Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

[modman]

No big surprise there. Everytime I see this story in the news now I can see bush in my head standing in front of congress lying through his teeth about how Iraq tried to get weapons from Africa. What really gets me is why people are not more livid about this! When Clinton lied about his oval office antics people wanted to rip his head off and burn him at the steak. Bush goes to WAR, under false pretence and they report it on the news like it was just another story. Answer me this, who told the bigger lie? Clinton or Bush? This is absolutely UNBELEIVEABLE! If any president ever deserved to be impeached it is this incompetant moron. Yea you may say someone else is pulling the strings but this is why we have a president. He ultimately has to get up in front of the American people and make the case and if he can't determine a just cause for war he should'nt be let anywhere near the White House. I really don't know how he can sleep at night knowing how many soldiers died for "WMD threat". Those Iraqi people have more than the right to defend themselves from a country that invades on them for such reasons. Powell comes out today and says they had the intention of having weapons of mass destruction. We'll I had the intention of having millions of dollars by now but it just has'nt happened. Heard also talk of them trucking and railing it all into Syria. Oh, hell thats sounds like reason enough to send 100,000 troops in there lets blow the hell out of them too. Where does it end if this is our sole basis for war? This administration needs a check up from the neck up...

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by modman
No big surprise there. Everytime I see this story in the news now I can see bush in my head standing in front of congress lying through his teeth about how Iraq tried to get weapons from Africa. What really gets me is why people are not more livid about this! When Clinton lied about his oval office antics people wanted to rip his head off and burn him at the steak. Bush goes to WAR, under false pretence and they report it on the news like it was just another story. Answer me this, who told the bigger lie? Clinton or Bush?

Clinton admitted he lied, and he did so under oath.

Do you have any proof of these lies by Bush? Do you see the difference? One is called fact, the other is called opinion.

 

[nbdysfu]

originally posted by wij
The modern conservative belief that they are the true "anti-racist" party is the biggest load of manure I've ever heard. Republicans are just in denial. Pssst! Karl Rove! The Hispanics aren't going to vote Republican if you send personal invitations to jump the border to every Mexican man, woman and child!
________________ ____________________

I'm sorry but you seem to have a split personality here. Perhaps you are right I'm going OT, I considered putting this up as a new thread. If you are trying to imply that rove is making policies, and at that that he is ignorantly appealing to hispanic voters by allowing Mexican migration then I think you may be mistaken. I think in the long run that bit of legislation will do more help than harm. It's not Hispanics that Bush is infuriating, it's nativists who don't want the melting pot. And it isn't a modern conservative belief I'm talking about. Isn't there already a thread about this issue?

 

[Annie]

Guess what! Each man votes his or her own interests and preferences. Godspeed.

 

[jones]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Guess what! Each man votes his or her own interests and preferences. Godspeed.

You were right in your last post, theres alot of democrats that have sold out too. Im pretty ashamed of it, but your republican party is SOO corrupt, soo vile, soo unamerican and anti-democracy its a cryin shame. All you need to do is look at the underhandedness of your party's tactics, just look at Tom Delay. And certain folks who called a triple amputee war vet congressman who voted against the war, unpatriotic. sickening stuff.

 

[jimnyc]

Jones, enough of your pictures. Future posts of yours with pictures will just be removed. I've asked you like 4 times now.

 

[bobhard2001]

I have been waiting for the breaking story on the WMD's without satisfaction. I'm sure that if there were huge bunkers built by the Germans why couldn't small ones be built to hide biological weapons? I know, by now someone would have been tempted by the USD's rewards and given up a site but maybe the KEEPER-of-the-KEY is dead! My point is ; the weapons were used, Clinton believed, the UN believed and sent inspectors, Kay found documented evidence of programs and Bush believes... From experience where there is smoke there is fire!..... The US needs to Keep LOOKING!!!

 

[spillmind]

jim: i'm really not trying to pick on you, but:

Do you have any proof of these lies by Bush? Do you see the difference? One is called fact, the other is called opinion.

ok, fair enough.

how about last year's state of the union address that i have brought up time and time again, and you guys try to defend....

but jeez, man! the guy was hard selling this crap LIKE IT WAS REALITY. and now he's on his heels saying he won't repeat those CLAIMS he chanted as his mantra only 12 short months ago. instead, he goes for the: 'uh, he needed to be disposed of' crap that we hear time and time again when people can't make good on their CLAIMS that have cost our planet many thousands of lives for this effort!

now you can spin this off on the CIA or whathaveyou, but we all know (even you) YOUR fearless leader has pulled a 180° on this subject- THE VERY CASE FOR WAR. you've got to admit without those WMDs, even britain would not have stuck by us on that one!

bush has the ability to pull these things out of his rectum. i'm just waiting to see it. what the hell, things can't possibly get any worse, can they? maybe nuclear fallout? all out world war??

things as they are are still incredibly depressing.

 

[NightTrain]

 

[jimnyc]

jim: i'm really not trying to pick on you, but:

What fun would a message board be if no one questioned each other?

how about last year's state of the union address that i have brought up time and time again, and you guys try to defend....

What about it? Are you saying it contained outright lies? Let's look...

but jeez, man! the guy was hard selling this crap LIKE IT WAS REALITY. and now he's on his heels saying he won't repeat those CLAIMS he chanted as his mantra only 12 short months ago. instead, he goes for the: 'uh, he needed to be disposed of' crap that we hear time and time again when people can't make good on their CLAIMS that have cost our planet many thousands of lives for this effort!

As far as Bush was concerned it WAS reality. He received intel, developed a strategy, and relayed what he knew to the American citizens. After recent inspections and recent intel it looks as if the original assessment was faulty. Why would he repeat faulty intel?

Why is 'he needed to be disposed of' crap? And what claims does he need to 'make good' on? He acted on intel and removed what was a possible threat to the entire world. Sure, lives were lost, but they were a mere fraction of the lives lost due to Saddam over the years. No one knows just how many lives have been saved from future atrocities by Saddam.

now you can spin this off on the CIA or whathaveyou, but we all know (even you) YOUR fearless leader has pulled a 180° on this subject- THE VERY CASE FOR WAR. you've got to admit without those WMDs, even britain would not have stuck by us on that one!

Again, he made his speeches last year based on intel he received. He's now making speeches on the current intel he has received. It's not doing a 180, it's called telling it like it is based on what has been delivered to him.

I would have voted for war regardless of the WMD situation. The man was evil and needed to be removed. There's no need to go over the long list of reasons again, we've done that many times already. You, as well as others, have a different view on what is deserving of action. None of this makes Bush a liar. It simply gives us an opposing view than you. It's your right to vote for people that have similar views as you. Vote him out if you don't like him, but claiming he is a liar with absolutely no proof is silly.

bush has the ability to pull these things out of his rectum. i'm just waiting to see it. what the hell, things can't possibly get any worse, can they? maybe nuclear fallout? all out world war??

So which is it, did he make the stuff up or was it faulty intel? I've yet to see one single thing that points to him making stuff up and hundreds of reasons and testimonies that the intel was faulty. I'll side with the facts for now if that's ok with you.

things as they are are still incredibly depressing.

Saddam is gone. His regime is gone. Al Qaeda has taken a beating. Osama hasn't been seen in God knows how long. Chirac is now going to get his due for making deals with Saddam to avert war (as might quite a few other countries) Countless terrorists have been either killed or apprehended. It may be depressing, but it's been successful thus far.

So you made your post based on this quote from me:

Do you have any proof of these lies by Bush? Do you see the difference? One is called fact, the other is called opinion.

I'm not sure why you chose that quote, since your reply only seems to solidify my position. You haven't shown anything to be a lie. You disagree with the war, I can respect that. But, do so for the proper reasons, unfounded accusations simply don't help your case.

 

[modman]

Proof is in the retard hardlining the WMD threat givin to him by whoever is pulling the strings. I'd like to know who put together Colin Powell's little presentation he gave at the UN. You know the one with the photos of the mobile labs and the little vile of Saddam's love potion. I ask you this question. Keeping an open mind that the simplist explanation is usually the right one, what do you think is more likely to have happened: That the CIA completely misinterpreted Saddam's weapon's programs, or that the Bush administration pressured members of the intelligence community into boosting thier case for going to war? I can't see how the CIA can be so far off. They probably know what you had for dinner last night. So I tend to go with the simplist explanation. I hope that when the blame falls on whatever scape goat they choose to take the blame that this person stands up and tells the truth about who wanted them to "sex up" the intellligence.

 

[spillmind]

http://www.moveon.org/false/video/

 

[spillmind]

What about it? Are you saying it contained outright lies? Let's look...

i posted the previous link for those having a problem seeing the comparison.

perhaps i should further flesh the point out more lest that link be dismissed as biased.

What about it? Are you saying it contained outright lies? Let's look...

YES! let's lk! shall we?

from http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/index.html , i can quote:

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

compared to:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/sprj.nirq.bush/index.html

which contains: "I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work, so we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought," he said.

funny that word, 'fact'-

search that first page (ctrl+f) for the word 'fact'


1. There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

... too bad there is far too much grey area for your 'in fact' georgie.

2. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

now you could say this isn't lying all you want, but he was stating this as it was in fact, a FACT, and when so much is at stake, as in the immediate lives of our fellow americans that have died for these 'facts', you better be DAMN SURE there is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

back to your statements:

Sure, lives were lost, but they were a mere fraction of the lives lost due to Saddam over the years.

over the years? we are living in the present, and if we ousted dictators on their track record alone, inclusive to our aiding these efforts, we would have a world's worth of catching up to do, and an equivalent share of apologies to issue.

I've yet to see one single thing that points to him making stuff up and hundreds of reasons and testimonies that the intel was faulty.

i don't need hundreds of testimonial to be convinced: this will suffice:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/sprj.nirq.wmd.kay/index.html
...click on the video if you want to hear it in his own words.

"The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong, and we've got to figure out what was there." i'll tell you what's fundamentally WRONG, but that's for another thread

so let me ask you, jim, what exactly *is* a lie, then? do you have to be under oath? is not making good on campaign promises a lie? is reading somebody else's fabricated nonsense and hard selling it to the free world *not* a lie??? you be the judge!

an independant probe of this? YEAH RIGHT!!! (as if there was anything to hide, right) kinda like old schwartzamajigger researching his own groping allegations! and americans don't even CARE!!!! THAT is why things are depressing.

btw, catch the al-Qaida getting a 'beating' here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...re_as/afghan_soldiers_killed&cid=516&ncid=716

 

[jimnyc]

Your whole rambling post can be shot down with one definition:

Lie - A false statement deliberately presented as being true.

Try harder next time Spilly, we've heard your same stories on here at least 100 times now. *yawn*

 

[jimnyc]

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

Sounds logical considering the intel he was given. Don't see any lies here.

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

Iraq was supposed to show/prove to us that it had destroyed all it's banned weapons. Did they ever fully comply with what happened to all their chemical weapons? NO! Don't see any lies here.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

No lie here, just facts.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Again, sounds like he made this assessment based on intel. Don't see any lies here.

Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

That's a fact, not a lie!

Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

Is this like "find waldo"? I can't seem to see any lies here either.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

He relayed to the American people what he was told via inte. No lies here either!

"I think it's very important for us to let the Iraq Survey Group do its work, so we can find out the facts and compare the facts to what was thought," he said.

What's the problem here? He wants to know why the intel could have been faulty. Is there a lie in here?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

I notice you only mention Bush as the 'liar'. Many democrats read the same intel as Bush and came to the same conclusions. Shall I quote them again for you? Nevermind, find it yourself, it's all over this very board. It's just funny that Bush is a liar but they were only 'mislead'.

over the years? we are living in the present, and if we ousted dictators on their track record alone, inclusive to our aiding these efforts, we would have a world's worth of catching up to do, and an equivalent share of apologies to issue.

Oh, so he's been absolved of any wrongdoing for the hundreds of thousands of murders in the past? What exactly is the statute of limitations, I didn't realize they expired?

The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong, and we've got to figure out what was there."

Intel might have been faulty. Trying to understand where it may have failed sounds reasonable to me.

so let me ask you, jim, what exactly *is* a lie, then? do you have to be under oath? is not making good on campaign promises a lie? is reading somebody else's fabricated nonsense and hard selling it to the free world *not* a lie??? you be the judge!

A lie is when someone deliberately and knowingly tells something false. All you are doing is presenting words that have been proven to be wrong or haven't been proven as of yet. You've forgotten an important component that makes up a lie. People have presented things as facts on this board hundreds of times, only to have another user prove them wrong down the road with factual evidence. Does that make the original user a liar?

Was this all you had, Spilly? I thought it would have been a bit more difficult than this. These arguments are lame. Please do return when you have evidence of wrongdoing and facts to prove Bush a liar. Your opinions are tiresome as they've been written here hundreds of times and laughed at each and every time.

 

[bamthin]

Not sure if this a lie, per se, but it certainly raises the eyebrow:

“One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.” Bush, 9/16/02


-Bam

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bamthin
Not sure if this a lie, per se, but it certainly raises the eyebrow:

“One of the ways we've got to make sure that we keep our economy strong is to be wise about how we spend our money. If you overspend, it creates a fundamental weakness in the foundation of economic growth. And so I'm working with Congress to make sure they hear the message -- the message of fiscal responsibility.” Bush, 9/16/02


-Bam

First off, but no offense, but what does this have to do with Iraq and WMD?

Secondly, this isn't even remotely a lie. Many would disagree with his spending habits but that doesn't make the man a liar.

 

[bamthin]

Ooops, you are right jimnyc, that has nothing to do with Iraq. It does, however, provide insight into the honesty of Bush though. I was reading another quote by Bush which is more relevant. From my recollection, the "mobile labs" Bush was refering to here were actually designed to inflate weather balloons.


"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." - George Bush

Is this a lie? Or is it a stupid statement uttered before the true nature of these labs was discovered? I guess an argument could be made for both. My opinion is that it is a lie though. I just can't fathom the prospect that the President of the United States is that dumb, so a lie is the better of the two evils.

Which do you think jimnyc? Stupid or a lie?

-Bam

 

[spillmind]

wow! the hyenas are out in full force!

if you're going to shoot down my post in one statement, i'll do the same.

How can either of you PROVE that Bush was not DELIBERATELY pushing reasons for war he KNEW weren't true?

Do you support an independant investigation into questioning his denials?

 

[spillmind]

you also conveniently forgot:

--------------------------------

2. Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

now you could say this isn't lying all you want, but he was stating this as it was in fact, a FACT, and when so much is at stake, as in the immediate lives of our fellow americans that have died for these 'facts', you better be DAMN SURE there is beyond a shadow of a doubt.

--------------------------------

the was pushing these CLAIMS as FACTS. if he's not lying, then just speaking cluelessly is OK? not a lie??? ...there's got to be some kind of ACCOUNTABILITY here. because i'm really not buying it.
no matter how many times you yawn.