NO WMD's? Guess again,,,,

[007]

Even though this man has come forward and told his story, and even if Syria ADMITS they have them, and even if Syria hands them over, and one of the larger chem projectiles gets shoved up teddy *hick* kennedy's ass, the dems and their partners in crime, the MSM, will NEVER admit they said anything wrong, or were wrong, about anything. To think different is futile.

This man and his story is hush, hush in all forms of media except Fox News and the bloggisphere.

 

[archangel]

Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

Mariner.

Iraq Generals are now comming forward and are confirming that the WMD were sent to Syria with the aid of Russian Special ops(just prior to the invasion)...this was the intel of the day...another story will soon unfold as to what we do with Syria at this point and time! :ali: <<< not!

 

[Gunny]

Wall Street Journal wrote the same thing in an editorial recently as I did: that it's lose/lose for Bush to find WMD's now, therefore he's keeping quiet on the issue. It's not Democratic politics that make him quiet; it's a Republican of not wanting to look incompetent:

Find WMD's now, after your administration has said "We were wrong" about them, and you look incompetent for both missing them in the first place, and for then saying they weren't there when they were. Even if you gain evidence that supports starting the war, you look like you failed your mission, and your military strategies (fewer troops on the ground) look to be proven wrong.

Mariner.

The largest stockpile of WMDs in the world could turn up and it would not indicate incompetence to me. It's only lose/to you lefties. If they also turned around and said they said they were wrong just to try (in vain) to shut you lefties up, I'd buy that too since I already think it.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

1) This guy has a book to pitch
2) What is his name? Could he even have access to that kind of info
3) It is unbelievable(unless the admin is as incompetent as I think it is) that we did not have satellites over the areas where admin officials, such as Rumsfeld, "knew" that weapons existed. We should have been watching their convoy of vehicles, driving out of Iraq and into Syria.
4) Syria is not that big of a country. "25,000 liters of anthrax...38,000 liters of botulinum toxin...500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent...several mobile biological weapons labs" is hard to hide. So why can't we find it???

Really, this is just a convenient way to opt out of the reality that Chalabi duped Bush and friends. You might as well say that the weapons came to life and rode away on a unicorn. No one can disprove that either.

 

[Gunny]

1) This guy has a book to pitch
2) What is his name? Could he even have access to that kind of info
3) It is unbelievable(unless the admin is as incompetent as I think it is) that we did not have satellites over the areas where admin officials, such as Rumsfeld, "knew" that weapons existed. We should have been watching their convoy of vehicles, driving out of Iraq and into Syria.
4) Syria is not that big of a country. "25,000 liters of anthrax...38,000 liters of botulinum toxin...500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent...several mobile biological weapons labs" is hard to hide. So why can't we find it???

Really, this is just a convenient way to opt out of the reality that Chalabi duped Bush and friends. You might as well say that the weapons came to life and rode away on a unicorn. No one can disprove that either.

Why is it hard to hide in a sandbox the size of Iraq?

 

[Palestinian Jew]

Why is it hard to hide in a sandbox the size of Iraq?

You realize I was talking about Syria, don't you? It's not part of America, so you might not know about it. To put it in perspective, it's just a little bigger than North Dakota and north of Jordan.

 

[Gunny]

You realize I was talking about Syria, don't you? It's not part of America, so you might not know about it. To put it in perspective, it's just a little bigger than North Dakota and north of Jordan.

I've been to the ME a few times. But anyone who hasn't can still read a map. And anyone skilled in the art of camouflage could hide whatever they wanted in plain view.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

since "outing" Syria to us would bring major repercussions for an already troubled regime.

Just as with the supposed "intelligence" from the Iraqi Shi'ite expatriates before the war, we should be very careful to assess the possible motives of people providing us information.

The only way this would make sense is if the general is a pro-U.S. former Saddamist, who opposes his fellow Sunnis' insurgency. I don't think there are too many of those, but I'd be happy if there were some.

And if there are usable WMD's (presumably chemical or biologial?) in Syria, let's pressure that regime until it hands them over. Although it would help justify the invasion if there it were true, it would also condemn the current administration's military strategy, since many people worried that we had inadequate troops on the ground to properly seal the Syrian border.

I think it's because this is a lose/lose proposition for Bush that the White House has been very muted about any hints that WMDs might have been present but missed.

Mariner.

You should have heard this guy interviewed. I am pretty good at assesing people, and he sounded like the real deal to me. Prager doesnt interview loonies, unless they are liberals, (well, thats a given)

They were moved BEFORE the ouster of saddam, so if they were moved, its more the fault of those who opposed going in and forced a delay. Personally I think Bush should have acted much, much sooner.

The reason they are mute about it is because they dont want to make claims that cant or arent already confirmed. The liberals have already used this as an effective hammer (mainly because they didnt have much else, and NO alternate solution) but image the reprucussions if AGAIN Bush admin. made a claim of the existence of WMD's and it turned out there were none. DISASTER.

Yea, many people think we had inadequate troops, many thought we didnt have enough, many thought we shouldnt use F-16's, others thought we should have used more, many think the portable toilets are the wrong size, etc, etc, ITS IRRELEVANT what many people thought.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

1) This guy has a book to pitch
2) What is his name? Could he even have access to that kind of info
3) It is unbelievable(unless the admin is as incompetent as I think it is) that we did not have satellites over the areas where admin officials, such as Rumsfeld, "knew" that weapons existed. We should have been watching their convoy of vehicles, driving out of Iraq and into Syria.
4) Syria is not that big of a country. "25,000 liters of anthrax...38,000 liters of botulinum toxin...500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent...several mobile biological weapons labs" is hard to hide. So why can't we find it???

Really, this is just a convenient way to opt out of the reality that Chalabi duped Bush and friends. You might as well say that the weapons came to life and rode away on a unicorn. No one can disprove that either.

He is donating 100% of the profits. I dont remember his name, if I even caught it.

He was the general of the Air Force, they flew them out.

It isnt that hard to hide that stuff, the desert is BIG.

unicorn? sounds more like a liberal concept to me

 

[Mariner]

the interview, LuvRP. I don't watch much TV since I'm deaf and hate the captions (which contain a lot of errors). It would certainly be interesting if it's true that significant WMD's were moved to Iraq.

GunnyL and Dillo, you are missing my point. Bush and his military planners disregarded the advice of many senior military people and former administration figures, including many Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, in planning the invasion. If WMDs were moved and we missed them, then Bush and his buddies are going to look like idiots for letting them get away. Sure, it'll help justify the war, but then it'll look like he flubbed it. That's why I call it lose/lose, and why I think the White House hasn't said a word about occasional rumors such as those about Syria.

Again, it's not just me saying so--it's the editorial page of the largest conservative newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Disagree with the idea if you want, but don't say it's just Democrat-speak.

I'm sorry I can't give you a link to the Journal's editorial. Unlike the more liberal New York Times, which gives away much of its content free on the web, the Journal requires a subscription. Darned conservatives.

Mariner.

 

[Annie]

the interview, LuvRP. I don't watch much TV since I'm deaf and hate the captions (which contain a lot of errors). It would certainly be interesting if it's true that significant WMD's were moved to Iraq.

GunnyL and Dillo, you are missing my point. Bush and his military planners disregarded the advice of many senior military people and former administration figures, including many Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, in planning the invasion. If WMDs were moved and we missed them, then Bush and his buddies are going to look like idiots for letting them get away. Again, it's not just me saying so--it's the editorial page of the largest conservative newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Disagree with the idea if you want, but don't say it's just Democrat-speak.

I'm sorry I can't give you a link to the Journal's editorial. Unlike the more liberal New York Times, which gives away much of its content free on the web, the Journal requires a subscription. Darned conservatives.

Mariner.

Missed nothing. You are not just 'deaf' in the ears, Mariner. You may be an MD, but not the brightest bulb, Harvard or not, family or not, MD or not.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Missed nothing. You are not just 'deaf' in the ears, Mariner. You may be an MD, but not the brightest bulb, Harvard or not, family or not, MD or not.

HAHAH, I was kinda thinking the same thing, "mariner is deaf" GO FIGURE!

Not to mention his reading and memory of recent items isnt all that good. I said i HEARD THE GUY INTERVIEWED ON THE RADIO, whats that got to do with tv? Radio talk shows are online, where you can read them.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

...JESUS was aware of all that and preached against it. I consistently remember, He who is without sin cast the first stone, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and turn the other cheek. I can mention a few other admonitions against WAR.

Yes, Jesus never cast the first stone, did unto others as he would have them do unto him, and turned the other cheek...and then he was imprisoned, beaten, tortured, nail to a cross, and stabbed with poisen spears.

If someone calls you a name, turn the other cheek. If someone declares their desire to kill you based on twisted religious beliefs, flies planes into your buildings killing thousands, or repeatedly fires on your aircraft, turning the other cheek will only lead to more death for the people around you. Sometimes it's just not logical to apply the way you should deal with individuals with the way you have to deal with crazed maniacs on an international level. Or, sometimes, even other individuals.

Don't know about you, but if terrorists get to me and kill me, I ain't coming back three days later.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

You realize I was talking about Syria, don't you? It's not part of America, so you might not know about it. To put it in perspective, it's just a little bigger than North Dakota and north of Jordan.

The size of North Dakota, the size of Canada, or the size of your granny's bed pan, it's doesn't matter. Could be the reason we couldn't find it there is because we haven't looked there, at least maybe until now. Syria is very protective of it's borders, and this might be the reason they have been overly protective in recent years.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

the interview, LuvRP. I don't watch much TV since I'm deaf and hate the captions (which contain a lot of errors). It would certainly be interesting if it's true that significant WMD's were moved to Iraq.

GunnyL and Dillo, you are missing my point. Bush and his military planners disregarded the advice of many senior military people and former administration figures, including many Republicans such as Brent Scowcroft, in planning the invasion. If WMDs were moved and we missed them, then Bush and his buddies are going to look like idiots for letting them get away. Sure, it'll help justify the war, but then it'll look like he flubbed it. That's why I call it lose/lose, and why I think the White House hasn't said a word about occasional rumors such as those about Syria.

Again, it's not just me saying so--it's the editorial page of the largest conservative newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. Disagree with the idea if you want, but don't say it's just Democrat-speak.

I'm sorry I can't give you a link to the Journal's editorial. Unlike the more liberal New York Times, which gives away much of its content free on the web, the Journal requires a subscription. Darned conservatives.

Mariner.

Considering the New York Times is, more often then not, full of garbage, it should be free. How about the New York Sun? Here's a nice free article.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Can't say I'm surprised if it's true the Russians have had their hands in this. Russia, France, and the UN have all stunk to high heaven since this began. They were so adament against going in, but were the first ones standing on the door step wanting in once the Marines were tearing down statues.

Looky here. And it's free.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

 

[Mariner]

that the lose/lose idea was a dumb liberal one.

I pointed out the conservative Wall Street Journal suggested the same thing.

GunnyL responded: "It's only lose/to you lefties."

I said he was missing my point: disagree with it if you will, but don't call it a lefty idea.

Moderator Kathianne responds with an ad hominem attack, which LuvRPGirl seconds.

Huh?

Mariner.

PS. Yes, LuvRP you did say radio not TV. Wow, big error on my part. I'm sure you'd be just as quick to jump on a conservative about such a monstrous error. My brain filed it away as a source of information I don't use. BTW, all radio content is not available online--if you'd like to help make it be, I'll tell you whom to mail a check to.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

WOW....regurgitating news of the past?

From 10-28-2004
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13982&highlight=bekaa+valley

How about: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=173359&postcount=21

Or from a couple months prior....8-14-2004

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142095&postcount=5

But no one seemed to be listening then....

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

WOW....regurgitating news of the past?

From 10-28-2004
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13982&highlight=bekaa+valley

How about: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=173359&postcount=21

Or from a couple months prior....8-14-2004

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142095&postcount=5

But no one seemed to be listening then....

It will probably be that way until there is physical evidense of WMDs, actual confirmation of them, and unfortunetly that's going to be tough to get.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

that the lose/lose idea was a dumb liberal one.

I pointed out the conservative Wall Street Journal suggested the same thing.

GunnyL responded: "It's only lose/to you lefties."

I said he was missing my point: disagree with it if you will, but don't call it a lefty idea.

Moderator Kathianne responds with an ad hominem attack, which LuvRPGirl seconds.

Huh?

Mariner.

PS. Yes, LuvRP you did say radio not TV. Wow, big error on my part. I'm sure you'd be just as quick to jump on a conservative about such a monstrous error. My brain filed it away as a source of information I don't use. BTW, all radio content is not available online--if you'd like to help make it be, I'll tell you whom to mail a check to.

Yes I am just as likely to jump on a conservative for such mistakes. You also incorrectly assesed the idea of assesing a religion based on the actions of its followers to me. Hmmmm, YEA< those are big deals.

 

[Annie]

that the lose/lose idea was a dumb liberal one.

I pointed out the conservative Wall Street Journal suggested the same thing.

GunnyL responded: "It's only lose/to you lefties."

I said he was missing my point: disagree with it if you will, but don't call it a lefty idea.

Moderator Kathianne responds with an ad hominem attack, which LuvRPGirl seconds.

Huh?

Mariner.

PS. Yes, LuvRP you did say radio not TV. Wow, big error on my part. I'm sure you'd be just as quick to jump on a conservative about such a monstrous error. My brain filed it away as a source of information I don't use. BTW, all radio content is not available online--if you'd like to help make it be, I'll tell you whom to mail a check to.

I may have jumped on you, but wasn't as a mod. As you well know, my hearing is as bad, perhaps worse than your own. So 'ad hominem attack' doesn't quite fit here.