Comments on: Bush Administration False Statements?

By: David

David — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:43:26 +0000

Sadam was a bad guy. He had people go into Palestine and pay $20k to suicide bomber’s families. This was reported in NYT and WSJ. I have my own issues as to the hubris of our president for having started this war, but don’t give me the “innocent country” story. 6 million Jews probably wish the world would have acted more resolutely in 1938, when Hitler started building big ships again.
David

By: DougS

DougS — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:44:12 +0000

Of all the people quoted above, did any one of them start or even advocate a war over it? Other than “Slam Dunk” Tenet, no. So again, do you, personally, feel that the war, with its trillion dollar cost and 4000 American dead, was justified by the existence of a handful of leftover chemical shells? And for God’s sake, why?

By: CJ

CJ — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 16:41:40 +0000

So, you’re saying that Saddam’s weapons just “fell into the floor vent” then? I can’t argue with your flawed liberal logic. Again, and I honestly don’t know how to make this any more simple: Saddam had to get rid of his WMD. They didn’t put a birthdate on that requirement!!

You also asked, “Are you seriously saying we were justified in going to war because a handful of useless decade-old shells weren’t accounted for?” I don’t know. Ask all the people quoted above!!

By: DougS

DougS — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:11:58 +0000

As for your analogy with your daughter, it’s as if you mixed up peanut and regular M&Ms, scattered them around the room and told her she’d be grounded if all the peanut M&Ms weren’t brought to you. Would you punish her if you then found one that had fallen into the floor vent?

By: DougS

DougS — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:14:33 +0000

What is your source for the 17 chemical warheads? Because not a single chemical weapon made after the Gulf War was ever found. From all accounts, the leftover (empty) warheads were not deliberately hidden, but mixed in with similar looking conventional 155mm and other shells. Iraq was not the most efficient military, and there was no evidence of hiding banned weapons or of maintaining any production capability (other than allowed chemical plants that, as in any country, can be adapted to produce weapons). In addition, as you probably know, chemical weapons such as Sarin degrade over time; the US chief military spokesman said at the time that the IED was “virtually ineffective as a chemical weapon.” Are you seriously saying we were justified in going to war because a handful of useless decade-old shells weren’t accounted for? Was that what we spent a trillion dollars on?

Again, if you have other evidence, please source it.

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 03:20:42 +0000

DougS, you like to think you’re a smart guy, and you definitely sound intelligent, but exactly how was the “roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium…under IAEA seal and control” when Saddam had kicked out the inspectors? The “11 EMPTY chemical shells” you speak about are DIFFERENT than the “17 chemical warheads”.

You also quote “experts familiar with Iraq’s chemical weapons program said the shell was likely a leftover from Hussein’s pre-Gulf War stockpile.” I must be mistaken, but…nope, just checked and I’m right. I’ll try to make this so simple that my 6-year old will understand. The UN agreement did not tell Saddam to just get rid of SOME of his “pre-Gulf War stockpile.” No, he was to get rid of ALL of it!! What part of that is hard to understand? It’s simple.

To prove the point, I pulled my six year old in and gave her a bunch of M&Ms, some that I just bought and some that were left over from a few weeks ago. I put them in her room when she wasn’t looking and gave her some instructions: Hannah you need to get all the M&Ms out of your room. When I went in to check, sure enough, the old ones AND the new ones were gone. Because I told her to get the M&Ms out of her room and didn’t distinguish between colors, sizes, peanuts, no peanuts, or how old they were.

Oh, and your two articles don’t help prove your point. They actually strengthen mine. Thanks for playing.

By: DougS

DougS — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:02:00 +0000

If you want to be at all convincing, CJ, you need to source each one of your “found” items. For example, the “enriched uranium” and “1,000 radioactive materials” was a known stockpile under IAEA seal, and not highly enriched as would be needed for weapons.

To quote the below source: “After 1992, roughly 2 tons of natural uranium, or yellow cake, some low enriched uranium and some depleted uranium was left at Tuwaitha under IAEA seal and control, he said. So were radioactive items used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes, which Iraq was allowed to keep under a 1991 U.N. Security Council resolution, Zlauvinen said. ”

Of the “17 chemical warheads” the UN inspectors before the war found 11 EMPTY chemical shells. Not a single filled warhead was found, until an IED released a small amount of Sarin. However, “experts familiar with Iraq’s chemical weapons program said the shell was likely a leftover from Hussein’s pre-Gulf War stockpile.”

See how easy it is to check on these things when you actually want to know the truth?

Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-07-iraq-uranium_x.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html

By: CJ

CJ — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:43:35 +0000

bpd,

You’re an idiot and provide no basis for your “truth”. I got an idea, how about PROVING me wrong. It’s easy to come here and poohpooh my writings without providing any real substance. How about backing up your words and really challenging me?

And rita, I don’t even understand what you’re saying here.

By: rita pressley

rita pressley — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:10:11 +0000

how does bush think people like me can survise i am disable making 700.00a month thru social sec. that “s not right huuband is disable to