Clock ticks down on a deadly chemical stockpile

[edthecynic]

this is how you avoid ACTUAL evidence, eh?

TYPICAL

I don't know what ACTUAL evidence you mean , but that is how I rebut the moronic "logic" that as long as Bush didn't say Saddam had a nuke "ready to use" then Bush NEVER discussed "nukes in Iraq" and Iraq was never on the list of those "trying to develop nukes."

You read deeper into what I said that you should have...but I will take the blame. and reword.

Bush did not believe Hussein had nukes developed. He knew he had aspitrations; hje knew he had financial supporters; he knew he had some ingredients. He ALSO knew Hussein was years away from being nuclear capable.

He did not go in there with the nuclear weapons on his mind. He went in there witht he chemiocal and biological weapons in mind.

Good move? Certainly not good timing seeing as we had other issues on hand.....but to claim it was "nuclear weapons" he was looking for in 2003 is wrong. Bush knew he did not have nuclear weapons .

You must have missed this part of my earlier post.
Surprising for a mind-reader like you!

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.
George W Bush

 

[Shogun]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs&feature=related]YouTube - A Symphony of Lies[/ame]

 

[Shogun]

EYES ON IRAQ; CHENEY SAYS PERIL OF A NUCLEAR IRAQ JUSTIFIES ATTACK
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and JAMES DAO
Published: Tuesday, August 27, 2002

Vice President Dick Cheney today presented the administration's most forceful and comprehensive rationale yet for attacking Iraq, warning that Saddam Hussein would ''fairly soon'' have nuclear weapons.

Mr. Cheney said a nuclear-armed Mr. Hussein would ''seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.'' [Excerpts, Page A8.]

EYES ON IRAQ; CHENEY SAYS PERIL OF A NUCLEAR IRAQ JUSTIFIES ATTACK - The New York Times

 

[Oldandtired]

I don't know what ACTUAL evidence you mean , but that is how I rebut the moronic "logic" that as long as Bush didn't say Saddam had a nuke "ready to use" then Bush NEVER discussed "nukes in Iraq" and Iraq was never on the list of those "trying to develop nukes."

You read deeper into what I said that you should have...but I will take the blame. and reword.

Bush did not believe Hussein had nukes developed. He knew he had aspitrations; hje knew he had financial supporters; he knew he had some ingredients. He ALSO knew Hussein was years away from being nuclear capable.

He did not go in there with the nuclear weapons on his mind. He went in there witht he chemiocal and biological weapons in mind.

Good move? Certainly not good timing seeing as we had other issues on hand.....but to claim it was "nuclear weapons" he was looking for in 2003 is wrong. Bush knew he did not have nuclear weapons .

so in other words Saddam posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S.

I didnt say that at all. I said nuclear weapons was not a threat to anyone...he was light years away.

But Israel and Kuwait were at risk due to chemical and bioloigiocal capabilities.

 

[Shogun]

You read deeper into what I said that you should have...but I will take the blame. and reword.

Bush did not believe Hussein had nukes developed. He knew he had aspitrations; hje knew he had financial supporters; he knew he had some ingredients. He ALSO knew Hussein was years away from being nuclear capable.

He did not go in there with the nuclear weapons on his mind. He went in there witht he chemiocal and biological weapons in mind.

Good move? Certainly not good timing seeing as we had other issues on hand.....but to claim it was "nuclear weapons" he was looking for in 2003 is wrong. Bush knew he did not have nuclear weapons .

so in other words Saddam posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S.

I didnt say that at all. I said nuclear weapons was not a threat to anyone...he was light years away.

But Israel and Kuwait were at risk due to chemical and bioloigiocal capabilities.

Vice President Dick Cheney today presented the administration's most forceful and comprehensive rationale yet for attacking Iraq, warning that Saddam Hussein would ''fairly soon'' have nuclear weapons.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Israel and Kuwait huh.......ok.... but do you think that justifies the price of the Iraq War in lives and taxpayer money.

 

[Oldandtired]

Israel and Kuwait huh.......ok.... but do you think that justifies the price of the Iraq War in lives and taxpayer money.

Nope. Not at all. Never said the war was a good move....certainly was not a timely move.

I simply argued that it was nukes we went in there looking for. You can't hide a centrifuge complex from sattelites.

You CAN hide drums filled with chemical and biological weapons.

 

[Jay Canuck]

wasn't that what Hans Blix and company were doing before "shock and awe"?

 

[Oldandtired]

wasn't that what Hans Blix and company were doing before "shock and awe"?

We had a treaty with Hussein. We gave him his country back after surrender with only two stipulations...do not invade Kuwait againj and you MUST allow the UN in to inpsect your chemical plants.

He refused in 2002-2003 to allow the inspections.

Hell...we gave him months and he would not conply to the terms of the treaty he signed.

We not onlyt warned him....but we pretty much told him the day and time.

And congress approved.

 

[Jay Canuck]

Iraq produced a 12,000-page document on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining the destruction of its chemical and biological weapons. Despite some foot-dragging, Saddam then allowed U.N. inspectors to travel at will inside Iraq searching for forbidden weapons. The inspectors remained until March 2003 when Bush ordered them out ahead of his "shock and awe" bombing campaign. The U.N. inspectors' activities were broadcast on TV daily for weeks.

 

[The T]

Chemicals are NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are, and perhaps biological weapons might be, but chemicals?

No way.

Now I know well that my opinion here is not the mainstream opinion, but seriously...

Chemical weapons are hardly WMDS.

No more so then any large conventional bomb is a WMD.

Good observation...

And BTW? In case anyone has forgotten this little TIDBIT?

Saddam: 'I Lied About WMD In Fear Of Iran' <link>


[Snip]

"The former dictator made the revelations in a series of interviews with the FBI during his incarceration before he was hanged in 2006.
The new details were among over 100 pages of notes written by special agent George Piro, who interviewed Hussein after he was found hiding underground on a farm 80 miles from Baghdad.

Hussein also denied any connection to Osama bin Laden and described him as a "zealot", insisting he had personally never met the al Qaeda leader.

Iraq had fought a devastating eight-year war with Iran in the 80s that involved the use of chemical weapons and Hussein felt vulnerable to the threat from "fanatic" leaders in Tehran.

In fact, he would have been prepared to seek a "security agreement with the US to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region," according to the notes.

The United States was not Iraq's enemy, he simply opposed its policies, Hussein said, making it clear he considered Iran a greater threat."

[/SNIP]

Seems he was more afraid of Iran than us?? Is this the reason for the wild ride??

Read the Link posted above for more info...

And to the OP? Nice try...but pointless...

 

[manu1959]

How about bin laden ? Wasn't Obama gonna track him down or did he get sidetracked ?

no, dear...that was Bush.

but then he didn't "spend much time thinking about him".

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Bin Laden Must Be Stopped, Obama Says

fail......................

 

[jillian]

How about bin laden ? Wasn't Obama gonna track him down or did he get sidetracked ?

no, dear...that was Bush.

but then he didn't "spend much time thinking about him".

NTI: Global Security Newswire - Bin Laden Must Be Stopped, Obama Says

fail......................

yeah, yeah, yeah... see answers above.

you must have missed the fact that I don't really care... you know, given bush had 7 years to clean up his own mess.

 

[jillian]

And congress approved.

there's that goebbels lie again.

the resolution gave permission for use of force as a diplomatic tool. It was very specific in requiring diplomatic efforts and a RETURN TO REPORT TO CONGRESS before any military action could be taken.

Bush violated his own empowering resolution.

so do us a favor and go read it first.

thanks.

 

[elvis]

And congress approved.

there's that goebbels lie again.

the resolution gave permission for use of force as a diplomatic tool. It was very specific in requiring diplomatic efforts and a RETURN TO REPORT TO CONGRESS before any military action could be taken.

Bush violated his own empowering resolution.

so do us a favor and go read it first.

thanks.

Who, exactly, are you comparing to Goebbels?

 

[jillian]

And congress approved.

there's that goebbels lie again.

the resolution gave permission for use of force as a diplomatic tool. It was very specific in requiring diplomatic efforts and a RETURN TO REPORT TO CONGRESS before any military action could be taken.

Bush violated his own empowering resolution.

so do us a favor and go read it first.

thanks.

Who, exactly, are you comparing to Goebbels?

goebbels lie, El... something repeated over and over so people think it's true. the right keeps saying how "the dems approved of the war in Iraq" and point at the resolution. But as I said, it wasn't ever a blank check.... bush had hoops to jump first and gave congress (well, the dems) the finger... which is what he did for eight years.

 

[elvis]

there's that goebbels lie again.

the resolution gave permission for use of force as a diplomatic tool. It was very specific in requiring diplomatic efforts and a RETURN TO REPORT TO CONGRESS before any military action could be taken.

Bush violated his own empowering resolution.

so do us a favor and go read it first.

thanks.

Who, exactly, are you comparing to Goebbels?

goebbels lie, El... something repeated over and over so people think it's true. the right keeps saying how "the dems approved of the war in Iraq" and point at the resolution. But as I said, it wasn't ever a blank check.... bush had hoops to jump first and gave congress (well, the dems) the finger... which is what he did for eight years.

Well the dems DID NOT authorize the war, as only 45 percent of them voted for it. However, can you show me any outrage of the dems who DID vote to give authority when it was clear that Bush "renegged"? as I recall, Hillary, Biden, and Emanuel continued to support the war long after it was clear there were no WMD's.

 

[edthecynic]

wasn't that what Hans Blix and company were doing before "shock and awe"?

We had a treaty with Hussein. We gave him his country back after surrender with only two stipulations...do not invade Kuwait againj and you MUST allow the UN in to inpsect your chemical plants.

He refused in 2002-2003 to allow the inspections.

Hell...we gave him months and he would not conply to the terms of the treaty he signed.

We not onlyt warned him....but we pretty much told him the day and time.

And congress approved.

CON$ are just pathological liars.

Consortiumnews.com
In what’s been called George W. Bush’s first exit interview, the outgoing President continues a lie that he first unveiled several months after launching the Iraq War, justifying the invasion by claiming that Saddam Hussein didn’t let the U.N. inspectors in.

Like previous times when President Bush has used this lie, it went unchallenged by the journalist who heard the false claim, in this case ABC News anchor Charles Gibson.

According to the text of the ABC News interview, which was released Dec. 1, Gibson asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Of course, the historical record is clear: Hussein did let U.N. arms inspectors into Iraq in the fall of 2002 to search any site of their choosing. Their travels around Iraq in white vans were recorded daily by the international news media, as they found no evidence that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, even at sites targeted by U.S. intelligence.

Hussein and his government also declared publicly that they didn’t possess WMD, including providing the United Nations a 12,000-page declaration on Dec. 7, 2002, explaining how Iraq’s stocks of chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed in the 1990s.

However, still set on invading, Bush forced the U.N. inspectors to leave Iraq in March 2003, a departure that was followed within days by his “shock and awe” attack on Iraq, beginning March 19.

 

[txlonghorn]

So chemical warfare isn't a means of destroying or at the very least weakening large numbers of people? Then what is it?

 

[txlonghorn]

Chemicals are NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Nuclear weapons are, and perhaps biological weapons might be, but chemicals?

No way.

Now I know well that my opinion here is not the mainstream opinion, but seriously...

Chemical weapons are hardly WMDS.

No more so then any large conventional bomb is a WMD.

108 bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer...three 55 gallon drums of nitromethane... are these chemicals? They worked pretty good in Oklahoma City when Timothy McVeigh set off a bomb killing over 160 people while injuring over 650 and causing over 650 MILLION dollars worth of damage. Sounds like mass destruction to me. But since chemicals aren't agents of mass destruction, I guess there's nothing to worry about.