A question for Yoni about WMDs

[ChumpDumper]

Yoni told me to start my own thread, so here goes.

Yoni, can you give me a list of the WMDs the Bush administration has said they have found in Iraq in the past five years?

Thanks!

[Yonivore]

Good boy! Now, roll over.

[ChumpDumper]

Is that your answer? I was just clarifying why I started a seperate thread for something I had already brought up and you refused to answer.

[clambake]

Why would anyone continue to defend a lie that the liar has already acknowledged?

Is there some erotic connection?

[sabar]

Seriously. They already admitted there were no WMDs. How is this even a point of debate is beyond me.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm waiting for verification from Yoni, thanks.

[sabar]

I think that blank space beneath his post WAS his list.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Come on guys Yoni posts cartoon pictures now to 'nail points'.

[xrayzebra]

Well, Let me give you this little editorial, along with a history
lesson. Ready>

Investor's Business Daily



The Dems' Do-Over

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 2/23/2007

Leadership: Democrats now want to take back their votes in support of the 2002 resolution approving the war in Iraq. Like schoolchildren, they seem to think they can have a "do-over." They'd better grow up.

Democrats voted for the war in Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002, and helped to build strong margins of victory in both the Senate and the House. And no, they weren't "duped" into it by a deceitful White House.

Nor was their collective decision based narrowly on the idea that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as some now maintain. The Iraq War Resolution that was passed lists no fewer than 23 reasons for going to war with Hussein.

Now, here's Friday's headline in the Washington Post: "Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization." In what the Post calls "an unofficial war council," a number of senators are drafting a new law to require, among other things, withdrawal of combat troops by April 2008, with only a small remnant left to help with "training, border security and counterterrorism."

Another, even worse idea would force an immediate troop withdrawal, with remaining troops allowed only to fight al-Qaida.

Imagine that — a U.S. soldier is fired on, and he'll have to ask for the terrorist's al-Qaida membership card before he can fire back.

By the way, four of the seven senators who took part in this defeatist exercise — Joe Biden, Majority Leader Harry Reid, John Kerry and Charles Schumer — voted "yea" in 2002. Now, as the war's support weakens, the senators say they're against it. Sorry, but four years into a war, you can't just "repeal" your responsibility for it.

As we've said before, whatever else you might think of the Democrats in Congress, they're completely untrustworthy on national security. That's why Sen. Joseph Lieberman might join the GOP.

In approving war in 2002, Democrats had the same intelligence President Bush had — the same that intelligence agencies around the world virtually unanimously believed. It said this: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and planned to make more.

He did have WMD, though not in the numbers we feared (U.S. troops found several hundred canisters, mostly with mustard and nerve gas). And he did plan to make more, as the CIA's Duelfer Report — often cited by Democrats — noted.

Securing Iraq and ending the factional terrorism that has riven its population has been a tough task. As the war's popularity wanes, Democrats have desperately sought to absolve themselves of responsibility for what they did.

The Senate's "unofficial war council," as such, is only a symptom of a far more serious disease: the Democrats' surrender to the far left that now controls the party's agenda.

Look at Rep. John Murtha's proposal for a "slow bleed" of our troops. Or the House's failed vote a week and a half ago, pushed by Democrats, to halt Bush's "troop surge." Do they care if we win?

The Democrats' official policy now seems to be failure at any cost.

Just like a coyote gnawing its foot off to escape a trap, Democrats think they can simply revote on their original Iraq War resolution and — presto! — they're free, and it's all George Bush's fault.

They can't. Americans aren't stupid. Nor are they children. In life, there are no do-overs. Only responsibility.







© Investor's Business Daily, Inc. 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or redistribution is prohibited without prior authorized permission from Investor's Business Daily. For information on reprints, webprints, permissions or back issue orders, go to www.investors.com/terms/reprints.asp.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, Let me give you this little editorial, along with a history
lesson. Ready>

Investor's Business Daily



The Dems' Do-Over

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 2/23/2007

Leadership: Democrats now want to take back their votes in support of the 2002 resolution approving the war in Iraq. Like schoolchildren, they seem to think they can have a "do-over." They'd better grow up.

Democrats voted for the war in Iraq on Oct. 11, 2002, and helped to build strong margins of victory in both the Senate and the House. And no, they weren't "duped" into it by a deceitful White House.

Nor was their collective decision based narrowly on the idea that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, as some now maintain. The Iraq War Resolution that was passed lists no fewer than 23 reasons for going to war with Hussein.

Now, here's Friday's headline in the Washington Post: "Democrats Seek to Repeal 2002 War Authorization." In what the Post calls "an unofficial war council," a number of senators are drafting a new law to require, among other things, withdrawal of combat troops by April 2008, with only a small remnant left to help with "training, border security and counterterrorism."

Another, even worse idea would force an immediate troop withdrawal, with remaining troops allowed only to fight al-Qaida.

Imagine that — a U.S. soldier is fired on, and he'll have to ask for the terrorist's al-Qaida membership card before he can fire back.

By the way, four of the seven senators who took part in this defeatist exercise — Joe Biden, Majority Leader Harry Reid, John Kerry and Charles Schumer — voted "yea" in 2002. Now, as the war's support weakens, the senators say they're against it. Sorry, but four years into a war, you can't just "repeal" your responsibility for it.

As we've said before, whatever else you might think of the Democrats in Congress, they're completely untrustworthy on national security. That's why Sen. Joseph Lieberman might join the GOP.

In approving war in 2002, Democrats had the same intelligence President Bush had — the same that intelligence agencies around the world virtually unanimously believed. It said this: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and planned to make more.

He did have WMD, though not in the numbers we feared (U.S. troops found several hundred canisters, mostly with mustard and nerve gas). And he did plan to make more, as the CIA's Duelfer Report — often cited by Democrats — noted.

Securing Iraq and ending the factional terrorism that has riven its population has been a tough task. As the war's popularity wanes, Democrats have desperately sought to absolve themselves of responsibility for what they did.

The Senate's "unofficial war council," as such, is only a symptom of a far more serious disease: the Democrats' surrender to the far left that now controls the party's agenda.

Look at Rep. John Murtha's proposal for a "slow bleed" of our troops. Or the House's failed vote a week and a half ago, pushed by Democrats, to halt Bush's "troop surge." Do they care if we win?

The Democrats' official policy now seems to be failure at any cost.

Just like a coyote gnawing its foot off to escape a trap, Democrats think they can simply revote on their original Iraq War resolution and — presto! — they're free, and it's all George Bush's fault.

They can't. Americans aren't stupid. Nor are they children. In life, there are no do-overs. Only responsibility.







© Investor's Business Daily, Inc. 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or redistribution is prohibited without prior authorized permission from Investor's Business Daily. For information on reprints, webprints, permissions or back issue orders, go to www.investors.com/terms/reprints.asp.


So then ray why did Bush intel that was not clear in the lead up to the war? I'll give you an example. Please respond to the question Ray.

How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence
By DAVID BARSTOW, WILLIAM J. BROAD and JEFF GERTH


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

Those tubes became a critical exhibit in the administration's brief against Iraq. As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of Mr. Hussein's revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers. The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

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

The White House, though, embraced the disputed theory that the tubes were for nuclear centrifuges, an idea first championed in April 2001 by a junior analyst at the C.I.A. Senior nuclear scientists considered that notion implausible, yet in the months after 9/11, as the administration built a case for confronting Iraq, the centrifuge theory gained currency as it rose to the top of the government.

Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists, an examination by The New York Times has found. They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of nuclear experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.


The tubes were made from 7075-T6 aluminum, an extremely hard alloy that made them potentially suitable as rotors in a uranium centrifuge. Properly designed, such tubes are strong enough to spin at the terrific speeds needed to convert uranium gas into enriched uranium, an essential ingredient of an atomic bomb. For this reason, international rules prohibited Iraq from importing certain sizes of 7075-T6 aluminum tubes; it was also why a new C.I.A. analyst named Joe quickly sounded the alarm.

So please ray explain how the "Dems and the American people" had the same intel as the President had again? Oh wait they didn't but what the hell ray you'll believe anything Bush teslls you.

I know your talk radio talking points will have you respond that wmds was not the only reason we went to war and the case was strong..well then why use intel you know is not verifiable? maybe the case wasn't so strong so they had to use whatever they got their hands on?

[xrayzebra]

One more little article for you enlightenment. Actually a very
good test for everyone in many areas. Try it, like Mikie, you may
like it.


Return to the Article

February 17, 2007
The Barack Obama Test
By Randall Hoven

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact."
- Senator Barak Obama in his memoir The Audacity of Hope.

As conservatives head into the 2008 presidential election cycle, they might consider brushing up on their facts to catch up with the "arguments" of liberals. I have prepared a short test to help benighted conservatives gauge their ignorance.

Try answering the 10 questions below, then I will reveal the actual answers and help you evaluate your fitness to cast an informed (by facts) vote in 2008.

The Test

1. In 2005, the U.S. federal government spent $581 billion on Health and Human Services and $560 billion on Social Security Administration, for a combined total over $1.1 trillion. How much did the United States spend on Defense-Military?

(a) $2.744 trillion
(b) $1.474 trillion
(c) $744 billion
(d) $474 billion

2. In 2001, public spending per capita on health in the United Kingdom, Canada and France was $1,518, $1,531 and $1,599, respectively. How much was public spending per capita on health in the United States?

(a) $168
(b) $682
(c) $1,286
(d) $2,168

3. In 2003 in the U.S., those making $200,000 or more (Adjusted Gross Income, or AGI) made up less than 2% of all federal income tax returns, yet they accounted for almost 22% of all income (AGI) reported to the IRS. What fraction of all federal income tax dollars came from those who made $200,000 or more in 2003?

(a) 2%
(b) 12%
(c) 22%
(d) 42%

4. While 140 countries have signed the Kyoto Treaty to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S. refuses to do so. From 1994 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of fossil fuels increased by 19.4% in Canada, 26.4% in Greece, 42.9% in Norway, and 68.4% in China. How much did carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of fossil fuels increase in the U.S. from 1994 to 2004?

(a) 129%
(b) 92.1%
(c) 29.1%
(d) 12.9%

5. In 2004 in the U.S., just three years after the 911 attacks, there were 1,013 anti-Jewish hate crime offenses. How many anti-Islamic hate crime offenses were there?

(a) 100,094
(b) 10,094
(c) 1,094
(d) 194

6. In 2004 in the U.S., the cumulative total of men who had AIDS due to sexual contact with other men was 402,722. How many men had AIDS due to sexual contact with women?

(a) 43,347,000
(b) 4,334,700
(c) 433,470
(d) 43,347

7. In 2004 in the U.S., it was not known whether a weapon was present in 5.2% of the cases of rape and sexual assault. A non-firearm weapon was known to be present in 7.9% of the cases. How often was a firearm known to be present in rapes and sexual assaults?

(a) 80%
(b) 40%
(c) 20%
(d) 0%

8. The CIA's "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD" by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), also known as the "Duelfer Report", is the authority commonly cited to debunk the threat of WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq in 2003. Which of the following statements was taken from the Duelfer Report?

(a) "we cannot express a firm view on the possibility that WMD elements were relocated out of Iraq prior to the war"
(b) "ISG technical experts fully evaluated less than one quarter of one percent of the over 10,000 weapons caches throughout Iraq"
(c) "Iraq could have re-established an elementary BW [biological warfare] program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so"
(d) All of the above.

9. In 2003 in the U.S., the number of pedestrians killed in motor vehicle accidents was 5,991. How many motorcycle riders were killed?

(a) 36,076
(b) 7,663
(c) 6,736
(d) 3,676

10. The intelligence of President George W. Bush is often ridiculed, especially on late-night comedy shows. What fraction of the general population is less intelligent than President Bush?

(a) 25%
(b) 50%
(c) 75%
(d) 95%

The Answers

The correct answer to every question was (d). The answers to the first seven questions can be found in The Statistical Abstract of the U.S. Specific tables from that source, and other sources, are cited in the discussion below.

1. The U.S. federal government spent $474 billion on Defense-Military in 2005, well less than either Health and Human Services or Social Security (Table 461). In fact, it was less than 20% of all federal outlays and just 3.8% of GDP. These are historically low numbers and unprecedented for wartime.

2. Despite the U.S. health care system often being described as a "free market", the U.S. spends more in public dollars per capita than almost all other countries, including Canada and the U.K. In fact, only Norway spends more (Table 1318). Note that these are public dollars, meaning government spending. Total public and private spending on health care in the U.S. is about double that, or about 16% of GDP.

3. Households with AGI of $200,000 paid over 42% of all federal income taxes, despite making up less than 2% of all returns and just 22% of all reported income (Table 474). In fact, the average tax rate for those making $500,000 or more was 25%, while it was only 7% for those making between $30,000 and $40,000, or near median incomes. That means the richest tax payers pay more than triple the rate of the middle class. And this is well after the Republican tax cuts took effect.

4. Between 1994 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. increased by 12.9%, the same increase as that of France and a smaller increase than that of Canada, Greece, Norway, and China. In fact, U.S. emissions grew at a slower rate than the emissions from 143 of 213 countries (67%), including Cuba, Venezuela and Iran. Moreover, North America is actually a carbon dioxide sink, meaning it absorbs more than it produces.

5. In 2004 in the U.S., just three years after the 911 attacks, there were 194 anti-Islamic hate crime offenses, about one fifth as many as anti-Jewish offenses, and only about 2% of all hate crime offenses (Table 308). In fact, anti-Jewish offenses constituted over two thirds of all anti-religion hate crime offenses, despite both the small numbers of Jews in the country and the much-feared "Muslim backlash" (meaning backlash of non-Muslims against Muslims) that appears ever more phantasmagorical.

6. In 2004 in the U.S. there was a cumulative total of 43,347 men who had AIDS due to sexual contact with women, or about a tenth as many as those who had it from sexual contact with other men (Table 177). However, since heterosexual men outnumber gay men by a factor of 10 to 100, gay men (herein meaning men who have sex with men) are 100 to 1,000 times more likely than heterosexual men to get AIDS from sexual contact.

7. In 2004 in the U.S., no firearm was known to be present in any rape or sexual assault - zero, despite some other type of weapon being present in about 8% of such crimes (Table 315).

8. The Duelfer Report admitted that dozens of chemical weapons actually were found [later determined to be more than 500], that the ISG did not search much of Iraq, that its sources were not reliable, that most suspected WMD sites had been looted or destroyed, that WMD could very well have been taken out of the country, that WMD programs could have been reconstituted and WMD produced quickly, and that Saddam Hussein intended to do exactly that shortly after he bribed enough countries using the "oil for food" program to drop the sanctions and inspection regime. Does that sound like "no threat" or "no evidence" to you?

9. More pedestrians than motorcycle riders were killed in motor vehicle accidents in 2003 - in fact, 63% more, according to the National Safety Council. Of the 44,757 deaths due to motor vehicle accidents, only 3,676 (8%) were motorcycle riders. Should pedestrians be forced to wear helmets, as are motorcycle riders in many states? Why not drivers and passengers in cars and trucks, for that matter?

10. George W. Bush's SAT score of 1206 has been widely reported. The SAT score (if taken prior to 1995) can be used to estimate IQ, to compare to the general population, and to compare to occupational averages and popular figures in history. Using such estimates, President Bush's IQ is between 125 and 130 which ranks him as more intelligent than over 95% of the population, more intelligent than most college professors and medical doctors, and similar to Abraham Lincoln, Rousseau and Thackeray (comparative IQs of 128).

Evaluation

You might be a liberal if you think

* We spend more on defense than we do on health care and other human services.
* Our health care system is worse than other developed countries because the free market has failed and our government doesn't spend enough on health.
* The rich pay less in taxes than the poor.
* The U.S. is one of the worst offenders in producing global warming gases, and keeps on polluting while other countries are cutting back.
* The biggest problem with Islamic terrorism is the resulting backlash against Muslims.
* AIDS affects everyone equally, gay and straight.
* We have high rates of rapes and sexual assault because of the availability of guns.
* There was no good reason to invade Iraq in 2003, certainly not the threat of WMD.
* More lives would be saved by making helmets mandatory for motorcycle riders than would be saved by making them mandatory for pedestrians or car drivers and passengers.
* President Bush is stupid.

Unfortunately, you'd be wrong on every point listed above, based on facts.

The test and list above were not meant to be comprehensive, merely illustrative. To list liberal beliefs that can be countered by reason and facts would be a task akin to counting grains of sand on a beach - beyond the scope of this article. Perhaps it will be attempted by a cloister of monks in the next century.

Randall Hoven lives and rides his motorcycle in Illinois, the great state of Barak Obama.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/the_barack_obama_test.html at February 26, 2007 - 09:46:59 AM EST

Oh, my. Do you want more? I am sure I can dig some up for
you.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So ray answer my question. Why did the Bush not tell anyone that the 'lone peice of evidence' of Iraq trying to reconstitue their nuclear program was refuted by our own scientists? Hello?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm waiting ray... please caveat your way out bush seeing the 'same intel Congress did'..

[xrayzebra]

You have a real reading comprehension problem, don't you. Why
don't you address my postings about WMD in general not put
up another argument about nuclear weapons.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You have a real reading comprehension problem, don't you. Why
don't you address my postings about WMD in general not put
up another argument about nuclear weapons.


I apologize I was confused by the mushroom cloud reference our Sec. Of state used to justify the Iraq war. I guess the American people should just let her and the administration slide for MISLEADING THE CASE FOR IRAQ"S NUCLEAR PROGRAM!

From the same article ray


The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

But at the start of the Bush administration, the intelligence agencies also agreed that Iraq had not in fact resumed its nuclear weapons program. Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, they concluded, had been dismantled by sanctions and inspections. In short, Mr. Hussein's nuclear ambitions appeared to have been contained.

Then Iraq started shopping for tubes.

[boutons_]

The WH knew the African yellowcake "evidence" was bullshit, but they didn't want Wilson putting that word out, so they tried to destroy Wilson.

The WH knew the "mobile bio-weapons lab" was bullshit, but they let Powell run with that lie to the UN, since Rummy and dickhead were more interested in getting rid of "peace-nik" Powell than NatSec and the welfare of the milityar. Now that the truth about Powell's lie that was used to win the UN vote, the UN should nullify the vote.

Long after the Saddam-al-Quaida link was discredited (it remains so), dickhead kept repeating that lie.


DUBYA and DICKHEAD LIED

IMPEACH DUBYA and DICKHEAD

23 MORE MONTHS ...

[xrayzebra]

But since you insist Bush mis-lead Congress I point you to an
article that states:

"On 6 October 2002, the CIA elaborated on why the sentence should be removed: (56)

The evidence is weak ...The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory ... and we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

The link to the whole article is:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger.htm

Enjoy.

[xrayzebra]

The WH knew the African yellowcake "evidence" was bullshit, but they didn't want Wilson putting that word out, so they tried to destroy Wilson.

The WH knew the "mobile bio-weapons lab" was bullshit, but they let Powell run with that lie to the UN, since Rummy and dickhead were more interesting in getting rid of "peace-nik" Powell than NatSec. Now that the truth about Powell's lie that was used to win the UN vote, the UN should nullify the vote.

Long after the Saddam-al-Quaida link was discredited (it remains so), dickhead kept repeating that lie.


DUBYA and DICKHEAD LIED

IMPEACH DUBYA and DICKHEAD

23 MORE MONTHS ...




And you are a real piece of work. Give you the facts
and you still put out you left wing crap.

[George Gervin's Afro]

But since you insist Bush mis-lead Congress I point you to an
article that states:

"On 6 October 2002, the CIA elaborated on why the sentence should be removed: (56)

The evidence is weak ...The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory ... and we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them the Africa story is overblown and telling them this one of the two issues where we differed with the British."

The link to the whole article is:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger.htm

Enjoy.


Nice article ray but what about the lone piece of evidence the administration used to sell the American people the need to go to war. You know the one that proclaimed that a 'mushroom cloud' could arise if we didn't rush into Iraq.. please elaborate. You seem to think this is not that big of an issue but when it comes to justifying a war I would assume that all sides of an issue would need to be vetted in order to make a sound decision. Let me guess ray if a prosecutor with holds evidence that contradicts what he uses as proof someone was guilty it is ok? No problem that the people making the life or death decision only needed to hear what made the guy look bad.. give me a break

[xrayzebra]

^^What in the hell are you talking about GGA. First you say
Bush mislead and tricked Congress and now you say he lied to
the American people. What does the CIA say in the report? And
they say Congress was informed. Who mislead who. Pray Tell!
You want a discussion or you want to keep pouting and saying
I told you so, you told me what. Bush lied! Hell that is all you
are capable of saying. Bush used no single piece of evidence.
He spoke of WMD as well did Congress and all the leaders of the
dimm-o-craptic party, including Billary, Kerry and Kennedy and
the rest of the pack. So get your damn facts straight. The
question was ask in this thread was any WMD found in Iraq,
and I pointed to articles that said there was WMD found. Now
you want to start a damn argument on Bush lied.

Typical left wing crap. Point out the truth and you want to
avoid it and talk about something else.

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^What in the hell are you talking about GGA. First you say
Bush mislead and tricked Congress and now you say he lied to
the American people. What does the CIA say in the report? And
they say Congress was informed. Who mislead who. Pray Tell!
You want a discussion or you want to keep pouting and saying
I told you so, you told me what. Bush lied! Hell that is all you
are capable of saying. Bush used no single piece of evidence.
He spoke of WMD as well did Congress and all the leaders of the
dimm-o-craptic party, including Billary, Kerry and Kennedy and
the rest of the pack. So get your damn facts straight. The
question was ask in this thread was any WMD found in Iraq,
and I pointed to articles that said there was WMD found. Now
you want to start a damn argument on Bush lied.

Typical left wing crap. Point out the truth and you want to
avoid it and talk about something else.

Ray you said Bush and congress had access to the same intel. I just showed you that they did not. How hard is that for you to understand? Bush used , as proof, these tubes prooved Iraq was trying to build a nuclear weapon. This was the only evidence he put forward but he did not share with Congress that his own scientists doubted they were for nuclear weapons. hence THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INTEL.. RAY YOUR REALLY TRYING MY PATIENCE TODAY. You may try and tell me this is left wing stuff but in fact it is the cold hard truth.

"Bush used no single piece of evidence.
He spoke of WMD as well did Congress " you said

So why did he have to use information that he knew not to be true? If the case was as strong as he and Dick led us to believe?

[xrayzebra]

Ray you said Bush and congress had access to the same intel. I just showed you that they did not. How hard is that for you to understand? Bush used , as proof, these tubes prooved Iraq was trying to build a nuclear weapon. This was the only evidence he put forward but he did not share with Congress that his own scientists doubted they were for nuclear weapons. hence THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME INTEL.. RAY YOUR REALLY TRYING MY PATIENCE TODAY. You may try and tell me this is left wing stuff but in fact it is the cold hard truth.

"Bush used no single piece of evidence.
He spoke of WMD as well did Congress " you said

So why did he have to use information that he knew not to be true? If the case was as strong as he and Dick led us to believe?

Damn you are dumb as a doorknob. You cant even read.
Can you? Congress had all the intel Bush had. Bush
has his advisors, which he is not obligated to share with
anyone outside the administration, just as Congress
has aides that advise. Grow up and come talk to me
when you have something to add to a conversation.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you give me a list of the WMDs the Bush administration has said they have found in Iraq in the past five years?

Thanks!

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Seriously. They already admitted there were no WMDs. How is this even a point of debate is beyond me.Well, he tends to wait for a government appointed committee to convene and put out a report before he believes what actually happened.

[ChumpDumper]

At least I say what I believe. If a committee believes much the same thing, so what?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Damn you are dumb as a doorknob. You cant even read.
Can you? Congress had all the intel Bush had. Bush
has his advisors, which he is not obligated to share with
anyone outside the administration, just as Congress
has aides that advise. Grow up and come talk to me
when you have something to add to a conversation.


Bush has advisors? Really ray? So you in fact you admit now that Bush had information that only his advisors saw but Congress did not. Kind of important to give Congress the whole picture wouldn't you think? Oh wait your a mindless kool aid drinker ... So then your admitting Congress did not have the same intel? Intel contradicting the intel he used to justify war? And your calling me dumb?

[xrayzebra]

Bush has advisors? Really ray? So you in fact you admit now that Bush had information that only his advisors saw but Congress did not. Kind of important to give Congress the whole picture wouldn't you think? Oh wait your a mindless kool aid drinker ... So then your admitting Congress did not have the same intel? Intel contradicting the intel he used to justify war? And your calling me dumb?

And so here folks is a liberals thoughts on government.
Bush advisors have access to information no one else has.
And he calls me mindless kool aid drinker.

And for GGA, no kool aid isn't my drink. Scotch with a
little water and a couple of ice cubes does me fine, thank
you!

[xrayzebra]

Chump, I refer you to post number 9 and 11 in reference to your
post. I have no "official" government laundry list. Okay.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And so here folks is a liberals thoughts on government.
Bush advisors have access to information no one else has.
And he calls me mindless kool aid drinker.

And for GGA, no kool aid isn't my drink. Scotch with a
little water and a couple of ice cubes does me fine, thank
you!


Well I don't know where you come from but taking a country to war is a pretty serious endeavor. So according to you now it's ok for the President to share intel , that contradicts what he says publicly,with his advisors but not with the PEOPLE? I always thought our govt was accountbale to the people but I guess in your world they ain't.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump, I refer you to post number 9 and 11 in reference to your
post. I have no "official" government laundry list. Okay.Trying to discount the importance of the WMD claim doesn't change my question, but thanks for finally answering it.

You are not a coward like Yoni.

[xrayzebra]

Well I don't know where you come from but taking a country to war is a pretty serious endeavor. So according to you now it's ok for the President to share intel , that contradicts what he says publicly,with his advisors but not with the PEOPLE? I always thought our govt was accountbale to the people but I guess in your world they ain't.

Once again, you show you ignorance. Governments HAVE
ALWAYS put things out publicly that is contrary to the true
facts. Damn, you really do slow down a conversation. But
in this case Bush didn't. He re-stated what the previous
administrations views as given to him by the previous
administrations appointees, ie, Tenent. His advisors had
only the information given to them by the intel
community. They had no access to any other intel. They
gave Bush their views on that intel. Got it.

I really doubt it. Why? Cause you got a bone to
pick.

[xrayzebra]

Trying to discount the importance of the WMD claim doesn't change my question, but thanks for finally answering it.

You are not a coward like Yoni.

Well Chump, I will ask you a question. Do you discount
the accounts I gave you and if so on what basis? These
folks, who published the information, got it from some
source, more than likely government.

So do you discount their accounts. In the second case
it is an official government report, is it not?

[El_Tejano]

Chump, I refer you to post number 9 and 11 in reference to your
post. I have no "official" government laundry list. Okay.

FYI, I posted this in the "Cartoonist" thread, its a partial list, taken from a New York Times author's book, the rest of the info. is there.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts

[ChumpDumper]

Well Chump, I will ask you a question. Do you discount
the accounts I gave you and if so on what basis? These
folks, who published the information, got it from some
source, more than likely government.

So do you discount their accounts. In the second case
it is an official government report, is it not?I don't discount the Duelfer Report. Why should I? It says we found no WMDs.

If they were moved out of the country, the invasion is even more of a disaster than is already known.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Once again, you show you ignorance. Governments HAVE
ALWAYS put things out publicly that is contrary to the true
facts. Damn, you really do slow down a conversation. But
in this case Bush didn't. He re-stated what the previous
administrations views as given to him by the previous
administrations appointees, ie, Tenent. His advisors had
only the information given to them by the intel
community. They had no access to any other intel. They
gave Bush their views on that intel. Got it.

I really doubt it. Why? Cause you got a bone to
pick.



I'm glad you have proved my point. So Bush did not give Congress the refuted version of the Nuclear threat so by definition he didn't give them everything as you have said. Pretty important omission don't you think? However I guess for you it doesn't matter which is what I have been saying all along that you drink whatever Bush pours you.

[clambake]

No no, ray has deluted the definition of lie by replacing it with "contrary".

You are crafty!