CNN: U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq

[DEMON CUNT]

U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq

Wednesday, January 12, 2005 Posted: 10:59 AM EST (1559 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. inspectors have ended their search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in recent weeks, a U.S. intelligence official told CNN.

The search ended almost two years after President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, citing concerns that Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction and may have hidden weapons stockpiles.

Members of the Iraq Survey Group were continuing to examine hundreds of documents and would investigate any new leads, the official said.

...

In October, Duelfer released a preliminary report finding that in March 2003 -- the United States invaded Iraq on March 19 of that year -- "Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles and had not started any program to produce them".

The Iraq Survey Group report said that Iraq's WMD program was essentially destroyed in 1991 and Saddam ended the country's nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War.

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/index.html)

***

This is why Bush Inc. manufactured other excuses for it's illegal invasion. Then blamed other countires for the "bad intelligence" on the state of Saddam's WMD programs.

Bush is a war criminal and a liar! All this death and destruction for nothing. Shameful!

[LoungeMachine]

Imagine our surprise.


Guess the sanction were working.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Imagine our surprise.

Guess the sanction were working.

Yep. Bush Inc. was wrong about Saddam and Iraq on so may fucking levels.

When the UN sanctions seemed to have done what they were supposed to do; Bush Inc. went into full-on discredit the UN mode.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Bush Inc. went into full-on discredit the UN mode.


I have to admit, the oil-for-food scandal is pretty discrediting. I wonder how that's going?

Will they ever get anywhere with it?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
I have to admit, the oil-for-food scandal is pretty discrediting. I wonder how that's going?

Will they ever get anywhere with it?

When you move that much $ around people are going to pinch some of it.

Imagine what Halliburton's Iraq accounting looks like.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
When you move that much $ around people are going to pinch some of it.

True, but this looks like systematic bribery on a huge scale. It should never have been allowed to happen.

Imagine what Halliburton's Iraq accounting looks like.

It looks like swiss cheese. Completely full of million dollar holes. Again, providing such a range of logistic services in a warzone is expensive and some paperwork is bound to get lost, but the scale the missing funds is just enormous. Like I have said repeatedly, if you give a human being a chance to defraud another for profit, he will most likely take it every time. People are scum.

[frets5150]

They did'nt find any WMD really i thought they had a whole shit load.
Man i'm really surprized are'nt you :D

[frets5150]

Another article


WASHINGTON (Jan. 12) - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ended last month, nearly two years after President Bush sent troops to disarm Saddam Hussein, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

Officials who served with the group charged with hunting banned weapons said the violence in Iraq, coupled with a lack of new information, led them to fold up the effort shortly before Christmas, the newspaper reported.

Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the hunt, has returned home, and analysts serving in his Iraq Survey Group (ISG) have returned to CIA headquarters in Virginia, the report said, citing unnamed intelligence officials.

The Post said the findings of an interim report that Duelfer submitted to Congress in September will stand as the ISG's final conclusions, according to a senior intelligence official.

The report concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons and its nuclear program had decayed before last year's U.S.-led invasion, in findings contrary to prewar assertions of the Bush administration.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, another U.S. intelligence official confirmed that Duelfer was back in Washington, but disputed that the weapons hunt was over.

"This isn't the kind of thing that stops, the search continues," the official told Reuters. "If new information comes in, obviously that would be looked at."

The Washington Post reported that the White House had been reluctant to call off the hunt, holding out the possibility that weapons had been shipped out of Iraq before the war or well hidden inside the country.

Bush, who subsequently said that he was "right to take action" in Iraq, had cited a growing threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as one of the main reasons for overthrowing the Iraqi president.


01/12/05 00:58 ET

[ODShowtime]

either he had them and he hid them well or sent them to Syria,

or

it was all just a bluff to keep out Iran/Israel/US

[frets5150]

Was the U.S. right to go to war in Iraq?
No 64%
Yes 36%
Total Votes: 13,415

[Nickdfresh]

Gee, I though the war was really about benevolently liberating the Iraqi people fro their horrible dictator "Suh-Damn'"! LMAO

Hey, where's Lucky Wilbury to post the REAL articles on how we found all of this chemical weaponry?

[Jesterstar]

I was surprised to find out that they were actually looking.

[Guitar Shark]

One of the most important news stories of the day, and yet not a single comment by any Republican on this board... Hmmm! ;)

[ODShowtime]

It totally sucks that we didn't find anything, but we didn't...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
One of the most important news stories of the day, and yet not a single comment by any Republican on this board... Hmmm! ;)

Look for their response later tonight, after the FAUX News team tells them what to think :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
either he had them and he hid them well or sent them to Syria,

or

it was all just a bluff to keep out Iran/Israel/US

The "they went to Syria" stuff is bogus Neo Con bullshit! An Orwellian style fraud meant to further dodge blame.

Another example of this is: "The CIA did it!" Most CIA officers were in fact telling the Bush Admin. nothing could be proven before the war, now they are used as scapegoats.

[DEMON CUNT]

Totally. I am looking forward to BigBland's "I am glad you asked. I took a class in weapons inspections and..." thread. That's gonna be some funny shit.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The "they went to Syria" stuff is bogus Neo Con bullshit! An Orwellian style fraud meant to further dodge blame.

Another example of this is: "The CIA did it!" Most CIA officers were in fact telling the Bush Admin. nothing could be proven before the war, now they are used as scapegoats.

that's one likely explanation Nick.

but isn't the Ba'ath party still in power in Syria? I am not sure how well connected the party was between both countries, but I know one goal of Ba'athism is a Pan-Arab state. That goal would be further served if they played WMD hot potato. Just so the A-rabs Ba'athists still had possession of the trump card, you know? That makes sense too.

But how come the CIA and NSA did not detect or intercept ANY shipments between the countries?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
that's one likely explanation Nick.

but isn't the Ba'ath party still in power in Syria? I am not sure how well connected the party was between both countries, but I know one goal of Ba'athism is a Pan-Arab state. That goal would be further served if they played WMD hot potato. Just so the A-rabs Ba'athists still had possession of the trump card, you know? That makes sense too.

But how come the CIA and NSA did not detect or intercept ANY shipments between the countries?

Not well. They are the same in name only I believe, and the Syrians want to be in control of any pan-Arab state, they didn't want Saddam.

Your second point is on the money. If these asswipes are to make such grandiose allegations, they'd better produce some evidence.

Where are the Iraqi scientists that know all about these weapons now in Syria?

[DLR'sCock]

So over 100,000+ Iraqis dead, over 1300+ US soldiers dead, maybe over 30,000+ Iraqis seriously wounded, over 30,000 US soldiers seriously wounded, the country is a warzone, over $250 billion and counting, and no end in site....and no weapons of mass destruction to be found....


As I said there were none, it was bs.....but hey who gives a flying fuck right???

[FORD]

Scott Ritter has stated, for the record, that Iraq had no capability of making weapons any time soon when he was last there for inspections in the late 1990's, and that it would have been next to impossible for Saddam to have rebuilt the weapons programs within such a short time.

That's why the neocon shitbags piled on Ritter, even accusing him of being a pedophile, before their ridiculous case was exposed to the public.

But then, the PNAC'ers were planning their invasion even before Ritter's inspections, and the fact that there were no weapons was only a minor inconvenience to their fascist cause.

[DLR'sCock]

Originally posted by FORD
Scott Ritter has stated, for the record, that Iraq had no capability of making weapons any time soon when he was last there for inspections in the late 1990's, and that it would have been next to impossible for Saddam to have rebuilt the weapons programs within such a short time.

That's why the neocon shitbags piled on Ritter, even accusing him of being a pedophile, before their ridiculous case was exposed to the public.

But then, the PNAC'ers were planning their invasion even before Ritter's inspections, and the fact that there were no weapons was only a minor inconvenience to their fascist cause.


Yeah, I remember that, he was there in 1998....

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
So over 100,000+ Iraqis dead, over 1300+ US soldiers dead, maybe over 30,000+ Iraqis seriously wounded, over 30,000 US soldiers seriously wounded, the country is a warzone, over $250 billion and counting, and no end in site....and no weapons of mass destruction to be found....

There'll be more dead when the A-rabs have their revenge.

We swatted the fuck out of that hornets nest and now we're trying to protect ourselves with a fly swatter.

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
One of the most important news stories of the day, and yet not a single comment by any Republican on this board... Hmmm! ;)

Yes, i voted for Bush and I am totally ashamed that we have not found any WMD..... in Iraq. Since this was the total justification for the war Bush purposely lied to us and the world. Bush should be impeached, imprisoned and executed. Also, since this was the only justification for the war please join me in calling for the immediate reinstatement of Saddam Hussein to the Presidency of Iraq and for war reparations to be paid by the United States.

[DEMON CUNT]

Chewtarded.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
Yes, i voted for Bush and I am totally ashamed that we have not found any WMD..... in Iraq. Since this was the total justification for the war Bush purposely lied to us and the world. Bush should be impeached, imprisoned and executed. Also, since this was the only justification for the war please join me in calling for the immediate reinstatement of Saddam Hussein to the Presidency of Iraq and for war reparations to be paid by the United States.

LOL! Nice. Of course, I wasn't asking for any of that. The WMD argument was not the "total justification" for the Bush Administration's decision to go to war with Iraq, but it was by far the most important (and widely touted) factor. I don't think he purposely lied, and I doubt he lied in any event.

[Nickdfresh]

Yeah, overthrowing Saddam was all about liberating the Iraqis from his tyranny.


"Get your fucking hands off MY OIL BITCH!"
http://www.indyfoto.com/Images/rummy-saddam.jpg

[Big Train]

I haven't responded because I am pretty sure you all know my positions on it. Are you looking for a conservative to post so you can be righteous in your furious anger in responding to them?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
I haven't responded because I am pretty sure you all know my positions on it. Are you looking for a conservative to post so you can be righteous in your furious anger in responding to them?

No, we like to laugh and make fun of your simple world views!

Which reason for the invasion do you buy into?

[Big Train]

My own, which is neither simple nor laughable. I have posted numerous times on it, as well as have debated it endlessly.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
My own, which is neither simple nor laughable. I have posted numerous times on it, as well as have debated it endlessly.

Then why bother with a non-post such as this?

[Big Train]

I thought I'd play nice and give you some kind of response..

I was just responding that my worldviews are far from simple. In fact, it is why I'm avoiding a more detailed response, I don't feel like composing 10 to 12 more paragraphs about stuff I have already detailed and debated before in numerous other threads.

[ODShowtime]

I think it's pretty obvious what it means when we found NOTHING, but Colin Powell went before the UN telling them about the danger and demonstrating with pictures.

Then again they're corrupt too. What do you know? The oil money corrupted everyone! What a surprise!

[frets5150]

No W M D


Serprise Serprise Serprise!!!

[Big Train]

I'd hate to give you all the "plausiable deniability" logic, so I'll refrain..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'd hate to give you all the "plausiable deniability" logic, so I'll refrain..
Muhuhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhawhaw................... .

[Big Train]

That ones for you Nick...:)

My logic is to plausible to have much deniability

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
That ones for you Nick...:)

My logic is to plausible to have much deniability

Or too deniable to be plausible.

[Big Train]

depends on how you look at the glass..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
depends on how you look at the glass..

Depends on what's in the glass also.
http://www.btgworld.com/technologies/images/bio-oil/hand-bio-oil.jpg

[BITEYOASS]

I'll remain neutral on this subject. Since I'm gonna find out what all this arguing is about myself. I'll come back either the same person, or start some weird political band playing a synthesiser. And pull that opening act prank I've always dreamed of.

[diamondD]

But dare to bring up the fact that Clinton believed the same thing and all you are doing is bringing Clinton to the argument...


Waaaa Waaaa Waaaaa...

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
But dare to bring up the fact that Clinton believed the same thing and all you are doing is bringing Clinton to the argument...

Waaaa Waaaa Waaaaa...

but Clinton... but Clinton...

So that is supposed to convince me of what?

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
I thought I'd play nice and give you some kind of response..

I was just responding that my worldviews are far from simple. In fact, it is why I'm avoiding a more detailed response, I don't feel like composing 10 to 12 more paragraphs about stuff I have already detailed and debated before in numerous other threads.

OK, just flipping you shit about your world views.

However, the WMD/Iraq case is pretty cut and dried. No "10 to 12 more paragraphs" of Saddam was a naughty man required.

I know that this news is causing some of you to look at the situation differently.

[Big Train]

That Saddam was a naughty man only comprises about 1 paragraph....

None of this stuff changes my opinions on what happened or what is going on, in fact, it confirms it in my mind.

[kentuckyklira]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
So over 100,000+ Iraqis dead, over 1300+ US soldiers dead, maybe over 30,000+ Iraqis seriously wounded, over 30,000 US soldiers seriously wounded, the country is a warzone, over $250 billion and counting, and no end in site....and no weapons of mass destruction to be found....


As I said there were none, it was bs.....but hey who gives a flying fuck right??? And don´t you dare forget Saddam was harbouring terrorists!

Honest!

For sure!

Could these eyes lie?

[kentuckyklira]

I wonder how many aeons in hell god (should he exist after all) has in store for those responsible for so much death and devastation based on a lie??!!??

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
That Saddam was a naughty man only comprises about 1 paragraph....

None of this stuff changes my opinions on what happened or what is going on, in fact, it confirms it in my mind.

And in such an ambiguous way, too! That's a Scott McClellan style cop out.

The fact that there is no evidence of what we had originally invaded Iraq for only solidifies the President's current position on the situation in Iraq.

http://i.esmas.com/image/0/000/002/954/scot_N.jpg

[ODShowtime]

say what now

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
depends on how you look at the glass..

The glass will greet us as Liberators.

There will be no need to shatter the glass.

We KNOW what is in the glass

The glass sought liquid from Niger

WE will fill the glass with democracy



[crash*********]



Oh shit, anybody gotta 'nuther glass? This one's broke.

[Big Train]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
[B]And in such an ambiguous way, too! That's a Scott McClellan style cop out.

The fact that there is no evidence of what we had originally invaded Iraq for only solidifies the President's current position on the situation in Iraq.

Fuck you. You just want me to go through the whole process of debate again, but I won't. No cop out, just do a quick search, I'm sure you'll find all my previous discussions on this.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
The glass will greet us as Liberators.

There will be no need to shatter the glass.

We KNOW what is in the glass

The glass sought liquid from Niger

WE will fill the glass with democracy


The stuff in the glass also left a month ago...minor detail.

[Seshmeister]

CLAIM vs. FACT


Pre-War Intelligence Hype



CLAIM: "I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."



FACT - WHITE HOUSE REPEATEDY WARNED BY INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY:



The Washington Post reported this weekend, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." He said, "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production" three months after the White House received an intelligence report that clearly indicated Department of Energy experts concluded the tubes were not intended to produce uranium enrichment centrifuges. He said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," three months after "the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about" the claim. [Sources: WP, 2/7/04; Bush statement, 11/3/02; DIA report, 2002; Bush statement, 1/28/03; NIE, October 2002; WP, 7/23/03; Bush statement, 10/7/02; WP, 9/26/03]



Ignoring Intelligence



CLAIM: "We looked at the intelligence."



FACT – WHITE HOUSE IGNORED INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS:



Knight Ridder reported that CIA officers "said President Bush ignored warnings" that his WMD case was weak. And Greg Thielmann, the Bush State Department's top intelligence official, "said suspicions were presented as fact, and contrary arguments ignored." Knight Ridder later reported, "Senior diplomatic, intelligence and military officials have charged that Bush and his top aides made assertions about Iraq's banned weapons programs and alleged links to al-Qaeda that weren't supported by credible intelligence, and that they ignored intelligence that didn't support their policies." [Knight-Ridder, 6/13/03; CBS News, 6/7/03; Knight Ridder, 6/28/03]



Ignoring International Intelligence Warnings



CLAIM: "The international community thought he had weapons."



FACT – INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TOLD WHITE HOUSE THE OPPOSITE:



The IAEA and U.N. both repeatedly told the Administration it had no evidence that Iraq possessed WMD. On 2/15/03, the IAEA said that, "We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq." On 3/7/03 IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei said nuclear experts have found "no indication" that Iraq has tried to import high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge enrichment of uranium. At the same time, AP reported that "U.N. weapons inspectors have not found any 'smoking guns' in Iraq during their search for weapons WMD." AP also reported, "U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said his teams have not uncovered any WMD." [Source: U.S. State Department, 2/14/03; NY Times, 3/7/03; AP, 1/9/03; AP, 2/14/03]



Informing Congress of Intelligence Caveats



CLAIM: "I went to Congress with the same intelligence. Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at."



FACT – CONGRESS WAS OUTRAGED AT PRESENTATION BY THE WHITE HOUSE:



The New Republic reported, "Senators were outraged to find that intelligence info given to them omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war." According to Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), many House members were only convinced to support the war after the Administration "showed them a photograph of a small, unmanned airplane spraying a liquid in what appeared to be a test for delivering chemical and biological agents," despite the U.S. Air Force telling the Administration it "sharply disputed the notion that Iraq's UAVs were being designed as attack weapons." [Source: The New Republic, 6/30/03; Wilkes Barre Times Leader, 1/6/04; WP, 9/26/03]



Pre-War "Imminent Threat" Assertion



CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."



FACT – ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT":



The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]



Bush's Threat Rhetoric Before the War



CLAIM: "I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests."



FACT – BUSH MADE FAR MORE DIRE STATEMENTS BEFORE THE WAR:



While the President did call Iraq a "grave and gathering" threat, that was not all he said. On 11/23/02, he said Iraq posed a "unique and urgent threat." On 1/3/03 he said "Iraq is a threat to any American." On 10/28/02 he said Iraq was "a real and dangerous threat" to America. On 10/2/02 he said, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency" and that Iraq posed "a grave threat" to America. [Bush, 11/23/02; Bush; 1/3/03; Bush, 10/28/02; Bush, 10/2/02; Bush, 10/2/02]



Saddam-Al Qaeda-WMD Connection



CLAIM: "Iraq had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network."



FACT – ASSERTION BELIES PREVIOUS INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS:



This assertion belies the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which told the White House that Iraq would most likely only coordinate with Al Qaeda if the U.S. invaded Iraq. As the NYT reported, "[A] CIA assessment said last October: 'Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks' in the United States." The CIA added that Saddam might order attacks with WMD as 'his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.'" Previously, the CIA had told the White House that Iraq "has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups." And David Kay himself said, " I found no real connection between WMD and terrorists" in Iraq. [Source: NIE, 2002; NY Times, 1/29/03; NY Times, 2/6/02; NBC News, 1/26/04]



David Kay's Report



CLAIM: "And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out."



FACT – KAY ACTUALLY SAID WMD HAD BEEN DESTROYED AFTER 1991:



David Kay didn't say we haven't found the stockpiles of chemical weapons because they are destroyed, hidden or transported to another country. Kay said that they were never produced and hadn't been produced since 1991. As he said, "Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of U.N. sanctions and U.N. inspections." [Kay Testimony, 2004]




Investigative Commissions



WMD Commission



CLAIM: "The reason why we gave it time is because we didn't want it to be hurried... it's important that this investigation take its time."



FACT – OTHER COMMISSIONS SHOW THAT THE REPORT IS BEING DELAYED FOR POLITICS:



Regardless of upcoming Parliamentary elections, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has set up a similar commission to investigate intelligence that will report by July. Additionally, in 1983 after the terrorist attack on U.S. troops in Beirut, a commission was appointed and completed its report within 2 months.



9/11 Commission



CLAIM: "We have given extraordinary cooperation with Chairmen Kean and Hamilton."



FACT – WHITE HOUSE HAS STONEWALLED THE 9/11 COMMISSION:



According to the Baltimore Sun, President Bush "opposed the outside inquiry" into September 11th. When Congress forced him to relent, Time Magazine reported he tried to choke its funding, noting, "the White House brushed off a request quietly made by 9-11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean" for adequate funding. Then, the NY Times reported, "President Bush declined to commit the White House to turning over highly classified intelligence reports to the independent federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, despite public threats of a subpoena from the bipartisan panel." And as the Akron Beacon Journal reported last week, "the 9/11 panel did not receive the speedy cooperation it expected. In a preliminary report last summer, the panel's co-chairmen, Thomas Kean, a Republican and former governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, a Democrat and former congressman from Indiana, complained about lengthy delays in gaining access to critical documents, federal employees and administration officials. They warned the lack of cooperation would prove damaging, ensuring that a full investigation would take that much longer to complete, if at all." [Source: Baltimore Sun, 6/14/02; Time Magazine, 3/26/03; NY Times, 10/27/03; Akron Beacon Journal 2/2/04]

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train

Fuck you. You just want me to go through the whole process of debate again, but I won't. No cop out, just do a quick search, I'm sure you'll find all my previous discussions on this.

Fuck me?

Uh huh. Sure. No cop out here!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Big Train
The stuff in the glass also left a month ago...minor detail.

And the WMD were gone a decade ago....MAJOR detail.

[Nickdfresh]

It's all Clinton's fault!

[diamondD]

Why do you deny Clinton's own admission that he believed the same thing? Does it hurt your hatred for Bush that much?

Everyone that's been around here knows I'm not the biggest Bill Clinton fan because I've been putting up with him since the first time I could vote, but he's stated repeatedly he believed these same intelligence reports.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Why do you deny Clinton's own admission that he believed the same thing? Does it hurt your hatred for Bush that much?

Everyone that's been around here knows I'm not the biggest Bill Clinton fan because I've been putting up with him since the first time I could vote, but he's stated repeatedly he believed these same intelligence reports.

Because he wasn't in office spinning the shit out of the intelligence, believing only the reports he wanted to believe and essentially suppressing the ones that provide evidence against Iraqi WMD's. He listened to the different views regarding situations. He never did invade Iraq did he?

[diamondD]

No, but he says he BELIEVED them. He just didn't take action, which was typical.

There's no spinning your way out of it.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by kentuckyklira
I wonder how many aeons in hell god (should he exist after all) has in store for those responsible for so much death and devastation based on a lie??!!??

It would be impossible for a mortal man to count that high, My son.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
No, but he says he BELIEVED them. He just didn't take action, which was typical.

There's no spinning your way out of it.

Since when do you give a fuck about what Clinton has to say?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
No, but he says he BELIEVED them. He just didn't take action, which was typical.

There's no spinning your way out of it.

Which reports? When? What did he do about it?

[diamondD]

If you didn't hear Clinton say that, you aren't very informed. He was saying these things when the war started.

What do you mean, what did he do about it? If you are talking about when he was president, then it's obvious he didn't do anything about it then, other that order Iraq bombed after the supposed threat on Bush 1's life.

How about you find me a quote where he didn't agree with what Bush did?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
If you didn't hear Clinton say that, you aren't very informed. He was saying these things when the war started.

My point is that he was not receiveing the latest, complete intellignece picture BECAUSE HE WAS NO LONGER IN OFFICE! So who cares anyways?


What do you mean, what did he do about it? If you are talking about when he was president, then it's obvious he didn't do anything about it then, other that order Iraq bombed after the supposed threat on Bush 1's life.

Wrong. The bombing was part of a strategy of "Containment," which seemed to be working. The Pentagon advocated that the Bush Administration continue with this policy, but was overruled by Neo Con plants, Rummy & Wolfoshitz!


How about you find me a quote where he didn't agree with what Bush did?

How about you find me a quote where it says he really mattered since he was no longer president for over two years at that point?

[Big Train]

Nick,

It does matter if something could have been done and wasn't..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
Nick,

It does matter if something could have been done and wasn't..

I think I said something WAS BEING DONE. "Containment" was a strategy advocated by the Pentagon and senior intelligence officials. Must I repeat myself?

Oh yes, we could have invaded and NOT FOUND WMD's on Clinton's watch...But I doubt America was sufficiently hysterical to support the bullshit Iraq=al-Qaida mantras. We needed a 9/11 to happen for that.

[Big Train]

No, you musn't repeat yourself, just listen. Containment is obvious, I am talking above and beyond that...

Invasion wasn't the only option and you know it.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
No, you musn't repeat yourself, just listen. Containment is obvious, I am talking above and beyond that...

Invasion wasn't the only option and you know it.

Did George Bushwack know of any other options? Seems to me like you guys are playing the old "It must be Clinton's fault" game again. I find it rather humorous.

[Big Train]

Your "Your blaming clinton again" is tiring too you know...I'm merely following up on Diamond D's question...did Clinton do ALL he could?

Which is a seperate question from, did Bush do all he could?

We have heard all the arguments against Bush from you several times now. Now, let's follow the trail back a bit and examine Clinton. Let's both stop shifting the issues back and forth between the two and examine each one on their own.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Seems to me like you guys are playing the old "It must be Clinton's fault" game again.

Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT. :gulp:

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT.

Sorry BigBland, you don't get to just make shit up and call it fact.

Feel free to back your statement up with some statistics or pull your head out of your sociopathic liar ass.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT. :gulp:

100% bullshit and you know it.

The ONLY time we ever utter his name is in RESPONSE.

Sorry, bud. Too many Vicodins?:p

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT. :gulp:

false:cool:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT. :gulp:
http://www.freehomepages.com/icetiger/negative4.jpg

[diamondD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
My point is that he was not receiveing the latest, complete intellignece picture BECAUSE HE WAS NO LONGER IN OFFICE! So who cares anyways?

Oh, so he says he received the same reports during his term and believed these same reports, but because they weren't the "latest", they weren't valid? You're over-simplifying and grasping now. It does matter because he was getting them from the same CIA.



How about you find me a quote where it says he really mattered since he was no longer president for over two years at that point?

It matters. He was the previous commander in chief. You just hate the fact that he agreed with Bush, so you want to dismiss his opinion because it's convenient for your argument.

I've been arguing with the spin master for years Nick. You'll have to do better. ;)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Oh, so he says he received the same reports during his term and believed these same reports, but because they weren't the "latest", they weren't valid? You're over-simplifying and grasping now. It does matter because he was getting them from the same CIA.

At DIFFERNET time periods. Fact, several CIA officers dissented against both Tenet and George Bush and overall, the agency was pressured to arrived a pursuant conclusions based on corrupt, lying Iraqi defecters (of whom Rumsfeld and the Pentagon Neo Con cronies believed, I wonder why?). Obviously, there was dissent on the WMD issue within the CIA that was crushed and virtually no real debate allowed on the subject.

Regardless of whatever Clinton said, since we have no exact quotes to go on, there was an active debate considered within his intelligence branches.



It matters.

Why? What was his policy while in office? Was he running in the election? Why would it matter then?


He was the previous commander in chief.

So what? So was Jimmy Carter. What's his opinion on the subject? And oh yeah, what was Daddy's opinion on the whole thing? I clearly remember hearing he advised his idiot son to NOT INVADE IRAQ. As he did not do eleven years earlier, you know, when American troops stood by and watched Shiites get slaughtered. The one's in the mass graves we made such a huge moral issue out of. I guess it's all a matter of timing huh? Have you brought him up ever? Bring up one ex-President, bring 'em ALL!


You just hate the fact that he agreed with Bush, so you want to dismiss his opinion because it's convenient for your argument.

No actually I could give a shit what he thought, because he NEVER FORMED A POLICY TO INVADE IRAQ despite the fact Neo Con special interest groups and think tanks began lobbying for just that in the late 90's.


I've been arguing with the spin master for years Nick. You'll have to do better. ;)

You sound like a bit of a "Clinton did it" spin meister yourself. That way you can avoid the debate on how bad and self-destructive our current President's foreign policy is. I understand.;)

[Big Train]

Wow, you libs really DO work as a team. Four people respond to the exact same post in succession. Like a fucking offensive line..

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Big Train
Wow, you libs really DO work as a team. Four people respond to the exact same post in succession. Like a fucking offensive line..

We're on the Air America Bullet Point Fax List, silly;)

[Big Train]

I see...United We Stand, Indeed...

[diamondD]

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html)


Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04


Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.



"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.

Clinton made similar comments in an interview with Time magazine, in which he said he "supported the Iraq thing" but questioned its timing. Portions of both interviews -- part of the publicity campaign in advance of this week's release of Clinton's memoirs -- were distributed in advance by the news organizations.

The Time excerpts, in particular, leave Clinton's views on Iraq somewhat jumbled. He both defends Bush for confronting a threat of which Clinton also spoke in dire terms while president, and minimizes the size and urgency of the problem posed by Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

Noting that he has "repeatedly defended President Bush against the left" on Iraq, Clinton dismissed the notion that the Iraq war was principally about protecting petroleum or financial interests.

Instead, he asserts that Bush acted primarily for ideological reasons and that the president was under the sway of Vice President Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. "We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis" that defeating Iraq would help transform the greater Middle East toward democracy.

Clinton's own rhetoric while president emphasized the commitments to allow unfettered weapons inspections that Iraq had made under the terms of surrender in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and the likelihood that then-President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use.

In February 1998, after Hussein blocked U.N. inspectors from entering Iraq, Clinton warned: "What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act? Or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

In the Time interview, Clinton said "I never really thought" Hussein would use his weapons but did worry that Iraqi weapons might be sold or given away.

Clinton ordered missile strikes against Iraq in December 1998 but did not press aggressively for U.N. inspectors to return. Bush administration officials said this was precisely the "ambiguous third route" in Clinton's warning. But Bush has been embarrassed by the failure of inspectors after Hussein's fall last year to find major weapons programs.

In the Time interview, Clinton suggested that he was concerned after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that Iraq had "a lot of stuff unaccounted for." But in the same interview he seemed to warn against exaggerations about how many weapons were ever suspected.

He said at the time the United Nations pulled out the weapons inspectors in 1998, not to return until after Bush came to power, "there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents" in addition to some "chemical agents" such as VX and ricin that were "unaccounted for."

"Keep in mind," Clinton urged Time interviewers Michael Duffy and Joe Klein, "that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity."

[diamondD]

Bill Clinton Defends Bush on Iraq
By Larry Elder
Townhall.com | August 1, 2003

President George W. Bush, under siege for "misleading" the country into war against Iraq, received some help from an unusual source -- former President Bill Clinton.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for . . . it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks . . . " said Clinton recently on "Larry King Live." Also, Clinton said he never found out whether a U.S.-British bombing campaign he ordered in 1998 ended Saddam's stockpiles of or his capability of producing chemical and biological weapons. "We might have gotten it all, we might have gotten half of it, we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know," said Clinton.

Presidential contender Sen. Bob Graham, D-FL, actually suggested impeachment of the president over Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech reference about an Iraqi-Africa uranium connection. But Clinton said, "The White House said . . . that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . British intelligence still maintain that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. . . . Here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11th -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought."

About the gravity of the president's "error" -- never mind that the British still stand by the Africa/uranium assertion -- Clinton said, "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to without messing up once in a while. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do right now."

Why does Clinton, a consistent and persistent critic of this administration, suddenly leap to Bush's defense? After all, polls show Bush's popularity coming down from the post-major-Iraqi-war-operations peak. And the White House appears off-balance in their defense of Bush's speech reference to Iraqi attempts at purchasing uranium in Africa. Furthermore, Americans quite understandably show concern over the almost daily headlines of anti-American Iraqis ambushing soldiers.

Clinton's motives? Check out the just-released Joint Congressional Committee report on 9-11. Under Clinton's watch, the Committee reports how intelligence apparatus failed to connect the dots. Yes, lapses occurred under the current president, but Clinton missed numerous opportunities to focus on the growing terror threat, including opportunities to get Osama bin Laden. Clinton knows that constant browbeating over the alleged lack of Iraqi "imminence" and of Bush's "security failures" serves only to make Clinton's presidency look bad. If anything, the "imminent threat" loomed during Clinton's administration, and he knows he took insufficient action to quell it.

Meanwhile, the Bush anti-war critics either support or sit silently as Bush ponders the use of our military to stop civil war bloodshed in Liberia -- a humanitarian mission. But does the existence of Iraqi shallow graves, torture chambers, and executions translate into support, if belated, for the war against Iraq?

Human Rights Watch says, "The Arab Ba'ath Socialist Party has been in power in Iraq since 1968. Under the leadership of President Saddam Hussein, who seized power in 1979, the Iraqi government has committed a vast number of crimes against the Iraqi people and others, using terror through various levels of police, military, and intelligence agencies to control and intimidate large segments of the Iraqi population. Two Iraqi groups in particular have suffered horrific abuses -- the Kurds in the north, and Shi'a populations in the south. Two decades of oppression against Iraq's Kurds and Kurdish resistance culminated in 1988 with a genocidal campaign, and the use of chemical weapons, against Kurdish civilians, resulting in over 100,000 deaths. . . . Saddam Hussein and others . . . are responsible for a vast number of crimes that constitute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The victims of such crimes include up to 290,000 persons who have been 'disappeared' since the late 1970s, many of whom are believed to have been killed."

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opposed the war in Iraq, despite the U.S.'s national security concerns. Back then, Annan said, "My position has always been very clear, that I think it would be unwise to attack Iraq, given the current circumstances of what's happening in the Middle East." Yet Annan now demands that the U.S. send troops to Liberia, "I think we can really salvage the situation if troops were to be deployed urgently and promptly."

Maybe Annan might benefit from a chat with former President Clinton.
Even more endoresments to cover himself. (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9191)

[diamondD]

Mistakes were made, by both parties. Jumping up and down pointing fingers about the past aren't going to do anything. The only thing now is solutions to achieve our mission and get our people home. Period.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by diamondD
The only thing now is solutions to achieve our mission and get our people home. Period.

What is our mission?

Somebody tell Junior, I think he's in the dark on this one. ;)

[diamondD]

Shit stirrer ;) At least you responded...

[Spc. Graner]

I believe that a young William J. Clinton also played a major role in the Cuban Missle Crisis. In another words, he must be stopped.

Next he'll be supporting Bush's fanstastic plan for Social Security! Bastard.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54905-2004Jun19.html)


Clinton Backs Bush on Iraq War But Questions Invasion's Timing

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A04


Former president Bill Clinton said he agreed with President Bush's decision to confront Iraq about its potential weapons programs, but thought the administration erred in starting a war in 2003 rather than allowing United Nations weapons inspectors longer to carry out their work.



"In terms of the launching of the war, I believe we made an error in not allowing the United Nations to complete the inspections process," Clinton told CBS News's Dan Rather in a "60 Minutes" interview to air tonight.




Not that I think Clinton is being disingenuous, but the key phrase here is that the U.N was never allowed to verify the existence of WMD's. I also think Bubba is covering his ass over the fact that his Administration was waging an under-reported airwar over Iraq for several years. The second article also quotes only the statements Elders wants you to know. I also recall Clinton makng numerous statements about how we were rushing things and that there was no tie between al-Qaida and Saddam's gov't, etc. And since he was no longer president, of course he will talk out of his ass.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
What is our mission?

Somebody tell Junior, I think he's in the dark on this one. ;)

Somebody look-up quagmire in the dictionary for Dubya!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Know what?

"You guys" bring Clinton up more than "we" do. FACT. :gulp:

Yeah just like all the other 'FACTS' you post...:)

Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14




http://home.cwru.edu/~rra4/owned-hatonfire.jpg

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Mistakes were made...


Like electing Bush.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14


Ha Ha!

BigBlanBrian is a fucking liar! FACT!

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Yeah just like all the other 'FACTS' you post...:)

Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14




http://home.cwru.edu/~rra4/owned-hatonfire.jpg

Quit braggin' about owning BBB like it's a difficult accomplishment! :D

[Nickdfresh]

For the record, I only mention Clinton when other people bring him up such as Lucky Wilbury.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Yeah just like all the other 'FACTS' you post...:)

Posts mentioning Clinton-

BigBadBrian: 132
Nickdfresh: 117
LoungeMachine: 24
Seshmeister: 14




http://home.cwru.edu/~rra4/owned-hatonfire.jpg

LOL, classic!

[Angel]

Originally posted by diamondD
How about you find me a quote where he didn't agree with what Bush did?

Well, here's what he had to say to CTV on August 6, 2004:


"the United States had no business attacking Iraq until at least the United Nations inspectors had at least finished the weapons inspections," he said.
Clinton described chief inspector Hans Blix as a "highly regarded man, no toady for (now-deposed Iraq dictator) Saddam Hussein, just pleading for a few more weeks to finish the job."
For the U.S. to decide when the inspectors were finished was wrong, he
said.
"Now, if they had finished the work and Hans Blix had said, 'well, I can't tell you whether he's got weapons or not because the man will not co-operate,' then I would have supported an attack even if some members of the Security Council, for other reasons, didn't endorse it."
However, Clinton questioned the whole strategy of focusing on Iraq, noting there was wide support for the invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the al Qaeda-supporting Taliban. But there are only 15,000 U.S. troops there to support Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and hunt for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his top aides. "Every time we get a new piece of information about the al Qaeda ... it comes from the Pakistanis. Now, clearly, al Qaeda and bin Laden are bigger security problems than Iraq."

[Big Train]

D, I love you, but she has got us here. The mistake you made in your statement is you forgot to take into account Clinton changing his positions depending on the jetstream....

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
D, I love you, but she has got us here. The mistake you made in your statement is you forgot to take into account Clinton changing his positions depending on the jetstream....

Clinton is a magnanimous man. He knew Bush, especially because of his deficient intellect, was going to have a tough time since being President is a difficult job even for the smartest of us. He probably felt bad for little Dubya. So he had to throw him a bone.

[Big Train]

That was very lewinski like statement Nick...

How do you feel about cigars?

Just kidding... :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Big Train
That was very lewinski like statement Nick...

How do you feel about cigars?

Just kidding... :)

Depends how they smell;) :confused:

[diamondD]

My original point was that Clinton believed the same intelligence and that Iraq was still in possession of WMDs. He's always going to hedge his bets and leave an ambiguous opinion about what he really thinks about the war. We didn't call him Slick Willy for nothing. ;)

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
My original point was that Clinton believed the same intelligence and that Iraq was still in possession of WMDs.

OK. Woo hoo! Clinton believed too! Yippie! Woo hoo!

Is that what you wanted?

Now the U.S. has stopped looking because there is nothing there. This tells us that the UN sanctions seem to have worked. This also tells us that we received faulty intelligence. Now I wonder, did we get the lousy intelligence by accident? Or on purpose?

Do you realize that NO ONE has been held accountable for this?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Do you realize that NO ONE has been held accountable for this?

gw said that since we voted for him, no one should be held accountable for anything. Looks like it's all good cunty! No harm no foul.

People are working on holding us accountable.

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
gw said that since we voted for him, no one should be held accountable for anything. Looks like it's all good cunty! No harm no foul.

People are working on holding us accountable.

ROTH ARMY Conservative Cocksuckers!*


*Some may prefer to lick balls. -ed

[diamondD]

Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
OK. Woo hoo! Clinton believed too! Yippie! Woo hoo!

Is that what you wanted?

Now the U.S. has stopped looking because there is nothing there. This tells us that the UN sanctions seem to have worked. This also tells us that we received faulty intelligence. Now I wonder, did we get the lousy intelligence by accident? Or on purpose?

Do you realize that NO ONE has been held accountable for this?


Not even George Tenet? Why did he resign again? "Personal reasons" my ass.

[Spc. Graner]

Originally posted by diamondD
Not even George Tenet? Why did he resign again? "Personal reasons" my ass.

George Tenet is an American hero!

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by diamondD
Not even George Tenet? Why did he resign again? "Personal reasons" my ass.

No, not even George Tenet, you dummy!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
My original point was that Clinton believed the same intelligence and that Iraq was still in possession of WMDs. He's always going to hedge his bets and leave an ambiguous opinion about what he really thinks about the war. We didn't call him Slick Willy for nothing. ;)

True, but the fact that he is no longer President gives him that luxery (to say and do stupid, self-destructive things).

Where is the Left's answer to Ken Starr when you need him? We barely got an investigation of 9/11 for Christ's sakes.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by diamondD
Not even George Tenet? Why did he resign again? "Personal reasons" my ass.

Tenet? You mean everything was HIS fault?! I want Rummy's, Wolfie's, and Condi's head on a fucking platter for the bullshit they have pulled.