Iran--puppet master? US has 'proof' of Irans help in the insurgent community

[LuvRPgrl]

please...stop with the silly insults ...they really don't make much point, do they?

You mean like bully calling our President names?
at least call him on it and you will have a little legitimacy to your complaint with RSR

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I disagree that democrats have slimed the troops.... like when Murtha said that marines had killed civilians in cold blood - which they had - he was commenting on those who had done the crime - his criticism was not of all marines.
?

apparently you havent read much of what sen sKerry has said the last year or so. Cmon, either you are a liar, stupid or need to be better informed when discussing this issue.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Care to provide any independently verifiable documentation to support your assertion that weapons were moved to Syria from Iraq? Unless you can do so, with links, I should think you are the one lost in confabulation.

The Bush administration did not lack reliable intel on WMD's in Iraq "to some extent". They lacked any reliable intel, period. What they had was from members of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, and let's not forget "Curveball". German intelligence warned US intelligence agencies that the man was mentally unstable, and alcoholic and a known fabricator. And, according to the Senate Select Committee's "Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq", Iraq had not reconstituted a nuclear weapons program. And the conclusions drawn by the Bush administration regarding chemical and biological weapons were also based on intel from "Curveball". A history of his involvement and the dubious nature of his intel can be found <a href=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=bundesnachrichtendienst>HERE</a>

Intel, to be considered reliable must come from more than one source, i.e. humint, sigint and elint, with all sources verifiable independently of each other. To be actionable, intelligence must be reliable. The Bush administration's most compelling intel was single sourced (Curveball) and unverified by other sources. It was not reliable...It was not actionable.

So, unless you are willing, and/or able, to do more than engage in childish name-calling (and I doubt either case), just cool yer jets.

Care to provide any proof that he didnt? It was well established that saddam had WMD's and if you know anything truthful about the situation, Saddam was required to show proof of destorying them, which he never did. Hence, the assumption they were there is valid. SO BONEHEAD, you need to prove they were removed.

as for the rest, blah, blah, blah, blah , blah blah been there , done that, you guys were proven wrong before, you still are wrong, bitter, angry foolish anti american traitorous boneheads.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Since I can find no corroboration of this piece anywhere but in right wing-nut blogs and FOX Noise, I will discount it until I find evidence from reliable sources. As for the state of Iraq's WMD program prior to the US invasion, I believe this says if all:

<blockquote>The(sic)ISG <b>has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003</b>, but the available evidence from its investigation&#8212;including detainee interviews and document exploitation&#8212;leaves open the possibility that <i>some weapons existed in Iraq although <b>not of a militarily significant capability</b></i>. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

* &#8216;Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa&#8217;adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.
* According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.
* If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.
* Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use&#8212;or even the threat of use&#8212;of WMD after 1991, according to &#8216;Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion. - <a href=>Iraq Survey Group Final Report</a> (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

blah, blah, blah, oh yea, according to you, unless we provide proof from a reliable source , code word for commie news network or some other leftie news organization that is reliable, honorable and honest, like CBS and Dan Rather,,,,,,

THANKS FOR THE LAUGH BONEHEAD
,hahahhahahhahahah,a bwhahhahahahahhahahhahah
BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The quotes you cite are, substantively, correct. However, many are taken wholly out of context and out of time. Other statements were made on the based of flawed intelligence.

Many of the quotes I can find are referring to Iraq and Saddam Hussein in 1998 and predate December 1998's <i>Operation Desert Fox</i> by some days or weeks. Others, are based upon the intelligence, the flawed, spun and/or fabricated intelligence, Chimpy and Co shared with Congress.

Out of context statements and those made on the basis of misinformation hardly constitute a damning indictment of those who made them. Although the latter can be chalked up to a disturbing lack of skepticism and backbone on the part of the Democrats who made them.

It became official US policy to remove saddam DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION YOU STUPID FUCKING DIMWIT BONEHEADS.

I swear, you guys are the most bitter, angry and delusional group of people I have seen in my life.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I am going to disagree with those democrats who said that Saddam may have had WMD's...none of them EVER said it was a certainty, like Team Bush did.

No democrats ever said we needed to invade Iraq before Hans Blix finished his mission - which he was only a month or so away from accomplishing when Dubya kicked him out of the country - and had we waited - as democrats ALL were urging we do - we would have known that Saddam did NOT have any stockpiles of WMD's and that THE mission.... as per Dubya himself - THE mission, which was to disarm Saddam, was accomplished before we even began to shock and awe the Iraqi civilian populace in advance of invading and conquering their country.

a certainty? give me a break. THEY VOTED ON IT, how much more certain could they be. Besides, show us a quote of the Bush people who said it with "certainty"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Care to provide documentation to back that up? Didn't think so.

blah, blah, blah, he will provide it then you will say it was out of context, or from fox news (the most dependable and accurate news service out there_)


So, I have learned that you BONEHEAD, your code word for, "I got no arguement against you" is "got any documentation...."

 

[LuvRPgrl]

no...my opinion is as relevant as yours.... the fact that you "won" the last election would, in a strictly pragmatic world, be a cause for rejoicing for MY side because Bush's inept incompetent handling of foreign policy has guaranteed that progressive liberal (non-neocon) objectives will move forward, but in a real sense, it may not matter anymore, because Bush may have tipped us over the precipice and into Hell in which case political differentiation is about as important as arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

the boogey man is after us?

 

[red states rule]

Since I can find no corroboration of this piece anywhere but in right wing-nut blogs and FOX Noise, I will discount it until I find evidence from reliable sources. As for the state of Iraq's WMD program prior to the US invasion, I believe this says if all:

<blockquote>The(sic)ISG <b>has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003</b>, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that <i>some weapons existed in Iraq although <b>not of a militarily significant capability</b></i>. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

* ‘Amir Hamudi Hasan Al Sa’adi told an emissary from the RG leadership, on 27 January 2003, that if Saddam had WMD, he would use it, according to a former officer with direct knowledge of Iraqi military ground operations and planning.
* According to a former senior RG official, Iraq had dismantled or destroyed all of its WMD assets and manufacturing facilities. Had Saddam possessed WMD assets, he would have used them to counter the Coalition invasion.
* If he had CW, Saddam would have used it against Coalition Forces to save the Regime, according to a former senior official.
* Iraqi military planning did not incorporate the use—or even the threat of use—of WMD after 1991, according to ‘Ali Hasan Al Majid. WMD was never part of the military plan crafted to defeat the 2003 Coalition invasion. - <a href=>Iraq Survey Group Final Report</a> (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

Libs will always ignore anything that destroys their talking points and predetermined view of the issues


Israeli General: WMD's Went To Syria
by Rob Port
December 16, 2005 12:35 PM EST

New York Sun - Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.

The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.

The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."

From July 2002 to June 2005, when he retired, General Yaalon was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military. He is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He made similar, but more speculative, remarks in April 2004 that attracted little notice in America; at that time he was quoted as saying of the Iraqi weapons, "Perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."

Of course, to those of us paying attention evidence suggesting this is hardly surprising. There have been rumors and tid-bits of information suggesting it since the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Really, though, I almost hesitate to bring up the WMD's issue any more. The intelligence addressing WMD's that the case for war in Iraq was based on was still flawed. The problems that caused those flaws still need to be addressed, and why we went to war is sort of a moot point at this stage of the game. Iraq has a democratic government now, formed and elected by the will of the people. A powerful blow for freedom and liberty has been struck in the middle east, and the ripple effects from it are going to have positive connotations in that region for decades to come.

So we didn't find WMD's when we went into Iraq. It was still the right decision. That Syria may well have them now is only something we need to consider when developing foreign policy concerning that country.

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976719666

 

[maineman]

a certainty? give me a break. THEY VOTED ON IT, how much more certain could they be. Besides, show us a quote of the Bush people who said it with "certainty"

How much more certain? Why do you think you need to be CERTAIN to vote for something? We sit in jury boxes and send people to gas chambers as long as there is not reasonable doubt.... certainty is the total absence of doubt. That is what the administration told us over and over again....and please remember: a majority of democrats in congress voted AGAINST this stupid war.

And are you really saying that there are not quotes of Cheney saying there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's..of Rumsfeld saying that not only were we certain that he had them, we even knew where they were? I have no intention of googling the morning away just to prove to you what is a commonly known fact.

 

[red states rule]

How much more certain? Why do you think you need to be CERTAIN to vote for something? We sit in jury boxes and send people to gas chambers as long as there is not reasonable doubt.... certainty is the total absence of doubt. That is what the administration told us over and over again....and please remember: a majority of democrats in congress voted AGAINST this stupid war.

And are you really saying that there are not quotes of Cheney saying there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's..of Rumsfeld saying that not only were we certain that he had them, we even knew where they were? I have no intention of googling the morning away just to prove to you what is a commonly known fact.

Once again, Dems said the same things about Saddam and WMD's

Yet to libs, Pres Bush and VP Cheney were lying and the Dems were "mistaken"

 

[maineman]

Once again, Dems said the same things about Saddam and WMD's

Yet to libs, Pres Bush and VP Cheney were lying and the Dems were "mistaken"

nope..dems never were certain.

and a majority of dems voted against the war...

 

[red states rule]

nope..dems never were certain.

and a majority of dems voted against the war...

They were certain and now they want to run away from the vote to appease the kook left base

 

[maineman]

after ten minutes of "debating" with you, I feel like I need to go wash my hands.... it is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk.

you really have nothing of substance to say....

I would love to talk about the middle east with someone from the right who has a brain.... and that certainly excludes you.

 

[red states rule]

after ten minutes of "debating" with you, I feel like I need to go wash my hands.... it is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk.

you really have nothing of substance to say....

I would love to talk about the middle east with someone from the right who has a brain.... and that certainly excludes you.

You want to solve the Middle East problem? It is very easy

 

[Bullypulpit]

blah, blah, blah, he will provide it then you will say it was out of context, or from fox news (the most dependable and accurate news service out there_)


So, I have learned that you BONEHEAD, your code word for, "I got no arguement against you" is "got any documentation...."

Your frustration over your inability to formulate a cogent, coherent rebuttal of the facts I, and others, have presented is glaringly obvious. Rather than address the issues raised, you resort to childish epithets and puerile name-calling. You've "got no argument" so, like a child, you resort to name calling, which only heightens your frustration when an adult hands your ass to you on a platter. So why don't you save yourself needless frustration and come back when you're all grown up? Run along now, I think I hear your momma calling you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Libs will always ignore anything that destroys their talking points and predetermined view of the issues


Israeli General: WMD's Went To Syria
by Rob Port
December 16, 2005 12:35 PM EST

New York Sun - Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.

The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.

The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."

From July 2002 to June 2005, when he retired, General Yaalon was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military. He is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He made similar, but more speculative, remarks in April 2004 that attracted little notice in America; at that time he was quoted as saying of the Iraqi weapons, "Perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."

Of course, to those of us paying attention evidence suggesting this is hardly surprising. There have been rumors and tid-bits of information suggesting it since the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Really, though, I almost hesitate to bring up the WMD's issue any more. The intelligence addressing WMD's that the case for war in Iraq was based on was still flawed. The problems that caused those flaws still need to be addressed, and why we went to war is sort of a moot point at this stage of the game. Iraq has a democratic government now, formed and elected by the will of the people. A powerful blow for freedom and liberty has been struck in the middle east, and the ripple effects from it are going to have positive connotations in that region for decades to come.

So we didn't find WMD's when we went into Iraq. It was still the right decision. That Syria may well have them now is only something we need to consider when developing foreign policy concerning that country.

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com


http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976719666

I went back to the <a href=http://www.nysun.com/article/24480><i>New York Sun</i></a> article by Ira Stoll. No evidence was presented to support the General's claim. No credible evidence has been presented anywhere else to support claims that Iraq moved its WMD's to Syria. The article was more a diatribe against opponents of President Bush's policies in Iraq in general and Syria in particular.

You get an "C" for effort, but the piece you cite falls far short of the mark with regards to documentation to support the assertion made there. Nice try though.

 

[red states rule]

I went back to the <a href=http://www.nysun.com/article/24480><i>New York Sun</i></a> article by Ira Stoll. No evidence was presented to support the General's claim. No credible evidence has been presented anywhere else to support claims that Iraq moved its WMD's to Syria. The article was more a diatribe against opponents of President Bush's policies in Iraq in general and Syria in particular.

You get an "C" for effort, but the piece you cite falls far short of the mark with regards to documentation to support the assertion made there. Nice try though.

If you saw a video of the weapons being shipped to Syria - you would snear it was made at a sound stage in the White House basement and Karl Rove was the director

Only libs would actually believe Saddam went to war with the US over weapons he had already disposed because the UN asked him to

 

[maineman]

If you saw a video of the weapons being shipped to Syria - you would snear it was made at a sound stage in the White House basement and Karl Rove was the director

Only libs would actually believe Saddam went to war with the US over weapons he had already disposed because the UN asked him to

Saddam did not initiate shock and awe..Saddam didn't to go to war with the US, the US went to war with Saddam.... what color is the sky in your world?

 

[red states rule]

Saddam did not initiate shock and awe..Saddam didn't to go to war with the US, the US went to war with Saddam.... what color is the sky in your world?

Saddam was a terrorist who needed to taken out

To libs he was a kind dictator who was minding his own business and was only slaughtering his own people - no threat to anyone else but those in his own country