Entertainment

[Garrdor]

http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

[Finglefinn]

The agenda of that piece is thinly veiled by the self-proclaimed "investigative" label. LOL. Most people who read that will buy it hook, line and sinker, just like they buy Michael Moore. There are certainly some truths that are revealed in the piece, but calling it an authority is farcical.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Shit-for-brains posters like Garrdor, Klast, Partha and Lurker all seem to conveniently forget that the previous administration (Clinton) and other countries' intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was attempting to produce and disseminate WMDs. When they go off on Bush, they like to pretend that Iraq just appeared on the map at the time of Bush's inaugeration. That there wasn't some kind of consensus by all of the world powers about Saddam Hussein's desire and ability to produce WMDs.

Did Bush get it wrong? Sure. As did Clinton, the Brits, the Germans, the French, the Aussies, the Israelis, etc. etc. When Bush got in office, he had a history of unified consensus on Iraq by multiple and independent sources. You numbnuts seem to forget that.

Oh.. and here's Bill Clinton talking about why he BOMBED Iraq. Notice all the references to WMDs.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... inton.html

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

You guys hate Bush so much you blind yourselves to the truth.

[Garrdor]

Shit-for-brains posters like Garrdor, Klast, Partha and Lurker all seem to conveniently forget that the previous administration (Clinton) and other countries' intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was attempting to produce and disseminate WMDs

You guys hate Bush so much you blind yourselves to the truth.

durrrrr... I'll take blind assumptions for $500 alex durrrrrrrr

[Partha]

Shit-for-brains posters like Garrdor, Klast, Partha and Lurker all seem to conveniently forget that the previous administration (Clinton) and other countries' intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was attempting to produce and disseminate WMDs. When they go off on Bush, they like to pretend that Iraq just appeared on the map at the time of Bush's inaugeration. That there wasn't some kind of consensus by all of the world powers about Saddam Hussein's desire and ability to produce WMDs.

You're absolutely right - there WAS a consensus on how to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately for your bullshit argument, that consensus didn't involve direct military action/invasion/overthrow, nor was it necessary - as even Bush's own administration agreed.

Bush tried to hide it by killing the transcript.

http://www.state.gov/error_404.html

Too bad there's other places to find it and other information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsVKDY74C0g

Any more history you'd like to revise?

[Embar Angylwrath]

What are you trying to argue Partha? First you imply Bush went off the reservation on the intelligence reports. You are clearly wrong about that, as you finally admit in your last post. Know it seems you're trying to argue that Bush didn't handle it the way you think he should have handled it. Do you expect him to pick the Partha batphone and call you for advice on how to handle international affairs?

See.. this is why you're so dishonest in your arguments. You admit that Bush had all indications there were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam was hell bent for leather to acquire and dissemintate more. And then you bitch that he actually tried to do something about it.

[Lurker]

Shit-for-brains posters like Garrdor, Klast, Partha and Lurker all seem to conveniently forget that the previous administration (Clinton) and other countries' intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was attempting to produce and disseminate WMDs. When they go off on Bush, they like to pretend that Iraq just appeared on the map at the time of Bush's inaugeration. That there wasn't some kind of consensus by all of the world powers about Saddam Hussein's desire and ability to produce WMDs.

Well, we've covered this topic about a hundred times but nothing really sinks into that thick head of yours, now does it. News flash for you Embar. Intrusive inspections had resumed in 2003 and the case for war was getting weaker by the day. Bush made a huge and avoidable mistake and you were stupid enough to cheer him on. Quoting people from prior to the resumption of inspections and pretending they supported the invasion when it happened doesn't change that.

[Klast Brell]

Shit-for-brains posters like Garrdor, Klast, Partha and Lurker all seem to conveniently forget that the previous administration (Clinton) and other countries' intelligence agencies were in agreement that Iraq was attempting to produce and disseminate WMDs. When they go off on Bush, they like to pretend that Iraq just appeared on the map at the time of Bush's inaugeration. That there wasn't some kind of consensus by all of the world powers about Saddam Hussein's desire and ability to produce WMDs.

What the heck I'll jump in here too. I'm proud to be able to say thatin the lead up to the invasion in 2003 I did not believe Iraq had the WMD stocks that the neocons were claiming it had. i had several posts to that effect in the old BB Board.

What you are failing to realize is that 5 years passed between 1998 and 2003. In that time under pressure from bombing and inspections Iraq disarmed.

As I remember it my argument was that Iraq documented the destruction of the WMD. Bush claimed they had not. But Bush could not show any evidence that WMD existed. Inspectors crawled all over the country trying to find any WMD and could not find any. The Bush administration said the tens of thousands of pages of documentation were simultaneously insufficient proof and too much documentation for anyone to reasonably read. (Quote bush "too long; didn't read") Bush went to the UN to try and get a security council resolution authorizing attack and could not get it. They did not believe Iraq had WMD. Bush tried to get NATO support for an invasion and could not get it. They also did not believe Iraq had WMD.

IN the months leading to the invasion 2002-2003 (not 1998) Bush could not show Iraq had WMD.

[Partha]

What are you trying to argue Partha? First you imply Bush went off the reservation on the intelligence reports. You are clearly wrong about that, as you finally admit in your last post. Know it seems you're trying to argue that Bush didn't handle it the way you think he should have handled it. Do you expect him to pick the Partha batphone and call you for advice on how to handle international affairs?

See.. this is why you're so dishonest in your arguments. You admit that Bush had all indications there were WMDs in Iraq and Saddam was hell bent for leather to acquire and dissemintate more. And then you bitch that he actually tried to do something about it.

No, what I said was (had you actually clicked the handy link provided) that Bush knew there WERE no WMD's. Powell's direct quote was

He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.

He was on lockdown and the rest of the world was in agreement that keeping him on lockdown was sufficient, which is why Bush was reduced to bugging allies at the UN and twisting arms to build a 'coalition' that was truly pathetic compared to his old man's. In fact, he was so little of a threat that prior to 9/11, the US had offered to drop many of the sanctions on his country.

I assume you forget all that because you're really ashamed that you backed that fuckup so blatantly.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You linked a youtube video... which consists of snippet statements put together by a biased source. And you expect to be taken seriously?

[Kulaf]

I think he meant to link this:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/p ... 01/549.htm

Ya know Partha.....if you want to make a point that something might have been removed from a website.....it's probably not a good idea to link directly to their 404 page as some kind of proof.

But from that Feb 2001 transcript:

MS. BORGER: This is, as you know, the tenth anniversary of the Gulf War. Do you believe Saddam Hussein is stronger or weaker than he was?


SECRETARY POWELL: He's weaker, he's much weaker. That million-man army of ten years ago is gone. He is sitting on a very much smaller army of perhaps 350,000 that does not have the capacity to invade its neighbors any longer. He is living in three concentric rings of jails that he has created for himself in order to protect himself behind a security cordon. He has a great deal of money available to him through our Oil-for-Food Program, which he refuses to use entirely for the benefit of his people and for his children. Instead, he continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction to threaten the people and children of the region.

[Partha]

No, that is not what I was trying to link. What I was trying to link was Powell's visit in February 2001 to Egypt, where afterwards he gave a press conference. They have removed it from the State Department site, but the intertubes defeat them:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0309/S00289.htm

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.