The Myth exploded...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html>The Myth Exploded, or, The Emperor <b>STILL</b> Has No Clothes</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.</blockquote>

And the conclusion is...<b><font color=red>SURPRISE!</font></b>...no different than it was four months ago. No evidence of reconstituted NBC programs has been found. No evidence of the movement of stockpiles of NBC weapons to other countries has been found. No evidence of transfer of said weapons or technologies to third parties has been found. Zero...Zilch...Nada...Zip. And the Bush administration stands, yet again, naked and blinking stupidly into the sun still trying to convince us that they are clothed in magnificent robes of righteous indignation.

They are still trying to spin their fabric of lies in a futile attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq. They continue to defend the indefensible. They still try to convince us of their good intentions, as they pave the road to hell with them.

Now, I'm sure there are those of you who will buy the party line and say, "But intelligence agencies all over the world said...", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Mohammed El Baradei, Hans Blix, and former UNSCOM inspectors, including Scott Ritter stated flat out, before this whole nightmare even began, that there were no WMD's in Iraq...That these programs had not be reconstituted. They had the most recent experience in Iraq. They had most recently had boots on the ground in Iraq. The intel available to Bush, Blair, and others was had from the since discredited Ahmed Chalabi and other members of the Iraqi National Congress, who were all looking to set themselves up as the leaders of a new Iraq. And in case you haven't noticed, as soon as it looked as if the whole premise for war was going to be exposed as a lie, Chalabi was branded a criminal and and a traitor, with a warrant issued for his arrest on murder charges. What was it Machiavelli said about "foreign princes"?

As this new information comes to light, if it ever does, you can be certain that the Adminstration will go on high spin cycle. Even though the initial Duelfer Report exploded the myth that Iraq had WMD's and was poised to strike with them, Dick Cheney went so far as to say the Duelfer Report "confirmed our assertions". This in the hopes that enough people who would never read the report would accept his word as the gospel truth. As November 2 showed, enough did buy into the lie.
 
Bullypulpit said:
<center><h1><a href=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html>The Myth Exploded, or, The Emperor <b>STILL</b> Has No Clothes</a></h1></center>

<blockquote>Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG's final conclusions and will be published this spring.</blockquote>

And the conclusion is...<b><font color=red>SURPRISE!</font></b>...no different than it was four months ago. No evidence of reconstituted NBC programs has been found. No evidence of the movement of stockpiles of NBC weapons to other countries has been found. No evidence of transfer of said weapons or technologies to third parties has been found. Zero...Zilch...Nada...Zip. And the Bush administration stands, yet again, naked and blinking stupidly into the sun still trying to convince us that they are clothed in magnificent robes of righteous indignation.

They are still trying to spin their fabric of lies in a futile attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq. They continue to defend the indefensible. They still try to convince us of their good intentions, as they pave the road to hell with them.

Now, I'm sure there are those of you who will buy the party line and say, "But intelligence agencies all over the world said...", blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Mohammed El Baradei, Hans Blix, and former UNSCOM inspectors, including Scott Ritter stated flat out, before this whole nightmare even began, that there were no WMD's in Iraq...That these programs had not be reconstituted. They had the most recent experience in Iraq. They had most recently had boots on the ground in Iraq. The intel available to Bush, Blair, and others was had from the since discredited Ahmed Chalabi and other members of the Iraqi National Congress, who were all looking to set themselves up as the leaders of a new Iraq. And in case you haven't noticed, as soon as it looked as if the whole premise for war was going to be exposed as a lie, Chalabi was branded a criminal and and a traitor, with a warrant issued for his arrest on murder charges. What was it Machiavelli said about "foreign princes"?

As this new information comes to light, if it ever does, you can be certain that the Adminstration will go on high spin cycle. Even though the initial Duelfer Report exploded the myth that Iraq had WMD's and was poised to strike with them, Dick Cheney went so far as to say the Duelfer Report "confirmed our assertions". This in the hopes that enough people who would never read the report would accept his word as the gospel truth. As November 2 showed, enough did buy into the lie.


The horse is dead bully. Leave the damn thing alone. The jig is up and there is no mass protestation over "new information" coming to light. Your army has left you and you look silly exhorting your throng of nobody to charge on.
WMD verification by other countries' intelligence agencies is not just a party line. It's the truth.
Check with your CO for your next mission. I'm sure you are needed elsewhere.
 
Sir Evil said:
Ummm, I don't think they are to concerned anymore of justifying the Iraq situation, it happened so get over it! I can't believe you are still on this WMD's talk still as if anyone was not already aware of the situation. Really though it's no matter to the current, there were plenty other justification wether you like it or not!

I find it difficult to believe that you still support a president who took us to war on false pretenses. He sent our troops into harms way on a tissue of lies. It happened, so get over it.

As for "the other justifications" they were trotted out only after it became clear that the WMD house of cards was falling apart. Like it or not, that's what happened...Some 29 times.
 
Bullypulpit said:
I find it difficult to believe that you still support a president who took us to war on false pretenses. He sent our troops into harms way on a tissue of lies. It happened, so get over it.

As for "the other justifications" they were torotted out only after it became clear that the WMD house of cards was falling apart. Like it or not, that's what happened...Some 29 times.


Bully, Saddam was kicking out inspectors and blocking their access to facilities. He should have taken out for these reasons alone. We don't just mindlessly accept what bush says, we think for ourselves. You should try it.
 
dilloduck said:
The horse is dead bully. Leave the damn thing alone. The jig is up and there is no mass protestation over "new information" coming to light. Your army has left you and you look silly exhorting your throng of nobody to charge on.
WMD verification by other countries' intelligence agencies is not just a party line. It's the truth.
Check with your CO for your next mission. I'm sure you are needed elsewhere.

No statute of limitations exists for war crimes. The only dead-horse here is the administration's pretense for war in the first place. Stop trying to ignore the adminstration's responsibility for thousands of dead, wounded and maimed US troops in an unjust and illegal war.
 
Bullypulpit said:
I find it difficult to believe that you still support a president who took us to war on false pretenses. He sent our troops into harms way on a tissue of lies. It happened, so get over it.

As for "the other justifications" they were torotted out only after it became clear that the WMD house of cards was falling apart. Like it or not, that's what happened...Some 29 times.

The other justifications... like the 14 ignored UN violations? Or the constant firing at US and UK troops enforcing a no-fly zone, and therefore violating the 1991 cease-fire agreement? Or the gassing of Kurds?

Tell me, Bully, how many UN resolutions should we have allowed Hussein to ignore before the UN, or any of its member nations, did anything about it?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Bully, Saddam was kicking out inspectors and blocking their access to facilities. He should have taken out for these reasons alone. We don't just mindlessly accept what bush says, we think for ourselves. You should try it.

If you did, you wouldn't have voted for Dubbyuh.
 
gop_jeff said:
The other justifications... like the 14 ignored UN violations? Or the constant firing at US and UK troops enforcing a no-fly zone, and therefore violating the 1991 cease-fire agreement? Or the gassing of Kurds?

Tell me, Bully, how many UN resolutions should we have allowed Hussein to ignore before the UN, or any of its member nations, did anything about it?

War is the last resort of the incompetent. The administration did not play diplomacy out to the end. As for Saddam's gassing of Kurdish villages, while tragic, the technology for producing such weapons was deliverd into Saddam's hands by the US during Iraq's war with Iran. In fact, Rummy helped with the deal. Convenient that you forget such historical side bars.
 
Bullypulpit said:
War is the last resort of the incompetent. The administration did not play diplomacy out to the end. As for Saddam's gassing of Kurdish villages, while tragic, the technology for producing such weapons was deliverd into Saddam's hands be the US during Iraq's war with Iran. In fact, Rummy helped with the deal. Convenient that you forget such historical side bars.

appeasment is the only resort for idiots like you. It didn't work before WWII and it won't work now.

You sound like a whining bitch.
 
Bullypulpit said:
If you did, you wouldn't have voted for Dubbyuh.

You're the one who can only conceptualize the war in terms of "what bush said" about it. That makes you an idiot.

Are you in the "it was the right war but for the wrong reasons" crowd. If you're not, I bet some of your close friends are. Now THAT is an intellectually bankrupt position.
 
Bullypulpit said:
War is the last resort of the incompetent. The administration did not play diplomacy out to the end. As for Saddam's gassing of Kurdish villages, while tragic, the technology for producing such weapons was deliverd into Saddam's hands be the US during Iraq's war with Iran. In fact, Rummy helped with the deal. Convenient that you forget such historical side bars.

Oh really?----so if any war is a failure of diplomacy apparently both sides fail----explain that to Hussein and his cronies, please.
 
Bullypulpit said:
War is the last resort of the incompetent.

So the US was incompetent in going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor? The North was incompetent for going to war against the South? The Russians were incompetent for defending themselves against Napoleon? Sounds like an unfounded axiom.

The administration did not play diplomacy out to the end.

Again, my question is, how much more diplomacy would have been satisfactory? Did we need to sit down at a table across form Saddam and let him moon Colin Powell before we broke off talks?

As for Saddam's gassing of Kurdish villages, while tragic, the technology for producing such weapons was deliverd into Saddam's hands be the US during Iraq's war with Iran. In fact, Rummy helped with the deal. Convenient that you forget such historical side bars.

Great. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's. In that case, our moral responsibility to rid Iraq of the corrupt leader in charge of them is greater.
 
freeandfun1 said:
appeasment is the only resort for idiots like you. It didn't work before WWII and it won't work now.

You sound like a whining bitch.

Awww...You can't dispute the facts, so you attack.
 
gop_jeff said:
So the US was incompetent in going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor? The North was incompetent for going to war against the South? The Russians were incompetent for defending themselves against Napoleon? Sounds like an unfounded axiom.



Again, my question is, how much more diplomacy would have been satisfactory? Did we need to sit down at a table across form Saddam and let him moon Colin Powell before we broke off talks?



Great. We gave Iraq weapons in the 80's. In that case, our moral responsibility to rid Iraq of the corrupt leader in charge of them is greater.

Your examples are wars of neccessity forced by an outside aggressor. The war in Iraq was a war of choice...Based on a fabric of lies...Thus the last resort of an incompetent administration. Get over it.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Your examples are wars of neccessity forced by an outside aggressor. The war in Iraq was a war of choice...Based on a fabric of lies...Thus the last resort of an incompetent administration. Get over it.

but i thought you said: "War is the last resort of the incompetent."

Thus we should never have gone to war with japan or germany no matter what they did.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Isn't that what I just did.

actually no...he asked you to provide specific examples of what you thought Bush's premises for war were and which ones were false.....
 
As for Saddam's gassing of Kurdish villages, while tragic, the technology for producing such weapons was deliverd into Saddam's hands be the US during Iraq's war with Iran. In fact, Rummy helped with the deal. Convenient that you forget such historical side bars.

This is such an asinine statement. I heard it so frequently before the elections and the fact that you are still spouting it now proves that you are a parrot, Bully, simply repeating whatever tripe you see on the front page of moveon.org or on Air America.

No one has ever denied that the United States frequently sides with one sonofabitch over another. No one has ever said that the United States was perfect, that we haven't ever put up puppet dictatorships, that we haven't ever made decisions in the past that turned out to be wrong in the long run...

What people HAVE been saying is that who we allied ourselves with in the past has NOTHING to do with actions we should take against them in the future.

Jesus Christ, Bully...do you tell women in abusive relationships that they should stay married to the violent bastard because, "Hey, you married him. Once, when you thought he was a good guy, you said you'd support him and stay with him forever, so I don't care if he's become an abusive tyrannical f*ck...you made your bed now sleep in it, honey!!!"

Some sympathetic, understanding liberal you are, Bully.

We allied with Saddam when we had bigger fish to fry...was it a smart decision in the long run? Looks like it wasn't...but the United States isn't the only nation to have an allie turn on them, Bully....perhaps YOU need to study up on your history before whining to others about nonsense you know isn't true.


In addition...the premise of your post demonstrably proves that you do not do the research on things before you open your yap.

The Duelfer report, UN examinations, Kay's report, and all previous inspections into the WMD in Iraq concluded that while no WMD had been found, it was quite evident that Saddam was keeping his scientists at the ready for the moment the inspectors left. He was investing money in remaining uptodate with the technology to build WMD and was looking into procurring the materials he would have needed to do so.

What does this mean?

It means that if the US had not removed Saddam...if we had listened to the French-Russia-Germany-China pressurred UN and "let the inspectors do their jobs" then it is quite possible that they would have found nothing and left.

People like you would have clapped and cheered about how peace and justice ruled the day.

And Saddam would have started up right where he left off.

Kay's "damning report," included things like him stating that while no WMD were found it is more clear than ever that Saddam needed to be removed. The Duefler report stated that it was quite clear there was no way to stop Saddam but remove him...

And all of this stands before you even begin to take into consideration things like the massive about of truck traffic moving from suspected weapons sites in Iraq to places like Syria (these haven't been disputed by the UN) or the recorded phone calls between Iraqi officials and people working at these weapons sites talking about where the inspectors were going to be going that day and where to move the "material" or "items" to.

Bully, you can howl and whine all you want about the fact that we haven't opened a door and found big piles of WMD...but all it does is show how little you know and how much you are willing to ignore if it doesn't support the ideas you've decided to hold on to.

We've all said we may never find WMD in Iraq...most of us have admitted completely that the US went to war with a bunch of crappy intelligence...no one here is in denial but you...and that is because most of us have read more than just the headlines regarding the "No WMD in Iraq" reports...and because of that we know that removing Saddam and making sure he can never start his weapons programs again was integral to the safety of the US and other nations.
 
Gem,

well said....libs often use the "dirty hands" argument... meaning since you are not allowed to correct your mistakes
 
Bullypulpit said:
Thus the last resort of an incompetent administration. Get over it.


And divorce is the last resort of an incompetent spouse?


This is a ridiculous statement based on nothing but nice feelings. There is no evidence that "war is the last resort of incompetent" blah, blah. We have already given several examples where this blanket statement was wrong. Attempting to defend such a ridiculous and hopeless position is just inane and making you look desperate.

War is something noone wants but is sometimes necessary for the security of the place in which you live. Sometimes diplomacy fails no matter how hard you try, especially when the opposing side has no intention other than to take advantage of all the time you are willing to give them by "diplomacy" to break every agreement that they may have made.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top