
so when God commanded the Jews to Kill God violated his own commandment?

[Extra Stout]

Wrong, Its thou shalt not kill. Murder is just a form of a kill. Or a type of killing.
Technically, your understanding is incorrect. "Thou shalt not kill" is from the King James Bible. In the 17th century, "kill" connoted what we today call murder, and "put to death" connoted what we today call killing.

[Spurminator]

The original Hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments was "ratsah," which is better translated as "murder."

[Extra Stout]

And also,

In the bible,

God made war with the nations.

This was war by command. Nations were executed in righteous war by God, using the Isrealites. And the Last War will be the same.

Wars of today are Not made by God. We are NOT to start wars, finish them or be associated with them in anyway.

Simple, "You must not kill" . No exceptions. You can read I and II Kings and I and II Samuel to see the difference.


According to Romans 13, civil governments are meant to be God's ministers to execute wrath against evildoers, by "bearing the sword."

Lethal force, then, biblically is within the valid purview of the state.

From this and other passages comes the Augustinian doctrinal theory of just war.

[ChumpDumper]

XI. Thou shalt not pimp 30 year-old degraded mustard gas canisters when thou art 18 points behind in the polls.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Oh my. I think I have angered dimm-o-crap and dimm-o-craps in general. Did you
take your prozac today.

Why do you want to impeach Bush. Then you will have Chenney to contend with.
But you got Murtha, Reid, and Pelosi. The three muskateers. Oh, I forgot
Kennedy. The swimmer. And his son, who is now on his way to the House to vote.
Oh, yes, don't want to forget Kerry, the wounded Viet Nam veteran. Who lobbied
for North Viet Nam and is now working for Al Qaeda. Has he registered as a
representative for a foreign power?

You are such a grand bunch. I would call you a gay bunch, but then Barney would
get upset. Cause the queers have reserved that name for them. Of course they
aren't gay. They are miserable because they want to marry each other and the
normal people want let them. I know, I know that is not nice to say. I am
homophobic, it's a disease you know. So you must respect it and not make
fun. You dimm-o-craps taught me that.
You don't have a disease, you are litterally scum

[2centsworth]

You don't have a disease, you are litterally scum
Where's mouse when you need him?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

What does it tell you about some people when the desire to spread democracy is labeled an evil plot devised by neocons?

What is to be said about people who are callling for a cessation in the war against terrorism (e.g., pulling out of Iraq), a war where a victory is not guaranteed even if we continue the battle?

If you think the reasoning for invading Iraq was faulty (admittedly our intellilgence agencies overstated the WMD aspect), fine, but there's a bigger picture that many seem to be missing here.
You republicans really need to get your story straight. Did America go to war to protect itself from a terrorist attack? did it go to war because Iraq has a WMD program capable of posing an immediate threat to the US, or are you spreading democracy?? :lmao it seems the story changes to "fit the bill" doesn't it?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

XI. Thou shalt not pimp 30 year-old degraded mustard gas canisters when thou art 18 points behind in the polls.
:lmao :lmao :lmao!

[DarkReign]

Just.
Stop.
The.
WMD.
Bullshit.

Jesus-fucking-Christ! Thats not why we went in, ok? That may be what the President and Co. said, but it wasnt true then and it certainly isnt now.

Real reason? I have no idea, but I am sure we all have our opinions. I bet there is no sole, penultimate reason. I believe it was multi-faceted gains with minimal loss.

1. Revenge for Daddy - Dont doubt the power of family honor.
2. Unfinished business - Wrapping up a situation that should have been 15 years ago.
3. Oil - Dont know how, dont care about specifics. Fact is, Iraq's borders contain one of the largest oil deposits in all the world.
4. Benefit campaign supporters - what better way to reward former companies you personally held stock in than to destroy large portions of a country ($$ for arms makers) and then turn around and hand out the rebuilding contracts to your pargest campaign donors (Haliburton, etc). Reeeeeal coincidence.

Bla, bla, bla...the list goes on.

[scott]

What does it tell you about some people when the desire to spread democracy is labeled an evil plot devised by neocons?

What is to be said about people who are callling for a cessation in the war against terrorism (e.g., pulling out of Iraq), a war where a victory is not guaranteed even if we continue the battle?

If you think the reasoning for invading Iraq was faulty (admittedly our intellilgence agencies overstated the WMD aspect), fine, but there's a bigger picture that many seem to be missing here.

What does it tell you about some people when they use transparent rhetoric and non-sequiturs to accuse dissenters of being "un-American"?

[2centsworth]

What does it tell you about some people when they use transparent rhetoric and non-sequiturs to accuse dissenters of being "un-American"?
some of them are unamerican.

[2centsworth]

Just.
Stop.
The.
WMD.
Bullshit.

Jesus-fucking-Christ! Thats not why we went in, ok? That may be what the President and Co. said, but it wasnt true then and it certainly isnt now.

Real reason? I have no idea, but I am sure we all have our opinions. I bet there is no sole, penultimate reason. I believe it was multi-faceted gains with minimal loss.

1. Revenge for Daddy - Dont doubt the power of family honor.
2. Unfinished business - Wrapping up a situation that should have been 15 years ago.
3. Oil - Dont know how, dont care about specifics. Fact is, Iraq's borders contain one of the largest oil deposits in all the world.
4. Benefit campaign supporters - what better way to reward former companies you personally held stock in than to destroy large portions of a country ($$ for arms makers) and then turn around and hand out the rebuilding contracts to your pargest campaign donors (Haliburton, etc). Reeeeeal coincidence.

Bla, bla, bla...the list goes on.

This link is just for you.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/

[ChumpDumper]

Why would limited airstrikes five years before an invasion and occupation be relevant?

Had Clinton changed the regime and stayed in Iraq for three years, maybe the comparison could be drawn, but there's no telling what changed between 98 and 03, if anything.

[rascal]

slaughtered like....Jesus?
Exactly. The ways of man are not the ways of God. If someone wants to kill you, you should not kill in defense. That is what you should do but it is very difficult to do.

I'm sure I would fight an attacker back because I am weak (contradictory isn't it, because most would think your weak if you don't fight back ) but that is not what I should do. these are the teachings of Jesus. And don't get me wrong I am not a bible touting preacher, don't even read the bible at all but I have heard the major messages from it and have done much thinking on it and developed my own theories on what seems most logical to me.


Hard to understand but again the ways of man are not the ways of God. Jesus was an example of how you should react and he was killed. Don't you think Jesus could have destroyed the entire Roman army if he wanted to?

It all doesn't matter anyways. Living or dying that is because in the end we all die. Life is short for all when compared to eternity and nobody will get away with anything in the end. Its all kind of a test. Justice will be served for everyone. Nobody gets away with anything. Somehow everything is being recorded and will be played back on judgement. There is no denying anything.

If someone kills another, the one who kills will have to face up to it. I don't know what will happen but I'm sure he will be more than sorry when confronted with his deed.

Its going to be great that everything will be fair and just because life on Earth is not fair.

We now know life on earth is real because we are on this side of death and experiencing life but reality also exsists after death. death is, just a transistion into another dimension which is beyond 3d. The body can't go there, it is trapped in a 3rd dimensional world. Upon death separation happens and another dimension is entered. You may say this is all far fetched but I say there is too much balance and order in the world for it all to happen by just chance. That makes no sense at all to me. There is much beyond our known 3rd dimensional world.

[Gerryatrics]

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet support war?

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet conveniently forget some of Christianity's most basic tenets, such as: "Judge not lest you be judged"; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?" and so on and so forth...?

For such a good Christian, you seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone else what bad Christians they are.

[SA210]

What is to be said about people who claim to be Christian, but yet conveniently forget some of Christianity's most basic tenets, such as: "Judge not lest you be judged"; "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"; "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?" and so on and so forth...?

For such a good Christian, you seem to spend a lot of time telling everyone else what bad Christians they are.
It's actually a question I've been asking, because I have seen many throw around the Christian title and religion and God and "Republicans are Christians" and so on, and at the same time, they support war, the death penalty, not helping the poor, ongoing lies, etc.

So I posed a question that either gets purposely ignored or someone makes up an excuse and pretends as if war is actually ok for Christians to support.

Nice try judging me though.

I see you completely avoided the fact that so many so called Christians support war when Jesus clearly tells us to turn the other cheek.

Nice try though, but it doesn't make war ok in anyway to Jesus.

[Gerryatrics]

Where did I judge you in the post? All I did, which you seem to like to avoid, is post Scriptures.

I don't believe Jesus' message of "turning the other cheek" equates to there being absolutely no justification for war. A back-handed slap to the face was an act of shaming, not of aggression. Furthermore, turning the other cheek to someone who struck you meant they either had to use their "unclean" (left) hand to strike you again, or punch you, treating you as an equal and someone worthy of respect (which defeats the whole purpose).

And I think either you missed or purposely ignore Extra_Stout's quote. How do you respond to:



1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

[xrayzebra]

It's actually a question I've been asking, because I have seen many throw around the Christian title and religion and God and "Republicans are Christians" and so on, and at the same time, they support war, the death penalty, not helping the poor, ongoing lies, etc.

Well in first place, I don't recall anyone saying "Republicans are Christians",
which I think you imply they claim to be the only "Christians".

We don't support war. No one supports war, as you term it. No Republican
or any-other American that I know of wanted a war. If I remember correctly
on 9/11 the only war we were engaged in was in Bosnia. One Bill Clinton
started or got us involved in, and where are still today.

I support the death penalty. Many Republicans and others do not, you
among them. I support it because once dead, killers cannot do it again.
Kill people. It has been proven time and time again that killers do kill
again when released from prison, which they all are. Because some feel
it is unfair to keep them there.

You always bring up the so called fact, Republicans don't want to help
the poor. No one wants to put poor people in jail. No one wants to see
people starve. But people do object to the fact that people stay on
welfare for many years and their off springs go on to the same system.
Welfare has broken up more families and contributed to the breakup of
the black community more than anything else. Those are facts as
stated by some well educated, knowledgeable people. I have stated,
and state again. There is nothing wrong with giving someone a helping
hand. There is nothing wrong with helping the sick, disabled and others
that are unable to earn a decent living. But, people like you, who want
to keep their hands in everyones hip pocket are a little irritating.
Want a shock, go around the neighborhood and tell everyone that you
want their money so you can give it away to who you see fit. They will
tell you to go back home and leave them alone. But the government
does this all the time. Except they take it, whether you can afford it
or not, and give it to those they see fit. See the picture. And you
cheer them on.

Now about lies. My goodness, how many people do you need to tell
you that Bush was not the only one saying there was WMD in Iraq.
He didn't cherry pick, as you folks are so fond of saying. Clinton,
Kerry, Reid the whole bunch on your side said the same. Russian said
the same. France said the same, Germany said the same, England said
the same. WMD has been found. Much of what he had has not been
found, where did it go. Good fairy haul it off? For goodness sakes, he
used it....remember!

Ties to Al Qaeda have been shown with Iraq.

None of this you will accept. But that is because you, who claim to be
such a Christian, show your hate in so many ways for those you disagree
with.

You claim to be a man. Well grow up and act like one.

[fyatuk]

I support the death penalty. Many Republicans and others do not, you
among them. I support it because once dead, killers cannot do it again.
Kill people. It has been proven time and time again that killers do kill
again when released from prison, which they all are. Because some feel
it is unfair to keep them there.


Actually, murderers are the least likely to be repeat offenders according to just about every study I've seen. Rapists being the most likely.

The death penalty should not be applied to first time offenders. Everyone deserves a second chance, and there's always the chance of someone being convicted wrongly. Requiring a repeat offense shows they cannot function properly in society and it's highly unlikely someone would be wrongly convicted twice.

But that's just my opinion.


Ties to Al Qaeda have been shown with Iraq.


Not really. It was shown there was some communication between Al Qaeda and Saddam, mostly Al Qaeda asking to set up bases in Iraq and Saddam saying no. There is no solid, reliable evidence that Saddam ever collaborated with Al Qaeda.

There is concrete proof that Saddam did support some terrorist groups, but not Al Qaeda.

[xrayzebra]

Does the victim get a second chance? In some instances, like a fit of passion or
anger, the person may be given a second change. Because they cant be given
the death sentence. Very strict guidelines on the death sentence.

In most cases of robbery where death occurs or rape, the killing is done in cold
blood.

But we can agree to disagree. That's life.

And do you really think they just talked about bases being sit up. I don't think
so. And bases were sit up by the way.

[fyatuk]

Does the victim get a second chance? In some instances, like a fit of passion or
anger, the person may be given a second change. Because they cant be given
the death sentence. Very strict guidelines on the death sentence.

In most cases of robbery where death occurs or rape, the killing is done in cold
blood.

But we can agree to disagree. That's life.

The fact remains that murders have the lowest risk of repeat offense. You're claim of it being shown "time and again" that they will kill again was a false statement.

We can agree to disagree on when the death penalty should be applied, but that claim was just flat out wrong.


And do you really think they just talked about bases being sit up. I don't think
so. And bases were sit up by the way.


Uhh. Saddam and al-Qaeda had diametrically opposed beliefs and agendas. Saddam did not like al-Qaeda because it was a danger to his power structure. The only thing they had in common was a hatred of the US.

And bases were set up. They were not al-Qaeda bases. Saddam allowed training and preparation of suicide bombers and such in Iraq, possibly including some al-Qaeda people (if so, not on a large scale). Mostly it was for Syrian and Palestine based terrorist groups looking to strike Israel.

There is no evidence supporting a real connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. If you believe there was one, than that is your belief. There is no evidence to support your belief.

[rascal]

xrayzebra is getting schooled by fyatuk.

[smeagol]

You need proof of WMDs. You need further proof of ties to AQ.

Fuck, by your standards, there are more reasons to go to war with Iran or NK, that with Iraq.

The US was willing to go to war, pulling the trigger way before necessary. Other countries weren't.

[rascal]

You need proof of WMDs. You need further proof of ties to AQ.

Fuck, by your standards, there are more reasons to go to war with Iran or NK, that with Iraq.

The US was willing to go to war, pulling the trigger way before necessary. Other countries weren't.

Agree with smeagol. The rest of the world agrees with this but the stubborn backing Republican crowd doesn't see it that way. And they have the arrogance to say they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

[2centsworth]

You need proof of WMDs. You need further proof of ties to AQ.

Fuck, by your standards, there are more reasons to go to war with Iran or NK, that with Iraq.

The US was willing to go to war, pulling the trigger way before necessary. Other countries weren't.
there is some truth to what you're saying. However, US intelligence determined Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Iraq used those weapons on their own people in the past. The US already went to war and both countries agreed to a cease fire agreement which Iraq violated numerous times.

I agreed with going to War because both Political Parties, Bill Clinton, and then Colin Powell said the same exact thing.

Could the war have gone better, yes. Could Bush do a better job of explaining his position, maybe not because he's inarticulate.

I respect people who disagree and have a well thought out rebuttal to the facts, but the Bush Lied response is ignorant.

[fyatuk]

there is some truth to what you're saying. However, US intelligence determined Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Iraq used those weapons on their own people in the past. The US already went to war and both countries agreed to a cease fire agreement which Iraq violated numerous times.

I agreed with going to War because both Political Parties, Bill Clinton, and then Colin Powell said the same exact thing.


Don't forget just about every other country also believed he had WMD's, etc. With what was available at the time, plus historical data, the decision to go to war was certainly understandable.

My only problem with the war was the timing of it. Committing all those resources to Iraq undermined a lot of what we were trying to do in Afghanistan. I think we should at least have waited until after Afghanistan had ratified a constitution and elected a government, before moving on Iraq.

That would have also had the effect of letting the inspectors do their work and letting Saddam dig himself a deeper hole since it was obvious he was still playing with inspectors. The inspectors themselves said they thought he was hiding something. In so many ways, delaying the ouster for a year would have been so much better. And I thought that before the invasion, so its not a hindsight thing.


I respect people who disagree and have a well thought out rebuttal to the facts, but the Bush Lied response is ignorant.

Yeah, the Bush lied response is idiotic.

[SA210]

Well in first place, I don't recall anyone saying "Republicans are Christians",
which I think you imply they claim to be the only "Christians".

We don't support war. No one supports war, as you term it. No Republican
or any-other American that I know of wanted a war.
This is not true. Do you support this war going on right now? Yes or no?


I support the death penalty. Many Republicans and others do not, you
among them. I support it because once dead, killers cannot do it again.
Kill people. It has been proven time and time again that killers do kill
again when released from prison, which they all are. Because some feel
it is unfair to keep them there.
The Bible says, "Do not Kill" and "Vengeance is mine".


You always bring up the so called fact, Republicans don't want to help
the poor. No one wants to put poor people in jail. No one wants to see
people starve. But people do object to the fact that people stay on
welfare for many years and their off springs go on to the same system.
Welfare has broken up more families and contributed to the breakup of
the black community more than anything else. Those are facts as
stated by some well educated, knowledgeable people. I have stated,
and state again. There is nothing wrong with giving someone a helping
hand. There is nothing wrong with helping the sick, disabled and others
that are unable to earn a decent living. But, people like you, who want
to keep their hands in everyones hip pocket are a little irritating.
Want a shock, go around the neighborhood and tell everyone that you
want their money so you can give it away to who you see fit. They will
tell you to go back home and leave them alone. But the government
does this all the time. Except they take it, whether you can afford it
or not, and give it to those they see fit. See the picture. And you
cheer them on.
You have been known to have a hateful attitude towards the poor in the past, and that's what I'm talking about. Just because you disagree and dislike certain people that may take advantage of the system, that shouldn't mean that we forget about the ones that really need help.

You can say that there is nothing wrong with helping some, but your views and posts that we have come to know show us how you really feel about it.


Now about lies. My goodness, how many people do you need to tell
you that Bush was not the only one saying there was WMD in Iraq.
He didn't cherry pick, as you folks are so fond of saying. Clinton,
Kerry, Reid the whole bunch on your side said the same. Russian said
the same. France said the same, Germany said the same, England said
the same. WMD has been found. Much of what he had has not been
found, where did it go. Good fairy haul it off? For goodness sakes, he
used it....remember!

Ties to Al Qaeda have been shown with Iraq.

None of this you will accept. But that is because you, who claim to be
such a Christian, show your hate in so many ways for those you disagree
with.

You claim to be a man. Well grow up and act like one.
Yes lies. I don't know if I want to list all the lies, that would take alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll day long.

[xrayzebra]

^^My goodness, your hate is really showing. As well as you being judgemental.
No one is allowed to disagree with any aspect of your thought process. Post
to yourself. I have no time for you. I have lost my patience with you completely.

[ChumpDumper]

there is some truth to what you're saying. However, US intelligence determined Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. Iraq used those weapons on their own people in the past. The US already went to war and both countries agreed to a cease fire agreement which Iraq violated numerous times.Yes, Iraq had a chance to use WMDs on US forces -- and didn't. Twice. And the terms of the cease-fire and no-fly zones meant Saddam really couldn't do shit anyway
I agreed with going to War because both Political Parties, Bill Clinton, and then Colin Powell said the same exact thing.I never heard Clinton say invade and occupy Iraq, and Powell had a much different strategy for Iraq than was actually followed. I still wouldn't have considered it a great idea to invade, but I would've preferred Powell's plan to this halfassed crap we've done for the past three years which will end up costing more in American lives and money.
I respect people who disagree and have a well thought out rebuttal to the facts, but the Bush Lied response is ignorant.I really do believe that Bush was only presented evidence that backed his initial wish to get rid of Saddam. He surrounded himself with and trusted precisely the wrong people.

[boutons_]

"his initial wish to get rid of Saddam"

If that's what dubya wanted, why didn't he just say "I wanted to get rid of Saddam (bcause my Poppie didn't)" rather than all the bullshit lies the WHIG heaped on world?

As President of the US, dubya has to be more shrewd, sophisticated, circumspect about the people his delegates decisions to, rather than believe the isolated echo chamber of yes-men he chose to live in. Does anybody really think dubya "proscecuted" the justifications for the Repug war as if they were false, forccing people to overcome his objections, until he was sure beyond any reasonable doubt about the justifications? Looking into Putin's or Maliki's eyes and trusitng your gut is one thing, but that's horribly insufficient when choosing to start an war. dubya is ignorant fucking tool owned by dickhead.

dubya failed miserably as chief executive by starting a war with lies.