Who is Lying About Iraq?

No, the whole point of "going into" (weasel for "invading") a sovereign country was because it allegedly posed an imminent and grave threat to us.

When? He's had a long career, you know. The Bush administration claimed that it KNEW he had tons of the chemical precursors for mustard gas, sarin, etc. in 2002 - but found virtually none.

In other words, the inspections WORKED and much had been disposed of.

Right, under close satellite & unmanned aircraft surveillance tons of chemicals & equipment were being moved....where?

No, someone here said the inspections should have been allowed to continue until they were complete.

As long as it took. What was the rush?

Sigh. He'd've died of old age before that happened. He had no neuclear weapons. He had no makings for neuclear weapons. He had no delivery system for neuclear weapons. He had no neuclear programs. What did he have? A desire for neuclear weapons, with no means of obtaining them. Big deal.

North Korea, on the other hand, did have neuclear capabilities, while Iran was de.

Maybe.

Really? Which ones? How many were there that he did comply with? Do you honestly care about the resolutions or are they merely a transparent excuse for waging war?


Saddam knew what he was doing. He simply believed that there would be no consequences for his actions.....and up until Bush there were none.

Bush did not lie. He based his actions on intelligences which have NOT been proven wrong....yet the media and Dems continue to call him a liar.

We didn't find the WMDs....they were missing BEFORE we went in. Its not that big of a shock that we haven't found them yet. Most likely they were moved out of the country, or underground. We may never find them. Thats not the point. [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

Ie bel

Good post!

 

Daisy,

Interesting post, however, this is a little off base:

Saddam was able to move scud missle launchers and fire them at Israel during Gulf War I. Even with 'eyes in the sky' Saddam was able to move WMD's.

 

Personally, I thank God, our soldiers, our country, and yes even President CLINTON for setting the course necessary to isolate, restrict, and then invade this despot. Saddam had to GO!

Unfortunately, President Clinton did not devote the assets necessary to get Osama (IMHO).

 

I figured you had nothing of substance in your remark since I found nothing in researching your charge. It's a shame you are now making a false charge against the Secretary of State. Come on, poncho, you're better than that.

 

Come to think of it Ken it doesn't really matter how many ties the administration has to the energy industry. It doesn't really matter if Saddam had WMD's or not or who supplied him with them. The PNAC neocons were going to invade Iraq one or another anyway. They'd made their minds up before 1998 to do just that. The only thing they needed was a pretext. Both the PNACers and CFR big wig and Trilateral founder Zbigniew Brzezinski were talking about just such a pretext being needed for what Brzezinski termed "imperial mobilization" of United States armed forces into Eurasia, around the same time even.

So he admits it's an autocratic ambition, so much for the spreading democracy propaganda. I reckon what the autocracy wants the autocracy gets.

You were correct that regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy. Digging alittle further back, like 8 or 9 months before the Iraq Resolution the PNAC founders wrote a letter to Clinton. It is still posted on their website. Click the link below to read it.

Project For A New American Century

So they were lobbying Clinton in Jan. of 1998 to take out Saddam the resolution was passed in Oct the same year or there abouts. It may have Bill Clintons name on it but it was the PNACers baby.

In 2000 the PNACers admited on page 14 of Rebuilding America's Defenses that Saddam was only the current justification for gaining a more permanent role in the control (they call it security) of the Middle East.

Rebuilding America's Defenses Full Text

I'm not going to bother to go through the Downing Street Memos I figure we all know about them and they follow more or less the same reasoning as Brzezinski and the PNACers.

So in the end whether Saddam had WMD's or how he got them or who is lying or isn't lying is really irrelevant. Seems to me that the whole issue rather than being faulty intell, the prez lying or not or if the dems are trying to discredit Bush or what not is all misdirection to keep our eyes off the real issue. Does America have any right to global dominance through force of arms?

Looks to me like another deception is being played out and both parties are in it up to their necks again getting American's to chase their tails in circles looking for WMD's that were never the real reason for invading Iraq in the first place.

 

Saddam's weapons of mass destruction whether real or imagined were just "the immediate justification" as the PNACers put it. The rest was just a matter of the right pretext and sudden shock to American's sense of well being (9/11) and the applied use of enough "emphasis" (propaganda) from the CFR/Neocons to scare us into going along with an imperial mobilization of American and coalition forces in pursuit of armed global dominance. That goes 180 degrees against everything that America stands for or at least what I always thought America stood for.

 

I guess so since I caught you making a charge that you can't back up. Let that be a lesson to you, poncho, lest you lose all credibility on this board.

 

Interesting, poncho. I just read an article today by Mr. Brzezinski in the debut issue of The American Interest that doesn't sound at all what you are proposing that he is in favor of. Perhaps he has changed his viewpoint or else you have misunderstood him. The article is entitled "The Dilemma of the Last Sovereign". If you obtain a copy of it I would interested in what you think he is saying in the article.

 

Condi was on the board of directors at Chevron. She resigned when she went to work for Bush. There is alot of energy people in this administration so I imagine her connections at Chevron looked good on her resume. Must have really been an honor for her to have an oil tanker named after her not just anybody can put that down on a resume either.

Credibilty? What is that anyway? There seems to be different definitions from different sources. I tend to take the loss of my country's sovereignty and the bill of rights more serious than I do some quest for credibility that can't be fit to everybodies idea of just what credibilty is anyways. Besides I didn't think I had any credibilty here to begin with, no sense in worrying about something ya ain't got. I just like to give you all some of the news and facts you won't get from the one world conglomerate mass media. Aldous Huxley was telling people in the 1960's that the globalists were going to use terror as a pretext for a global police state so it's not like it's any new or super secret knowledge or anything. Bill Clinton's "mentor" Carrol Quigley laid out the globalist's plan practically step by step in his book.


I can tell you what Mr. Brzezinski was thinking in 1997 because it was all written in his book The Grand Chessboard. If he's having second thoughts now about using the United States military as an insrument of conquest for the one worlder autocrats it's a little late now that the wheels have already been set in motion don't you think?

[ November 14, 2005, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: poncho ]

 

Scud missiles aren't tons of chemicals, are they? If Saddam had WMDs why didn't he use them when his country was invaded?

 

You said Halliburton. Did you miswrite?

 

No I didn't miswrite Ken, I just tend to lump the few priviledged conglomerates together into one group with the same interests. Kind of like when one looks at the boards of directors of the 6 media conglomerates, the same people's names turn up on several boards. Kind of makes it hard to make a case that these are seperate business interests and not one big happy group of autocrats that cover each others tails.

 

Then you are badly in need of being more precise, my friend, if you wish to have any credibility.

 

poncho has credibility with me, maybe not with you. So there.

It will all be over in just a few short years when Hill is at the helm. Then tunes will change around here.

 

Hillary Clinton ain't gonna be elected president in 2008, LE. Wanna bet on it? Loser leaves the Baptist Board for a year. How about it?

 

My friend poncho still has a lot of credibility with me as well, LE. I'm just trying to help him keep it and to improve. So there.

 

Daisy

We need military analysts like you. I knew squints (photo analysts) that struggled to see what you can see so easily. I can have a recruiter call you . . .

They could have you in Iraq quick enough for you to get to the bottom of the missing WMD issue!

And instead of looking for a reward, I would only want the honor of knowing another loyal veteran in return for doing you (and our country) the kind service of introducing you to a recruiter.