PDA

View Full Version : Who thought Iraq had WMD? Not LoungeMachine



BigBadBrian
05-30-2006, 08:56 PM
Who thought Iraq had WMD? Most everybody
May 25, 2006
by Larry Elder

As Memorial Day approaches, 51 percent of Americans, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, think the commander in chief "deliberately misled" us about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. "Deliberately misled"? Once again, let's go to the videotape:

Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 1998: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, February 1998: "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983."


Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: "When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime."

French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: "There is a problem -- the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right . . . in having decided Iraq should be disarmed."

President Bill Clinton, December 1998: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them, not once, but repeatedly -- unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war, not only against soldiers, but against civilians; firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. Not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. . . . "

Clinton, July 2003: " . . . [I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back there."

Gen. Wesley Clark, September 2002, testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks, as would we."

Vermont Gov. Howard Dean [D], September 2002: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies."

Dean, February 2003: "I agree with President Bush -- he has said that Saddam Hussein is evil. And he is. [Hussein] is a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver. He has invaded his neighbors, used chemical arms, and failed to account for all the chemical and biological weapons he had before the Gulf War. He has murdered dissidents and refused to comply with his obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions. And he has tried to build a nuclear bomb. Anyone who believes in the importance of limiting the spread of weapons of mass killing, the value of democracy and the centrality of human rights must agree that Saddam Hussein is a menace. The world would be a better place if he were in a different place other than the seat of power in Baghdad or any other country."

Dean, March 2003: "[Iraq] is automatically an imminent threat to the countries that surround it because of the possession of these weapons."


Robert Einhorn, Clinton assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, March 2002: "How close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate and limited in size). Within four or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously -- and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others, in a letter to President Bush, December 2001: "There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. . . . In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., December 1998: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ranking minority Intelligence Committee member, October 2002: "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years."

Any questions?


Link (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/larryelder/2006/05/25/198693.html)

jcook11
05-30-2006, 09:07 PM
Not me and FORD we knew chimpy was lying all the time!

DEMON CUNT
05-31-2006, 10:28 AM
http://www.doggienews.com/uploaded_images/dogdoo-746387.jpg

FORD
05-31-2006, 06:05 PM
Octuplicate thread :rolleyes:

Guitar Shark
05-31-2006, 09:36 PM
Why do I even click on BBB's threads anymore?

LoungeMachine
05-31-2006, 10:40 PM
Brie wants me to dump this.

It's what makes him giddy.

Bit it's actually more fun watching everyone ridicule his op-ed spam.

Clinging to the hopes of a Bush turnaround Brie?

LMMFAO

Trust me, dumbass. I will shitcan this. But not before we all get our laughs at your expense.


You're a dying breed, Brie. Bush apologists.

Well, that's something. I guess.

LoungeMachine
05-31-2006, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Why do I even click on BBB's threads anymore?


Same reason your pulse quickens at the sound of an ambulance?

:D

Seshmeister
05-31-2006, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Why do I even click on BBB's threads anymore?


I'm starting to feel the same way.

They are getting increasingly desperate as he is shown to have been entirely wrong on just about everything.

It's like rubbernecking a road accident.

Guitar Shark
05-31-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's like rubbernecking a road accident.

Did someone say accident? :)

Beat you to it, Lounge... ;)

LoungeMachine
05-31-2006, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Seshmeister
I'm starting to feel the same way.

They are getting increasingly desperate as he is shown to have been entirely wrong on just about everything.

It's like rubbernecking a road accident.

I'm still waiting for Brie to start ANYTHING that isn't a cut-n-paste Op-Ed :rolleyes:


He's so desperate to not feel he backed the worst administration in modern history

LoungeMachine
05-31-2006, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Did someone say accident? :)

Beat you to it, Lounge... ;)

LMMFAO

How the fuck did I miss that lob?

:D

fuck.

Seshmeister
05-31-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I'm still waiting for Brie to start ANYTHING that isn't a cut-n-paste Op-Ed :rolleyes:


He's so desperate to not feel he backed the worst administration in modern history

I predict he'll be cutting and pasting from his collection of 'Hitlers best speeches' by next week.:)

ODShowtime
05-31-2006, 11:18 PM
too bad incompetent gw&friends could't prove it. Shit, they couldn't even frame the motherfuckers properly. :rolleyes:

BigBadBrian
06-01-2006, 07:49 PM
LoungeMachine, Sesh, and Guitar Shark



=



http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/monkeys.jpg

jcook11
06-01-2006, 08:08 PM
BWAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAA!

jcook11
06-01-2006, 08:10 PM
BBB: Had wmd's been found you already know FORDS' response
" The fucking BCE planted them!"

blueturk
06-01-2006, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by jcook11
BBB: Had wmd's been found you already know FORDS' response
" The fucking BCE planted them!"

"I think if you know what you believe, it makes it a lot easier to answer questions. I can't answer your question." —George W. Bush, in response to a question about whether he wished he could take back any of his answers in the first debate. Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Oct. 4, 2000

4moreyears
06-01-2006, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Octuplicate thread :rolleyes:

Kind of like all your BCE bullshit.

van whalin
06-03-2006, 04:15 PM
Practically every major security agency thought Saddam was trying to aqquire WMDs including the Russians, British, Israeli and U.S.
It was completely unreasonable to ignore such a threat and it is unreasonable to say that Bush lied when practically anyone who matters was saying that that was happening.
Hussein has history for using chemical weapons and has previously also tried to purchase nuclear capabilities (which I believe the French helped him with). The fact is it wasn't an unbelievable situation- it also hasn't been disproved.

DEMON CUNT
06-03-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by van whalin
Practically every major security agency thought Saddam was trying to aqquire WMDs including the Russians, British, Israeli and U.S.
It was completely unreasonable to ignore such a threat and it is unreasonable to say that Bush lied when practically anyone who matters was saying that that was happening.
Hussein has history for using chemical weapons and has previously also tried to purchase nuclear capabilities (which I believe the French helped him with). The fact is it wasn't an unbelievable situation- it also hasn't been disproved.

Because we told them.

There were (and are) far more credible threats in the world at that time.

Chemical weapons purchased from the U.S.

Where the hell have you been?

It's about the oil, you dummy.

DrMaddVibe
06-04-2006, 11:12 AM
The oil?

LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL!!!!!

DEMON CUNT
06-04-2006, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
The oil?

LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL!!!!!

No? What reason are they giving for the invasion this week?

Are your kids old enough to serve?

LoungeMachine
06-04-2006, 11:59 AM
American Idol must be done for the year.....

DrASSVibe is back on talking points

LMAO

DEMON CUNT
06-04-2006, 12:20 PM
Don't forget these:

15 May 2001 testimony before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Secretary Powell: "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."

and

29 July 2001 Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer [Guest host: John King] asked Rice about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

"Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly. But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

sadaist
06-04-2006, 06:49 PM
Why didn't Bush & co plant some WMD's for our troops to "find". People already believe they have done a bunch of sneaky shit already. Why not this? It would have been fairly easy. Just one small weapons cache in a bunker with some chemicals.

Either way, enjoy!

FORD
06-04-2006, 08:25 PM
It was never ALL about the oil. The motivation for the PNAC'ers was obvious going back (at least) as far as their document A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm) which was written by the PNAC'ers along with the Likud regime of Bennie Netanyahu. Even then, the overthrow of Iraq, Iran, and Syria (among others) was part of this agenda based on an ultra right wing mutation of Zionism, which believes that God literally gave all the land from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river to the Jews.

Many of the PNAC'ers are Israeli citizens. Some hold dual citizenship with the US. Others are Israeli nationals yet are still somehow employed within the US government, at the highest levels, including the Pentagon.

This used to be called espionage. Now its' business as usual for BCE/PNAC

Likud Zionism was probably 50% of the motivation for the invasion of Iraq. If the Iran swindle is allowed to proceed, their stake in it will be more like 85 - 90%.

Make no mistake, this is Likud's war. And it's about time those fascist motherfuckers were cut off completely from US aid.

Let alone actually holding US government jobs, for fucks sake.

jcook11
06-05-2006, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by FORD
It was never ALL about the oil. The motivation for the PNAC'ers was obvious going back (at least) as far as their document A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm) which was written by the PNAC'ers along with the Likud regime of Bennie Netanyahu. Even then, the overthrow of Iraq, Iran, and Syria (among others) was part of this agenda based on an ultra right wing mutation of Zionism, which believes that God literally gave all the land from the Mediterranean sea to the Euphrates river to the Jews.

Many of the PNAC'ers are Israeli citizens. Some hold dual citizenship with the US. Others are Israeli nationals yet are still somehow employed within the US government, at the highest levels, including the Pentagon.

This used to be called espionage. Now its' business as usual for BCE/PNAC

Likud Zionism was probably 50% of the motivation for the invasion of Iraq. If the Iran swindle is allowed to proceed, their stake in it will be more like 85 - 90%.

Make no mistake, this is Likud's war. And it's about time those fascist motherfuckers were cut off completely from US aid.

Let alone actually holding US government jobs, for fucks sake.

And the number of Israeli troops on the ground is how many?...Dumb ASS, go huff some more paint I hear gold wacks you out the best.