Imagine That: Wikileaks Docs Show There Were WMDs in Iraq
The WikiLeaksters seem to have inadvertently done history a bit of a favor in the their obsession, with the help of heavy-breathing media mouthpieces like the New York Times, to release classified military documents.
It seems that some of those documents reveal the utter untruthfulness of a core claim of Iraq War opponents, namely that "We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
This contention, not nuanced in any way (i.e., not "no stockpiles" or "not that many," but instead absolutely none), is part of leftist folklore. Here are just a few example of so-called "mainstream" or "respected" liberal sources found to have made that exact contention in a brief Internet searches this morning:
- Washington Post; August 17, 2004 -- "Why Kerry Is Right About Iraq," by Fareed Zakaria.
- Rev. Joseph Lowry; February 2006, at the funeral of Coretta Scott King (substituting "over there" for "in Iraq").
- UK Guardian; April 19, 2007 -- "Iraq is not part of war on terror, says top UK diplomat"
- Financial Times; August 30, 2005 -- via Trita Parsi, then described as "a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University."
But at Wired Magazine's Danger Room (HTs to Ace and Gateway Pundit via an e-mailer), Noah Shachtman identifies substantial contrary evidence in the WikiLeaks docs to add that what has already been accumulated. Shachtman tries to minimize the impact by overstating the Bush administration's actual position, but that doesn't change what the WikiLeaks docs contain:
WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results
By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.
... The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
Sorry, Mr. Shachtman, the "diehards" are those on the left who have never backed away from "no WMDs" claim, which has once again (previous examples here, here, here, and here, to identify just a few) been proven to be demonstrably false.
Strategy Page correctly begs to differ about the degree of the potential danger:
Several hundred chemical weapons were found, and Saddam had all his WMD scientists and technicians ready. Just end the sanctions and add money, and the weapons would be back in production within a year. At the time of the invasion, all intelligence agencies, world-wide, believed Saddam still had a functioning WMD program. Saddam had shut them down because of the cost, but created the illusion that the program was still operating in order to fool the Iranians.
Gateway Pundit wonders: "Do you suppose this will make any headlines?" Prognosis: Doubtful. There's too much at stake in protecting the left's folklore.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Tom
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:00pm.
Tom,
Don't forget my list: (Part II (the WMD list) of my Invading Iraq was the Right Thing to do)
-FS
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Sadam was a crafty SOB. I
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:26pm.
Sadam was a crafty SOB. I have often felt like there are WMD buired in concrete cast in the Tigeris and Euphrates Rivers. With 100s of sq miles of desert there is probalby some there too, We know he had them and we know he didn't destroy them. They are there somewhere or in Syria.
Most people will not hear about this because it would vindicate Bush and the MSM can't let that happen especially right now before the election. Might hear about it November 3rd but not right now.
WMD were moved....
Submitted by adamsmith on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 1:56pm.
I remember in that six month period before we went into Iraq, I was thinking, "Gee George W., hurry up or he's going to move everything." He moved it to Damascus is something I also read at the time.
Bush said he would be vindicated by history. I hope before the 2012 election. America cannot afford to have an enemy(American Progressive Communists) running her from within.
I don't think the MSM is
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:34pm.
I don't think the MSM is going to let this get out until after the election. This is what AP decided to report on out of the leaks
See how CBS reports it-no massive caches.
Nothing but lying gutless cowards
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 12:53pm.
One of my favorite UNREPORTED quotes by the LSM by someone who should have a clue about what they are talking about. NOTE HIS TITLE and who the F he worked for.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
This is from the excellent site "If Bush lied, so did these people", which has EXACT quotes from the liberal cowards BEFORE and DURING Bush that agreed with what Bush said, but these cowards then said Bush lied and they were allowed to get away with it.
What I don't get Tom
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:21pm.
If we really did find WMD. The Bush administration would have said so. In fact Bush, Cheney, Fleischer and Rumsfeld all said no WMD were found. They are the ones that knew more Than anyone on the war. Are you seeing something they are not?Wrong question ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 2:53pm.
... the right question is: Why are the military documents and previous items of evidence noting things that YOU apparently won't acknowledge?
I'd like you to show me a direct quote from any of the four folks you ID'd that NO WMDs were found.
But even if you are somehow able to do that, it doesn't change what military folks and several media outlets have seen, found and documented, over and over and over.
Really Mr Blumer? Wrong question?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:02pm.
I guess it is a wrong question because you feel uncomfortable answering the question. However unlike you I have no problem not avoiding questions
George Bush 20 seconds in
Ari Fleischer
"Fleischer: Because of Iraq. We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. If he had been right and we had found the stockpiles, as bad as the war turned out to be, much worse than we all thought it would be, I think most Americans would have said, 'well, I don't like going to war but thank god we stopped Saddam from using them." We were wrong."
Donald Rumsfeld 1:12 seconds in. Okay Tom maybe you have me on this one. He actually said it "appears" we did not find WMD. lol
George Bush
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."
Ok Tom, I answered your question. Now its your turn. Why do you think the Bush administration did not point out we did find WMD. Unless your credentials are better than the people that ran this war.
edit
"Why do you think the Bush
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:24pm.
"Why do you think the Bush administration did not point out we did find WMD."
Maybe you should ask them, because the reality is, some have been found. If I had to guess why they didn't run around telling everyone "We found them, we found them", it's because what was found weren't the stockpile of weapons they thought were there. Whatever the reason, the typical storyline of the left claiming no wmd have been found is provably false.My question is still the right question
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:26pm.
1. Fleischer in context is referring to stockpiles. He is NOT admitting to the there being NO WMDs.
2. Rumsfeld, in November 2005: "we have not found the weapons of mass destruction." That's not a line said by someone who believes there weren't any.
3. Sorry, Bush is not saying there were NO WMDs. He is admitting that there aren't as many as thought.
So let's get back to my comment, which was:
You still haven't answered that question, which is the right question to ask when confronted by facts.
Fleischer: Nice try, no sale. Rumsfeld: I've shown that he believed they were there and was not acknowledging total non-existence. Bush: nope.
It's up to you to refute the official WMD finding of 2007, the nuclear usefulness of the tons of yellowcake as documented at IBD and elsewhere, the various WMDs found in press reports that I noted in November 2005, and now what's contained in the WikiLeaks docs.
Remember the LEFT'S BENCHMARK is that "there were NO WMDs in Iraq" -- zip, zero, nada, with no qualification in any way shape or form, as illustrated in the cited articles and so many others. That's what they said, time and time again.
Thus, unless and until you refute each and every example cited, the statement "there were no WMDs in Iraq" will remain a lie. You can quote, misquote, misconstrue, and misstate assertions made by any and all Bush administration people you'd like, and it won't change that fundamental truth. Ever.
Huh Mr Blumer?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:56pm.
Bush specifically said Saddam did not have WMD, but had the capacity and Bus said one of his biggest regrets is false intelligence in Iraq. Please tell me how you interpreted Bushes words that there were nt as manywmd found as we would have liked The only thing wikileaks proves is that reminants of old WMD were not completely destroyed. There is no evidence he restarted his weapons program was restarted and was making more.As I've said from the start, you're asking the wrong question
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 6:55pm.
... because the answer to it DOESN'T MATTER, unless and until you refute each and every one of the pieces of evidence indicating that there WERE WMDs in Iraq.
BTW, your contention that "Bush specifically said Saddam did not have WMD" from your quote above is not correct.
To repeat what Bush said in your quote:
Now seriously, do you see the words "Saddam did not have WMD" in your cited paragraph? No, you don't, because they are not there. Bush is NOT saying there were no WMDs in Iraq. You can attempt to interpret it that way, but as I have said from the start, it doesn't matter.
I'm obviously not making myself clear. EVEN IF Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer, Powell, Franks, and every person in the U.S. military and the Bush administration got in front of a microphone and sang "There were no WMDs" for the next three weeks straight, it wouldn't matter, because it wouldn't refute the evidence others have cited and I have noted. Unless and until every bit of that evidence is refuted, it does not matter what anyone says. Until then, the statement "There were NO WMDs in Iraq" will remain a lie.
So if Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:05pm.
So if Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell et al blatantly lied to the American people for three weeks straight claiming there were no WMDs in Iraq, it wouldn't matter to you?
Wow.
Jer
What about ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:14pm.
... "unless and until the evidence is refuted" don't you understand?
There's no "wow" factor in this at all. When objective truth and evidence are involved, what people say, no matter who they are, doesn't matter. Based on the known, unrefuted evidence, the statement "There were NO WMDs in Iraq" remains a lie until disproven.
There is nothing about your
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:37pm.
There is nothing about the quoted words I don't understand. What I don't understand is your suggestion that insistences by the leaders of our country contrary to the objective evidence wouldn't matter, even though such statements would be lies. You, by necessity, are accusing those leaders of either lacking the capacity to correctly assess clear and convincing evidence, or properly assessing it but deliberately deceiving the American public.
Jer
I don't presume to know their motivations.
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:59pm.
Nor can you, unless you inside access. You can have fun parlor games guessing, I suppose.
But for the purpose of this post, which was to demonstrate once again with yet another source that the left's claim that there were NO WMDs in Iraq is a lie, what they have said, and what their motivations might be, don't matter.
On the contrary,
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:31pm.
I'm not guessing at their motivations. I'm merely stating the necessary conclusion once one unties the knots in your logic.
Jer
What knot?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:08pm.
The man said that even if people were to say there were no WMD's, it does not change the fact that there indeed were.
You are turning this into an argument that Mr. Blumer is MAKING people turn into liars.
Nitpicking to the extreme.
Sorry Vet, but if Tom is
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:21pm.
Sorry Vet, but if Tom is going to accuse me of playing games and tying myself up in knots, he needs to better defend his statements.
Jer
Mr. Blumers statements should not have to be defended---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:35pm.
when they are correct.
You may sharpshoot them, but truth does not need a defender when the adversary is only quibbling.
You have nitpicked, but of course you would never see it that way.
MD
Jer you're slipping
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:55pm.
and nitpicking.
They are no longer our leaders. So what they say doesn't effect policy any more. So in effect it wouldn't matter.
Now if our leaders TODAY, Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, were to stand up and say there were no WMD's in iraq, that would matter a lot.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Baloney, toney... If Tom is
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:11am.
Baloney, toney...
If Tom is going to resurrect the WMD issue and use it as a hammer to bludgeon the Left, I think I have a right to respond.
Jer
Au contraire, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:17am.
the Left be done bludgininn dey ownseff wid dis hyer bidniss.
MD
Yeah, but I really wanted to
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:26am.
Yeah, but I really wanted to say "baloney toney", and that was the perfect opportunity.
Jer
Yeah, that was a good one, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:39am.
and I would have mentioned it but for two things:
I wanted top credit for "au contraire, Jer",
and,
Denny has a biiiig samurai sword.
Never, ever, cross my best friend forever, Denny Crane.
MD
Okay, you get ex post facto
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:46am.
Okay, you get ex post facto credit, and it was only because I didn't sound out "au contaire, Jer" that it wasn't bestowed earlier.
Jer
Boloney Jer?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:47am.
You should see how thin I can slice baloney with my sword.
:-)
We Are The 53%
Well, toney...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:58am.
having witnessed how high you can stack it with your keyboard, I don't doubt your prowess with the sword.
Jer
edited to remove an embarrassing extra "e" from "Jeer"
Dear Jeer,
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:11am.
Nice try, but I know how jealous you are of how little my pile of boloney is compared to yours.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny & Jeer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:21am.
You guys crack me up!!
MD
toney...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:25am.
This is serious. How did you get the shot of the inside of my fridge?
BTW, here I am hard at work in my "cheese room".
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:44am.
That is so cheesy!
This is what I teased CL4 with before she had her last baby.
We Are The 53%
Ummmmm Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:47pm.
I hope you are enjoying your gotcha moment, but If you might do me a small favor and look at the very first link I did. Hey to save you time here it is. What did he say 20 seconds in?
He did not say we found some weapons but not stockpiles, he said Saddam did not have wmd
Also Mr Blumer, it does matter because they are the administration that owned invading on the premise that there were wmd, but the official word is that they did not.
Also you are trying to convince NB that this is a new revelation and this is recent. Bzzzzzzt umm, freestinker has most of these things in his careful research already.
The fact the Sadamm had traces of WMD is old news, and I never disputed it We went in thinking that he had stockpiles and was making more. I somehow doubt the UK, and other countries that went into war with, would risk their men and woman of the armed forces for traces of old WMD.
edit
Perhaps I should have specified on what link I was talking about. Since I only linked two Bush articles, I figured you would have taken innitiative to think about clicking on all two of them. Nonetheless I apologize if I was not specific.
So Bush said ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:04pm.
... "turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to."
Fine.
That changes nothing about the point of this post.
What YOU are quibbling over ("traces of WMD," etc.) isn't the subject of this post. The subject of this post is that those who said for years that there were NO WMDs in Iraq have yet to refute the accumulated evidence (which goes far beyond "traces," BTW). Unless and until they do, the leftist claim that there were NO WMDs in Iraq remains a lie.
It does not change anything about the point of his posts
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:19pm.
But it does change the premse of what you said. You claimed nothing I linked proved anyone say we did not find WMD and instead of just admitting your wrong you put it back on me There have been countless discusions on NB on if WMD were found and what the liberals claim is a lie. The documented traces of WMD is old news Wiki is just repeating what we have known for years.Geez, this is fun ....
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:26pm.
.... I'll concede the Bush quote, which as explained several times, no matter what it was, it doesn't affect what this post is about.
You concede what this post is about, namely that the contention that there were NO WMDs in Iraq made by the left throughout the war is a lie. What Bush said, and why he said what he said, is irrelevant, because the evidence is what it is.
I can handle that.
He said that ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:20pm.
... we didn't find WMDs but we found that Saddam had to capacity to make them. Fine.
This post was about the left's contention that there were NO WMDs in Iraq. That statement remains a lie. You're trying to make it about something else.
Entertaining such childishness and seeing you and Jer tie yourself up in knots because you won't accept the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth no matter what people say is entertaining, but we've pretty much come to the end of that run.
It doesn't matter what people SAY. It matters what IS. The evidence from several sources, still standing unrefuted, is that there WERE WMD's in Iraq. Therefore, many leftists' core claim during the Iraq War that there were NO WMDs in Iraq remains a lie. Nothing you (or I) can say tonight will change that fundamental truth.
You dissapoint me Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:16pm.
I read your post above and thought it was classy you admitted a mistake. Now I read this post and you accusing me of being childish when all I have done is debate you fairly and I have not ducked any of your questions. Whatever Tom obvously you enjoy accusing rather than debating. This I expect from former contibuter Warner Todd Huston , but not you.You are being childish because
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:42pm.
... you won't accept the fundamental truth that the left's claim that there were NO WMDs in Iraq is false. Instead you childishly quibble over "traces." Enough yellowcake to make 100 nukes is hardly "traces."
When you acknowledge the fundamental truth without equivocation or qualification, I'll withdraw my contention that you are being childish.
No Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:15pm.
The left says lots of things I disagree with and I did not vote for the dems in the last election nor will I vote for them this election which makes your point moot because I am not defending the liberals. And not bringing up the liberals is childish? Sorry repeating the same statement about WMD that the whole Bush administration and most members of the Republican congress has acjknowledged is not childish Also Mr Blumer sir that Yellowcake I beleive was known by the UN and stored legally. So sorry Tom, do you have proof that the Yellowcake was a surprise? EditSo now the goalposts move ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:18pm.
... another childish act.
So you want the standard to be, "There were no SURPRISE WMDs in Iraq."
Well, too bad. That's not what the left said. So whether the yellowcake was a "surprise" or not is totally irrelevant.
Goalposts move?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:38pm.
I am saying that Iraq legally possesed that Yellowcake is moving the goalpost?
Okay let me explain it in a waya that perhaps you can understand. I suspect that you have assault rifles at your house. I break down your door trying to find these assault rifles.
I don't find the rifles, but I find some sulfor, charcoal and potasium nitrate that can make gunpowder in your garage that I previously knew about
Excuse the pun. but this really is not a smoking gun is it?
Have you lost your ever loving mind?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:35pm.
As I have explained already, Saddam Hussein would have restarted his Nuclear program in a heartbeat. He had no nuclear reactors. The ones he built was bombed by the U.S and Israel. And that yellowcake was dangerous at one time -
This HE uranium was shipped to Russia where it was made relatively harmless by a process known as 'isotopic dilution' — but only after the Iraqis dragged their heels for more than 6 months following the cease fire by playing a cat and mouse game with the IAEA's inspectors.
I know you think you are getting over on Mr. Blumer by playing some weird talky-talk game but don't make it like Saddam was playing with pixie dust and unicorn feathers in the succulent honey fields.
Saddam would have most certainly tried to turn that yellowcake right back into something dangerous.
Weird talky talk games
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:06am.
I'm sorry Vet but most of your troll Bashing techniques consist of nitpicking peoples words. If you want to accuse me of playing around with words it's not true. I am saying it's not t he official government position we found WMD, and finding Yellowcake that was already documented is hardly proof of WMD?No.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:47am.
No. You are hammering us with statements from President Bush at Press Conferences.
Official government position? Who talks like this?
I am saying that when it comes to WMD's and the Bush Administration, you refuse to be rational.
Mr. Blumer's article was about the documents just released confirming there were WMD's. All you want to do is find examples of President Bush answering questions about WMD's from YEARS AGO. As proof of what?.
Well Vet
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:57am.
He said it,his press secresty said it, his secretary of defense said it or at the very best never refuted the fact we did not find WMD. Has any Bush official said recently we found WMD? So if the President says we did not find Wmd in a press conference it does not count? Should he write it down and get it notorized?I give up.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:01am.
You won't see reality at all.
Has any Bush official said recently we found WMD?Dude. They all lost their jobs 2 years ago. Get over it.
I moved on. You need to see someone about that tickle spot on the side of your head.
Shawn, Has the Obama
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:07am.
Shawn,
Has the Obama administration said that there were WMDs in Iraq? why hasn't he? Why is he keeping the truth from the American people?
or is Wikileaks lying to us and Wikileak forged the WMD documenst that they leaked? eh?
Why hasn't President Obama and the Democratic party Senators and Congressmen who are in charge of the respective chambers' intelligence committees told us about the WMDs in Iraq?
Why are the Democratis lying to us by keeping information from us?
Why is our current President lying to us?
What is with this pathological obsession Shawn?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:19pm.
...invading on the premise that there were wmd...
I am personally offended Shawn. We have been over and over this. NO ONE SAID THERE WERE WMD's * prior to the invasion. The United States Congress listed some 22 or 23 reasons for invading in it's de facto declaration of War in Oct of 2002. It said Saddam Hussein had used WMD and would do so again in a heartbeat if left to himself. Bush said Hussein was looking for yellowcake in the State of the Union I believe.
The OFFICIAL document from the People AUTHORISED by the Constitution to declare war never said there were WMD's.
We went in thinking that he had stockpiles and was making more...
NO WE DID NOT. We have been over this. The official authorization from Congress said he would reconstitue his programs at the drop of a hat if he had the chance. It did not say there were stockpiles. It did not say Saddam was making more.
* except maybe Cheney.
Why are you personally offended vet?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:27pm.
Because I still don't agree with you. WMD was the main reason we invaded. George Bush said so in the clip. When they were trying to sell the war to the allies this is the point is the threat of wmd. Bushes main saying was must disarm. Which clearly meant wmdsWhy are you so obtuse on this issue?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:08am.
22 reasons. NOT A SINGLE ON OF THEM SAID THERE WERE WMD's.
How many times do I have to repeat it?
Which clip? the MAIN reason? Which clip? I watched one of them, did not get it.
Right here vet
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:22am.
WMD is the main reason we invaded Iraq http://www.google.com/m/url?ei=TQXFTKDdFY-urAPdy4awAQ&q=http://www.youtu...Gawd I hate videos.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:57am.
Once again, answering a question. You picked out a few words out of 2 minutes, a few seconds out of 2 minutes and blow it up to be the reason CAST IN STONE.
All I see on the internet is gaffe after gaffe after gaffe from President Bush. This one thing and you grab it and lock it away form site and only bring it out on special holidays.
The man spent 8 years talking and the only thing you got from it was this 3 seconds in a Press conference.
Honest to Gawd, Bush was a magical VooDoo monster that cast a spell over anyone with the slightest leftist lean.
Hmmmm vet
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:03am.
He said one of his biggest regrets is faulty intelligence in Iraq, Karl Rove said he suspects Bush never would have invades If he knew then what he knows now. It's pretty simple Vet, you are extremley good finding links, can you find me a current member of former member of congress democrat or republican from 2003 that said we found WMD? Oh wait except for Rick Santorium or whatever his name isWhatever. I ain't even reading anymore.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:11am.
That tickle spot itches.
Got some bad news for you. No President ever has not been responsible for dead servicemembers.
Be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment. Because we are going in somewhere sometime in your lifetime.
My life. 47 years. Vietnam. Grenada. Haiti. Panama. Libya, Bosnia/Herbowhatever, Somalia, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan.
What is with you unrelenting fascination with what someone said? Mr. Blumer and others here and elsewhere have pointed out that PLENTY of nastiness that was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE where in fact THERE.
Whatever. Done trying to convince you. You ain't listening because you have a stone tablet from President Bush 6 years ago where he said... Oh wait, I forgot because I really really really don't care.
We went in. We took him out. There was a bilion muslims giving us the finger on 11Sep2001. And the guy with the biggest fattest finger right in fron was taken out. We did it. We are gonna do it again. Deal with it.
Shawn
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:23am.
WMD was the main reason we invaded.
Wrong. It is the reason that most of the media focused on. And because the media focused on it so much, many people began to believe it.
I personally thought that we invaded Iraq because they harbored and trained terrorists.some more connections . "If you're not with us then you are against us"
that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'; (From the bill authorising the invasion of Iraq)
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Wouldn't hurt to link to the
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:30pm.
Wouldn't hurt to link to the "Authorization to use force" here.
And the Vet is right. WMD are not cited as casus belli.
Then the administration
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:36pm.
Then the administration devoted far too much time dwelling on it.
Jer
Could the Media's over focus
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:46pm.
Could the Media's over focus on WMD and ignorance of the numerous actual casus belli be the real reason why administration officials answered so many questions and made so many statements about WMD?
The official causes of war are clearly detailed in the joint resolution. By ignoring these, the MSM are implicitly stating these are not valid casus belli. The "only legitimate" casus belli is WMD, and since there were no large scale WMD, therefore the war is illegitimate. This is exactly how the media have portrayed the decision to go to war in Iraq. The news must fit the narrative. I personally think that is intellectually dishonest to the point of being enemy propaganda.
No, NL...I don't think it could be.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:04am.
I think the administration realized there were only two compelling reasons for pre-emptive intervention in Iraq which would sufficiently rally public support.
1. Iraqi/Al Qaeda links to 9/11, and/or
2. Saddam's possession of WMD--particularly an active and ongoing pursuit of a nuclear capability
The administration pressed hard to establish the Al Qaeda link in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and when that proved problematic, they focused on the WMD nuclear component.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting all other reasons were ignored--they were not--but they weren't emphasized nearly as much as WMDs.
Jer
Seriously?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:18am.
I think...?
What happened to facts?
Once again, it was the MSM focused LASERLIKE on those 2 issues. the 9/11 connection and the WMD.
You don't think. You got the MSM talking points and years later imagined them as your own. That is what I think.
Just being smarmy there. Don't take it seriously.
If WMD stockpiles were that
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:30pm.
If WMD stockpiles were that important, such would have been enumerated as casus belli by the Congress in its Joint Resolution. The Congress did not, therefore stockpiling WMD was not an overarching reason for declaring war.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:13am.
Then the administration devoted far too much time dwelling on it.
Ahhhhhh. Look at the name of this site. The MSM focused on the WMD's. Not the administration.
Yeah NL
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:57pm.
And when he was asked his rationale for invading he sure did not mention much else except for WMD eh? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134766,00.htmlAre you getting batty?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:26am.
The man was holding a press conference. He was answering questions. Questions from an obsessed MSM about GEEEEEE-ASP. - WMD.
You cannot possibly stand there and say based upon the answers from a PRESS CONFERENCE that all President Bush talked about was WMD.
Press Conference. Question. Answer. Question. Answer.
Shawn Read what you are posting.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:40am.
This story is his response to a report about WMD's in Iraq. Of course most of what he talks about would be about WMD's.
From your link
the first paragraph.
"The Duelfer report shows that Saddam was systematically gaming the system," Bush said during a press conference Thursday, adding that the deposed leader had the "intent of restarting his weapons program when the world looked away."
The main points of the Duelfer report
We Are The 53%
Thanks.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:09am.
I have linked to it so many times I lost count and all my old comments are gone. Didn't feel like doing it again.
About the missing comments, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:34am.
Do you think they will ever be restored?
I wanted to preserve some of my favorite beatdowns of conservatives for my grandkids to cherish. ,-)
Uncle Jer
Yes Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:42am.
all 4 of them.
(beatdowns that is, not grandkids.)
We Are The 53%
But, toney...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:49am.
There were dozens more before your arrival at NB. I've tapered off since.
Jer
Really?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:15am.
Prove it!!!!
;-)
We Are The 53%
*
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:30am.
delete
toney....How about
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:32am.
How about an affidavit from my mom?
Jer
Jer, after Obama gets through---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:45am.
with this country, I doubt it would be a good idea to even hint that you opposed conservatism, period.
Otherwise, that beatdown of which you speak might be on you, by the aforementioned grandkids. :^)
MD
Okay vet give me an honest answer
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:35am.
It's not a loaded question either it's a fair one do you believe Bush would have got authorization to invade and built up the coalition he did without the WMD card?Dren Shawn.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:27am.
Did you or did you not read the Authorization for the use of force? 20 reasons had nothing to do with WMD. And the 2 that did said PROGRAMS.
Yes. I believe it. WMD's were what the MSM focused on.
I have said it here. I did not need any documents, or WMD's, or links or whatever to be convinced we needed to go in. All I needed was the last (in 2003) 12 years of NEWSPAPER HEADLINES.
Rumsfeld?
Submitted by troglodyt on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 8:51pm.
He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours, and placing them in residential neighbourhoods.
March 12, 2003.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2948068.stm
Edit: You changing your post renders mine pointless.
Shut up Fake German.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:39pm.
Stay out of our politics. Our politics is none of your business FAKE GERMAN.
Was Rumsfeld one of the 535 membersof CONGRESS? Only CONGRESS is allowed to DECLARE WAR.
Our CONGRESS, not the GERMAN legislatture, gave the de facto decleration of war in October of 2002. Your little quote was not even close to one of the 22 or 23 listed REASONS.
YOU STILL REFUSE TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. Take a hike LIAR.
AND YOUR LYING LYING LYING BBC article did not even list the Authorization for the use of force in Iraq. The only OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL document for sending our troops into Iraq.
LIAR. LIAR WITH LYING LINKS.
You are losing it again.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:00pm.
Stay out of our politics. Our politics is none of your business FAKE GERMAN.
That is strange. Either I'm a fake German and as you suspect American. Then American politics would be my buisness. Or I'm German. But then the fake doesn't make any sense.
Can you make up your mind?
Don't care.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:15pm.
So sad for you FAKE GERMAN LIAR.
What kind of lying coward are you?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:47pm.
What kind of lying coward links to an article that says Reasons for the Iraq war but does not even so much as list the document that AUTHORIZED US TO GO INVADE IRAQ?
Lying coward. FAKE GERMAN LYING COWARD.
Still waiting for you to tell us one other German (outside Ayn Rand) that can write fluent American idiom English. LIAR.
Back at yelling again?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:55pm.
Still waiting for you to tell us one other German (outside Ayn Rand) that can write fluent American idiom English. LIAR.
That is a massive moving of goal posts.
Don't care.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:15pm.
So sad for you LYING FAKE GERMAN.
Just reporting the mans words
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 4:53pm.
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
Shawn, I never said there were WMD, I don't know and YOU certainly don't either.
I am making the point that liberals have been allowed to FN LIE about Bush and company while THEY SAID THE SAME THINGS...
Cohen said the above an exact quote, did he lie as well or was he speaking the UNBIASED TRUTH?
I agree with Cohen by the way, THEY WERE THERE, NO QUESTION, someone in 1998............ allowed them to be moved and we relied on old intel or the only intel that was available that was credible.........
I report, YOU decide.
Ummmm tomorama?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:01pm.
My first post Was in response to the author of the thread and I called him Tom. My second post I referred to the author as Mr Blumer I realize that might have been confusing but perhaps you are hanging out with too many liberals lately because you sure are sensitive today ;-)shawn...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:13pm.
If Tom Blumer is correct, then the inescapable conclusion is that Bush and his official spokeman were oblivious to the findings of the military for which the President served as Commander-in-Chief.
And that's a scary thought, indeed.
Jer
I do not believe this really matters to Mr Blumer Jer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:25pm.
He deflected my question, then asked for proof of what I said. I provided proof now all in hear is crickets. Obviously it is my fault because I asked the wrong question.Uh ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:29pm.
... look above, pal.
Uh....
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:58pm.
I replied pal. Now please answer my question. Why does nobody in the Bush administration say we found Wmd?Jumping in here. Since these
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 6:46pm.
Jumping in here. Since these documents were leaked, and not supposed to become public, perhaps that is why the Bush administration has not claimed the existance of WMD's. President's and their staff have a responsibility to hold state secrets even after they have left office.
That may be. I don't know, and for the purposes of evaluating
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:00pm.
... the truth or falseness of the statement "There were no WMDs in Iraq," it doesn't matter. The unrefuted evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq is all that matters.
Reason was because the Bush
Submitted by bigtimer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:39am.
Reason was because the Bush admin. was hoping to get Russia to work against Iran, simple as that.
We all saw the convoys of Russia helping as well getting rid of some WMD to Syria...posted about this in the past until I couldn't take it anymore.
Mistake of the Bush administration was not saying all of this loud and clear to begin with...instead, they did as the likes of Rove and ilk wanted...shut-up say nothing...instead of fighting and taking it to 'em all.
Anyone remember when drone kills were just 'awful' when Bush Team did it...now it's applauded.
Makes me sick...all of them.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
I guess its a possiblity radical
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:42pm.
but this and the Yellowcake Uranium that was found and shipped to Canada is pretty much old news. Perhaps Mr. Blumer might want to focus on something really horrible from the Wikileaks, that over 65000 Innocent Iraqi civilans were killed.
Old news, but definitely WMDs
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:16pm.
-- "enough yellowcake uranium to make over 100 nuclear weapons"
Thanks for conceding ...
... oh, I see that you have conceded, because you want to change the argument to civilian casualties.
Sorry, that's another post.
Yes I believe we heard about the Yellowcake in recent news
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:19pm.
In other news Michael Jackson has died, and Stephen King is angry with Noel Sheppard.Oh yeah, now it is funny. Hee Hee Hee.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:40pm.
The Authorization for the use of force in Iraq signed by the 435 members of Congress said S.H. would reconstitute his CNB programs in a heartbeat. And people were pushing to drop the sanctions prior to 9/11.
So if this is a big joke, somebody better clue me in.
So teh Vetz
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:48pm.
Don't doos his own sarcaszms? The UN knew about the Yellowcake. The reason it was kept secret was so no one could try to steal it on it's way to Canada. I fail to see if finding something we knew about previously is finding WMD.shawn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:05am.
If your neighbor has a .45 ACP, but keeps it unloaded because there are kids in the home, and you know about it, you know that it is not a weapon of destruction in its unloaded state.
Could be used as a club, maybe, but if you can outrun him, he can't hit you with it.
If you are diddling his wife and he comes home from work early, and catches you in flagrante delicto, and the first you know of his presence is the sound of a magazine being slammed home into that Colt .45, you now recognize that the previously safe weapon has become a weapon of (m)ass destruction.
Your (m)ass. :^)
MD
Sorry MD
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:15am.
Not a fair comparision. A . 45 is already a weapon. Yellowcake can be compared to a raform of gunpowder at bestshawn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:28am.
A .45 is a lump of steel, nothing more.
Without gunpowder, in a cartridge, being placed into the weapons chamber, the .45 at best is a tool for bludgeoning or a missile for throwing by hand.
A guided missile, whether in a silo or on a vehicle-mounted launching system, without being privy to the addition of "yellowcake" to the mix, is a high explosive weapon only, not a weapon of mass destruction, i.e., nuclear.
Any weapon lacking any part of an essential design layout element, does not only fall short of the proposed designs actual effectiveness, it may not even qualify as a weapon, period, let alone one capable of mass destruction.
MD
No MD
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:42am.
Your forgetting about am important part of the equation. I know you have the gun legally and are not breaking the law. If I asked you to give it up willingly and you said no, that's different than me taking it by force then claiming I never knew you had the gun in the first placeshawn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:14am.
If you do not know something exists, why would you be looking for it in the first place?
If you suspect it exists, that is different if you are talking about searching for gold, diamonds, or treasure.
If, as a legal matter, you stumble across contraband (in plain sight), which by definition is illegal to possess, you may confiscate it.
If you suspect contraband is at a location, but hidden, you must specifically spell out in a warrant what it is you are looking for and describe all the different places where you believe it may be concealed in order to legally look into those places.
All of this legal, inside the U.S. mumbo-jumbo, pales in comparison to having suspicions regarding materials in the possession of rogue elements outside of this country that could, in due course, result in your destruction.
Your ultimate goal should be the safety of your country, and whatever actions are necessary to accomplish that goal should, while not being taken lightly or being unduly harsh, be most effective.
It seems your whole take through this thread has been either "Bush lied", or he made an error in judgement; therefore whatever transpired after that regarding Iraq was just one big mistake.
MD
~Shawn
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 8:21pm.
How many of his own citizens was Saddam Hussein killing every year?
I didn't even want us to invade Iraq, but the incessant liberal whining about civilian casualties is complete bullsh!t. 65,000 in 7 years is NOTHING compared to what was going on under Saddam, and I guarantee that most of the civilian casualties in the past 7 years can be laid at the feet of terrorists, not American soldiers.
Hi Chose
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:25pm.
I commented about this in my forum about nothing. Please let's discuss I there if you wish. I would hate for Mr blumer to think I am changing the topic . I know no consevatives ever change the topicUndertsood, chose...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 9:57pm.
And I suspect you're especially outraged that a succession of Republican administrations kept doing business with and supporting Saddam with full knowledge of his having employed chemical weapons.
Jer
I am just gonna start saving every single American Legion Mag.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:57pm.
...doing business with and supporting Saddam...
When will this meme get shut down? We supported Russian during WWII. We sided with Great Britain against the French. We sided with France against Great Britain. We sided with Great Britain against the rest of Europe with the Monroe Doctrine. We nearly went to war over Canada with Great Britain and Germany. We sided with Russia to win victory over Japan and Germany. We sided with Japan and Germany against Russia. We sided with Iraq over Iran and Russia. We sided with Iran against Iraq. We sided with ruthless dictators in S. Vietnam, Philippines, S. Korea, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, and Saudi Arabie. WE SIDED WITH BIN LADEN against Russia FER THE LOVE OF GAWD.
And now we are siding with Pakistan in the war on terror. You know Pakistan, the inventor of the Taliban. And we are siding with more of the 'Stans and Yemen.
It is called REALPOLITIK. Look it up.
: politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectivesMarriages of Convenience by Alan W. Dowd at American Legion Magazine.
For the love of trapped squeakies everywhere, why the obsessive need to hammer Republicans at the expense of common sense? The answer eludes me.
Because you cannot be---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:10am.
a card carrying liberal without doing just that.
Every chance you get.
MD
hay shawn, I've been over there on, the leaking site
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:26pm.
To bad the end date on leaked EFP data is Dec, 2009
Lots of new stuff BEING shipped in from Iran...
Final assessment is that, although a change in TTP'___ may be manifested in this case, this may be an indicator that a new cell - or splinter cell - is operating in this area. New suppliers for insurgent activity are likely as well, and we ___ see emerging practices and implementation as currently operating cells ___ new equipment.
THE ___ THE EFP WAS LOCATED (POTENTIALLY USED FOR AIMING THE EFP ARRAY). THE EFP WAS LOCATED IN THE SAND MEDIAN OF RTE . ___ THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
___ X EFP COPPER PLATE
___ X BLAST SEAT SOIL SAMPLE
___ X CELL PHONE MINUTES CARD
___ X CIRCULAR CARDBOARD CUT OUT
___ X FRAGMENTS FROM VEHICLE
SECOND VEHICLE IN THE PATROL WAS STRUCK BY A DUAL ARRAY COPPER LINED EFP
This is stuff that is made in Iran, not HOMEMADE in some dirt shack in Iraq..
So what about todays EFP's made in Iran?
You Didn't Build That.
UCW
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:32pm.
Yeah, UPC its scary stuff. If the US did not lose its credibility on finding and significant amount of WMD, the US could have put a coilition together agains Iran.
Too late now. Iran has gone nucleaur.
Honest to Betsy. Have you lost your ever loving mind?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:04am.
If the US did not lose its credibility on finding and significant amount...
Read something consequential just once for heaven's sake. This is truly what you believe? Where in heaven's name does a thought like that come from?
If there was a clear failure of the Bush administration, it was the failure to deal with the Iranian and Syrian involvement in Iraq, under domestic Democratic Party pressure claiming that Bush officials were looking for a pretext to expand the war.
Have you heard a single thing Mr. Blumer said? There were WMD's. There were WMD programs. There was 500 tons of WMD goo ready to be made into WMD's.
How in heaven's name did we lose credibility. The Dems used issues like these as a hammer on the Bush administration. They politcised the war. Am I the only one actually paying attention?
Well I since my President
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:28am.
At that time told me we did not find WMD, I guess I believed him, so did the rest of the worldWhy do I have to keep repeating myself.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:22am.
No. There was no identifiable ready to go labeled bomb oo-es-ay put it in a helicopter and drop it WEAPONS found.
There was plenty, plenty, plenty, of nasty heavy duty stuff he was NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE.
But I have told you that again and again. And now even more nasty stuff he was not supposed to have is documented in the Secret messages that are not supposed be seen by us because they are SECRET has documented more nastiness that was NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
And all you do is focus on BUSH SAID THERE WAS NO WMD. BUSH SAID THERE WAS. BUSH SAID IT WAS WHY WE WENT IN. BUSH SAID.. BUSH SAID... BUSH SAID...
It's grating. The friggin' war is finished. There were all kinds of nastiness found including VHE shells that WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE BY TERMS OF THE FIRST GULF WAR.
Let me on behalf of the Bush administration be the first to apologise to you because you are so confused the frell up.
Here are some more oopy doopies for you. Battle of New Orleans did not have to take place. War was over. USS Maine prolly blew its own damn self up. Hitler didn't attack us but we went to war with him. Japan did attack us and we focused on Hitler. North Korea didn't attack us. North Vietnam didn't attack us. Grenada didn't attack us. Panama didn't attack us.
We are so friggin' sorry President Bush has sent you straight over the edge Shawn.
In the meantime, your current President has said some things that have not come true, like the never going over 8% unemployment thing. Let me travel to the future and apologise to you there too.
I never realized there was a guy behind every President typing everything out in stone. Don't those chips hit the President in the back of the head?
Thank gawd we have the whole separation of powers because with all these Presidents saying stuff and poor left leaning independents sitting on their laps like they are Santa Claus lapping it all up. Really? There was WMD? Really? There was no WMD?
Is it just Presidents or is it all government officials?
You might want to look into
Submitted by bigtimer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:43am.
You might want to look into Joe Wilson and his side-kick Valerie about Yellow-Cake shawn...along with the rest of their ilk that are enemies within.
Just a thought, put the link here in the past numerous times, great read, not doing it again, just try googling Joe Wilson and Yellowcake, you might include the word France too if need be.
'Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea'~Breitbart
Jer
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:37pm.
then the inescapable conclusion is that Bush and his official spokeman were oblivious to the findings of the military for which the President served as Commander-in-Chief.Funny how that is the only conclusion a Liberal can come up with. But you Liberals were still wrong about Iraq. As I have been saying for years.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I know you have, Free...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 5:51pm.
And you've done yeoman work. I haven't read every link. But I have read several. Of those, some have merit. Some appear to be a stretch.
Jer
Jer and Shawn, Your little
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:03am.
Jer and Shawn,
Your little game is beyond pathetic. LOL
let's turn the tables since it is your party and your ideology which is currently in charge of this nation.
You both are crying and whining and claiming how horrific it is that Bush did not tell us that there were indeed WMDs in Iraq, right? As a President no doubt he received the information that Wikileak leaked out, right?
Hmmm...wait, who is our President right now? Which party has had control of Congress since 2006?
Which party has been telling us that there were never WMDs, which President during his campaign run, as Senator of the USA said that there were no WMDs? Oh, that's right The Democratic party and President Obama.
Interesting, you two clowns are demanding that Conservatives answer why Bush did not tell the American people that there were WMDs, a retired President, yet you are silent to the fact that our current President hasn't said anything about WMDs being found in Iraq, right? or does Obama get a different high level, top secret briefing than Bush did? If Bush knew about it, doesn't Obama?
The question is, why hasn't the current President told us about this fact? Is it not important? Why do you question Bush and not Obama, eh?
C'mon Shawn answer the question, why hasn't President Obama told us about WMDs being found in Iraq? why do you only care about Bush not telling us, but say nothing about Obama not telling us?
Why do you not question the intelligence senate and house committees who receive the same high military, top secret briefings as the President? Why don't you questions the Democrats in charge of these committees since 2006? eh?
You two clowns are not interested in the truth, you could careless about the truth. What you two clowns are interested in is beating up on a retired President who whether he knew or not no longer has any consequences to America. however, a current and sitting President knowing this or not does HAVE consequences for all of us today!!!
But shoot, it is easier for the Left to demean and question a retired President, Bush, than to question the motives of your sitting President, the messiah of the Left, President Obama.
Your logic is weak, your attacks pathetic and your Bush Derangement Syndrome old and boring.
WHY HASN'T OBAMA TOLD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THE WMDs FOUND IN IRAQ? or is Wikileak lying to everyone? hmmmm.....take your pick Bush haters.
Bush Derangement Syndrome?
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:20am.
Bush Derangement Syndrome? Really? Not even close. In fact, I don't think I've ever been accused of being afflicted with BDS inside or outside of NewsBusters.
I've spoken far too often of my admiration for the man for that charge to be considered anything other than the pile of BS which it most certainly is.
But it doesn't surprise me that you would spout such unadulterated nonsense. You continually give me the impression of someone who just landed on planet Earth five minutes ago.
Jer
Jer, How typical and
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:30am.
Jer,
How typical and predictable of you. Instead of answering the question, you play the poor victimhood card. LOL You will never change my poor victim.
So, why don't you find it scary that President Obama hasn't told us about WMDs in Iraq? eh? you only find it scary that Bush didn't tell us. Nah, you are right, your comments were not BDS, they were just of your typical, run of the mill Liberal who has bought all of the lies that have been spoon fed to him by the media and the Left.
Anyway, I guess you never said:
#6 shawn...Submitted by Jer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 17:13.
If Tom Blumer is correct, then the inescapable conclusion is that Bush and his official spokeman were oblivious to the findings of the military for which the President served as Commander-in-Chief.
And that's a scary thought, indeed.
Jer
And your point? In case it
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:41am.
And your point? In case it wasn't obvious to you, my point was that Tom was not correct.
His contention was that it didn't matter if George Bush said for three straight weeks there were no WMDs, it would still be a lie.
My contention was that it would matter.
What's yours? That it means I have BDS? As I said...unadulterated nonsense.
Jer
Jer, 1) Are you serious?
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 3:10am.
Jer,
1) Are you serious? Your point is that Tom is not correct? Hmmm...sorry Jer, but it is not Tom who is claiming that Iraq had WMDs, it is being claimed by a bunch of documents that Wikileak made public! duh!
2) My contention with your BDS statement is that if it matters that Bush knew or did not know and he did not tell the American people, it ALSO matters that our current sitting President knows, doesn't know and if he knows, why hasn't he told the American people about the WMDs in Iraq?
3) Your claim is that it is scary that Bush knew and he didn't tell us. You are attempting to change what you said. LOL How typical of a lawyer! LOL
If your contention is against Tom, why claim that "... it is a scary thought, indeed", that Bush and his people were oblivious to WMDs in Iraq?
4) You haven't answered. Why aren't you and Shawn worried that our sitting President, Obama, and his people, who are currently in power, the ones to be oblivious about the WMDs?
If you find it scary, as your misguided "logic" leads you to feel about Bush and his people, why not find it scary when it comes to Obama and his people?
Nah, no BDS from you Jer, none at all. LOL
It is only unadultered nonsense to you, Jer.
Your mind went straight to attack Bush. Your "logic" didn't lead you to think, "...wait, why hasn't Obama told us about these WMDs?" your BDS mind doesn't allow you to think that way. LOL
5) You still haven't answered, Why hasn't Obama told us about these WMDs? or is Wikileaks lying? Why haven't the Democrats in charge of the intelligence committees in both chambers of Congress told us about the WMDs? or were they as clueless about this top secret information as you claim that Bush and his people were? and if the latter, why isn't scary that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not know? LOL Inconvinient questions for individuals with BDS who love, praise and think of Obama and the Democrats as theirr saviors.
Oh dear... I can see
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 3:27am.
Oh dear...
I can see exactly where this is headed: Around and around in classic Liberallies fashion, and getting absolutely nowhere.
So, I'll just say that everything flowed from the introductory premise of my post, i.e. If Tom were correct, [then so and so would be the case, which indeed would be a scary thought.]
BUT MY ARGUMENT WAS THAT TOM WASN'T CORRECT! And that his contention had put him in an untenable or at least improbable position.
Now, you can run with it however you want to, but I'm not going to be drawn into another Liberallies circus of the absurd.
Jer
Jer, Yes, Jer, yes. Your
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 12:34pm.
Jer,
Yes, Jer, yes. Your argument is that Tom wasn't correct, even though you never claimed this until I pointed out your BDS statement. LOL
As always, you run away like the typical, run of the mill Liberal who is faced with tough questions.
So, nothing on why you don't find it scary that Obama and his people seem not to know much about WMDs in Iraq, eh?
Oh wait, IF TOM IS CORRECT..... hahaha!!!
BDS, it makes radical Liberals go bunkers, do and say ridiculous things.
Security
Submitted by TBAR on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 7:13pm.
Radical, you are quite correct. I have been retired since 1984 and there are still things I was involved with 30-40 years ago that I am not comfortable talking about. Most folks just don't have the "need to know".
Oh Mr Blumer sir?
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 10:51pm.
Its getting awfully thin up there. Could you respond to me down here?
First tell me how I moved the goalpost? This should be fun.
edit
Maybe it might be better if I helped you remember. You said the yellow cake uranium was proof of WMD found. I countered and said that that we already knew that yellowcake was there and it was there legally.
You then said that this is moving the goalposts. So I would really love it if you explained it to me.
So far you are really schooling me int this debate, but if you can find it in your heart to take it easy on an inferior opponent, perhaps you can tell me why my point is moot. Thank you.
Answered
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:22pm.
here.
Very nice Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:37pm.
Thank you for thoroughly answering my question about your moot accusationWrapping this thread ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:27pm.
... for good.
The point of the post was that the left's claim that there were NO WMD's in Iraq has been further proven to be a lie by the WikiLeaks docs.
What others have or haven't said about the bountiful evidence that is out there for anyone to see and read about is totally irrelevant. Attempts to refute the evidence are really a waste of time ... unless someone is willing to go to the trouble of refuting every single one of them. Many have tried during the past five years; no one has succeeded.
There are no other worthy points to be made, or open items left of consequence left to address ... which is for all practical purposes where we were 50 comments ago.
Actually Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:43pm.
I was ready to end this 30 comments ago till you called me childish , but hey if that is your strategy then so be it. Have a nice night.I got it sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:33am.
The left politicised a war right in front of my eyes. It drove me nuts for 5 years. Thank gawd we won it. And thank gawd it was the Bush Admin that hammered out the SOFA with the Democratic government of Iraq.
Iraqi Uranium
Submitted by RealVet on Sun, 10/24/2010 - 11:33pm.
From 2003:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3860
Hey vet sorry buddy
Submitted by shawn. on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:09am.
I can't seem to figure out where the first comment starts and who has replied. you can create a new forum or go to my forum about nothing thread. Good nghtNo.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 1:41am.
You got a tickle spot on the side of your brain when it comes to the WMD issue. 2 years the man has been retired. We won the war. You may still think it is ok digging up Bush press conferences, I got the 4000 plus gold star widows, mothers, and families that, no here is one widow's words. ---
Remember and Respect. That disconnect is especially harsh when it comes to a soldier’s death. A week after Justin died, Shellie went shopping for a dress to wear to his funeral. She overheard two men in a mall food court having a loud antiwar discussion. She ran out of patience, walked over, and pulled out Justin’s dog tags and wedding ring, which on a chain around her neck.
“I told them, ‘My husband gave his life seven days ago so you could sit in this food court and express your opinion as loudly as you want to and as freely as you want to, without thinking twice. I want you to remember why.”
Remember. Respect. At the heart of it all, that’s the widows’ simple request.
Shellie has since run into similar situations – strangers asking questions until they find out she is a military widow. Then they quiz her about her feelings on the war and the president.
“I tell them, ‘His death was personal. His death was not political,’” Shellie says. “Whether you believe in the war or not, whether you support it or not, it’s happening. The people involved in fighting the war are real, and the families are real. My children are without a daddy – and I live without a husband – so they can live and do and say whatever they want without any fear.”
Shawn, The question for
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 10/25/2010 - 2:23am.
Shawn,
The question for individuals with your sickness, Bush Deragement Syndrome, is why do you care so much about Bush? Is he still our President?
The other questions, related to this matter and using the logic that you've used all over this forum, why hasn't President Obama told the American people that Iraq indeed had WMDs? You are crying about what a retired President said or did not say two years ago, but you could careless about what the sitting President is or is not telling the American people about Iraq?
Tell me you are not serious and that you have been pulling everyone's legs for over 50 posts.
Shawn, is Wikileaks lying? if they are not, Why hasn't our current and sitting PResident not told the American people about WMDs in Iraq? You deem it so important that Bush and his people should have told us, right? So, why don't you care when Obama acts in teh same manner as Bush in regards to the WMDs in Iraq? eh? why the double standards?
Awesome track is back
Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 10/31/2010 - 8:21pm.
I love the track button. This is just a test :-) now five is 300 comments per page now :-)Oh and Mr Blumer
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:27am.
From Bushes book to be released next week. We can count him in with the msm as being a liar? But Mr Bush, who was in office from 2001 to 2009, admits that he was "shocked" when no weapons of mass destruction were found. He wrote: "No one was more shocked and angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons. "I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do."