Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^wow, just wow. So you are saying it is OK to go to war if we don't know there is a legit cause?? We don't need to be 100% certain?? WOW, the genius behind your post.
It is also known that Cheney Knew that the WMDs were BS.
Really? You know for sure that Cheney knew there was no WMD? Hysterical at best! Prove it, or do you just like rambling nonsense with no proof backing anything up?
Define 100% certain as it would pertain to Iraq and WMD.....
[quote=The_Mo's;7196232]Going to war under fasle pretenses? This implies that Bush knew there were actually no weapon's of mass destruction. You can't say whether or not Bush knew this so please provide facts. quote]
He knew. The UN had investigators on the ground since 1992. Their report would fill several rooms. By 2000 there wasn't any doubt. Just because they did some arm twisting at the UN doesn't mean anybody agreed with them. The guy who headed the inspection team? Former Marine? Our guy? The White House and the Democrats tried to crucify him.
Quote:
Ritter was back on America's TV screens this week, but with a dramatically different message: President Bush had no proof of any new weapons of mass destruction threat emanating from Iraq, Ritter says, and he was lying to the American people to get them to go to war.
Former United Nations weapons inspector and documentary maker Scott Ritter has said the United States' case against Iraq is all speculative and there is no proof that Iraq has biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction.
"Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction today? Does Iraq possess the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction? The answer is no," Ritter said. Ritter claimed UNSCOM was tool of U.S.
A few months after the inspectors left Iraq, Ritter quit UNSCOM in disgust, saying it had been turned into a tool of the United States.
Ritter says he didn't become a U.S. Marine to see children die under sanctions -- sanctions kept in place, he says, by misinformation about Iraqi weapons.
" It is possible that US and British intelligence became essentially a process of sifting information to buttress this view. So deep was the mistrust that the weapons became, in a sense, secondary "
Then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright lashed out. Ritter "doesn't have a clue about what our overall policy has been," she told CNN. Claiming great success for Iraq policy on behalf of "the United States -- and, I must say, me personally," Albright nonetheless didn't have enough confidence in that policy to sit by as Ritter testified to Congress. She urged a House committee chairman to squelch one such hearing, while Senate Democrats did their best to prevent Ritter's testimony.
U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter -- the man Iraqi authorities once alleged was a U.S. spy -- left Baghdad Tuesday after carrying out inspections of so-called sensitive sites "without any problem."
One of the lies and myths propagated recently is that Iraq was somehow affiliated with the hijackers of September 11th, that hijackers were trained at a military camp in Salman Pak. I encouraged the Iraqis to open up this camp to the media and they did so. we took the media there, showed them the camp, showed them it is a hostage rescue training camp. It's been occupied by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military unit for over 10 years now. And hopefully this will dispel any of the rumors and myths that somehow the hijackers of September 11th received special training at this facility.
In seven years as a key U.N. inspector searching out Saddam Hussein's concealed capabilities to make weapons of mass destruction, Scott Ritter had to call on all the physical courage in him. Then on Wednesday he summoned up all his moral and intellectual courage, and resigned.
Going to war under fasle pretenses? This implies that Bush knew there were actually no weapon's of mass destruction. You can't say whether or not Bush knew this so please provide facts. quote]
He knew. The UN had investigators on the ground since 1992. Their report would fill several rooms. By 2000 there wasn't any doubt. Just because they did some arm twisting at the UN doesn't mean anybody agreed with them. The guy who headed the inspection team? Former Marine? Our guy? The White House and the Democrats tried to crucify him.
Congratulation's. You just wasted a whole bunch of time providing links which still prove nothing. They create doubt but offer no real proof. The only fact is that no-one knew for sure that Iraq 100% absolutley did not have any WMD when we invaded. The UN was given a guided tour and at times they weren't even allowed to conduct the inspection's they agreed to allow after the first Guf War.
My point: We had intel saying there was WMD. We knew he had them at one time because he used them on his own people. It's reasonable to believe that he still had WMD stock piled somewhere given his history. God know's whether Bush knew or not but I'm not God so I won't assume to know what Bush knew or didn't know and neither should you..... Unless of course you are God. I can tell you lack logic so I wouldn't expect you to see where I'm coming from and that's okay. Your OPINION is duly noted because that's all you have provided.
I'm with fatchance, there were PLENTY of people who knew there were no WMDs.
The other thing conveniently forgotten and there was NEVER a dispute about Iraq and nukes. Sadly the term "WMD" put the thought of nukes in the dumb public's mind. The only WMDs that were remotely in question were "chemical" and even still, people like Ritter knew the real story.
He wrote volumes about the false info, and so did many other patriots.
Still the media was complict in putting the idea of WMD = nuke = threat into everyone's head, when nukes were ALWAYS out of the question anyway.
I'm with fatchance, there were PLENTY of people who knew there were no WMDs.
The other thing conveniently forgotten and there was NEVER a dispute about Iraq and nukes. Sadly the term "WMD" put the thought of nukes in the dumb public's mind. The only WMDs that were remotely in question were "chemical" and even still, people like Ritter knew the real story.
He wrote volumes about the false info, and so did many other patriots.
Still the media was complict in putting the idea of WMD = nuke = threat into everyone's head, when nukes were ALWAYS out of the question anyway.
Well of course you are.... You liberals are like crazy glue.
Did the UN search every square inch of ground in Iraq above AND below? Every single building? No I'm sure they probably didn't. Did Sadam use WMD on his own people in the past? Yes absolutely 100% yes. I love how trust worthy you think Sadam was. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.
No-one knows for sure as I said and we'll never know for sure. We can only speculate because we know he had them at one time. That's my point. Evidence can suggest many things but suggesting doesn't necessarily 100% prove anything.
I'm with fatchance, there were PLENTY of people who knew there were no WMDs.
The other thing conveniently forgotten and there was NEVER a dispute about Iraq and nukes. Sadly the term "WMD" put the thought of nukes in the dumb public's mind. The only WMDs that were remotely in question were "chemical" and even still, people like Ritter knew the real story.
He wrote volumes about the false info, and so did many other patriots.
Still the media was complict in putting the idea of WMD = nuke = threat into everyone's head, when nukes were ALWAYS out of the question anyway.
Now that's funny.... I don't know anyone who thought we were invading Iraq because we suspected he had NUKES. You must really feel duped.
^wow, just wow. So you are saying it is OK to go to war if we don't know there is a legit cause?? We don't need to be 100% certain?? WOW, the genius behind your post.
It is also known that Cheney Knew that the WMDs were BS.
Quote:
Finally, we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were
pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts who worked Iraqi
weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure
cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. That said, it is
hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment
that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.
I'm with fatchance, there were PLENTY of people who knew there were no WMDs.
The other thing conveniently forgotten and there was NEVER a dispute about Iraq and nukes. Sadly the term "WMD" put the thought of nukes in the dumb public's mind. The only WMDs that were remotely in question were "chemical" and even still, people like Ritter knew the real story.
He wrote volumes about the false info, and so did many other patriots.
Still the media was complict in putting the idea of WMD = nuke = threat into everyone's head, when nukes were ALWAYS out of the question anyway.
Much better to go with opinions than actual reports.
Obama's presidency has a high probability of being one of the most corrupt in American history. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but here are the signs.
First: Liberals in power have a different standard of morality that puts normal cause and effect in reverse. Most people believe that their actions are more important than their stated beliefs. If I stole your property but I wanted the poor to have a better life, most people would still call me a thief...
Second: Modern liberalism also holds that "public service" in defense of whomever has been defined as needing the state's support this hour is so important that normal rules, tradition, and even laws can be ignored...
Third: President Obama experienced his political origins, maturity and success through one of the most corrupt political systems in America...
They were not served on the fifth day. The list of those served was reported on the fifth day and that is a big difference. Since old news is usually not covered again it isn't suprising that other then a few bloggers it got a yawn.
Obama's presidency has a high probability of being one of the most corrupt in American history. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong, but here are the signs.
First: Liberals in power have a different standard of morality that puts normal cause and effect in reverse. Most people believe that their actions are more important than their stated beliefs. If I stole your property but I wanted the poor to have a better life, most people would still call me a thief...
Second: Modern liberalism also holds that "public service" in defense of whomever has been defined as needing the state's support this hour is so important that normal rules, tradition, and even laws can be ignored...
Third: President Obama experienced his political origins, maturity and success through one of the most corrupt political systems in America...
You're unhappy...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
