CIA report: NO WMD. Period

[JHoNNy1OoO]

Originally posted by: Crimson
WHERE ARE THE WMD'S JOHN KERRY SAID EXISTED IN THE DEBATE A WEEK AGO!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Sorry.. nobody is answering the question..

Proof that he ever said such a thing? :/

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Buahahaha You guys are great....ly retarted (sic). Don't mind I wasn't even online...but go ahead and stroke each other off if you must.

conjur, just because you want to find an excuse in PNAC - doesn't mean it is so. Please tell me why it was continued for so long if those behind PNAC weren't in "power" for lets say....oh about 8 years.

That was great....ly retarded. PNAC was not in power for 8 years. We did not invade Iraq for 8 years. PNAC gets in power. We invade Iraq. It must be a coincidence. PNAC should have invaded while they were out of power. Yah, that's the ticket. :roll:


--------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Aimster
All this while Iran has advanced missle technology and chemical and biological weapons. ... soon to have nuclear weapons ...

and what do you plan to do about it? if we go in and stop it, you liberals will bitch and moan. if we dont go in, you liberals will bitch and moan. its lose lose.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Aimster
All this while Iran has advanced missle technology and chemical and biological weapons. ... soon to have nuclear weapons ...

and what do you plan to do about it? if we go in and stop it, you liberals will bitch and moan. if we dont go in, you liberals will bitch and moan. its lose lose.

so you want to invade Iran to stop them?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and keep that head of yours buried deep in the sand, CsG. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Sad....so very sad.

Hey, nice comeback. Run out of tinfoil? As I said, you can continue with your PNAC tinfoil BS but it doesn't change anything. Yeah, it's sad...sad that your hate has robbed you of any sense of reality.

Ldir - You must not have read and comprehended my posts...or you are stuck in the same one track mindset as a few others here. The part you all seem to ignore is that Saddam continued to defy the resolution and inspectors during those 8 years. Did PNAC infiltrate all the intel agencies in the world?:roll:
Again, you guys can say what you wish but it doesn't change the facts and it doesn't change why I supported the removal of Saddam.

CsG

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Aimster
All this while Iran has advanced missle technology and chemical and biological weapons. ... soon to have nuclear weapons ...

and what do you plan to do about it? if we go in and stop it, you liberals will bitch and moan. if we dont go in, you liberals will bitch and moan. its lose lose.

so you want to invade Iran to stop them?

where did i say that?


since you seem so worried about irans weapons programs, explain to me what should be done to them.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Aimster
All this while Iran has advanced missle technology and chemical and biological weapons. ... soon to have nuclear weapons ...

and what do you plan to do about it? if we go in and stop it, you liberals will bitch and moan. if we dont go in, you liberals will bitch and moan. its lose lose.

so you want to invade Iran to stop them?

where did i say that?


since you seem so worried about irans weapons programs, explain to me what should be done to them.

I am asking you, since you didnt say you wanted to invade Iran to stop them, then what methoods do you propose?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Buahahaha You guys are great....ly retarted (sic). Don't mind I wasn't even online...but go ahead and stroke each other off if you must.

conjur, just because you want to find an excuse in PNAC - doesn't mean it is so. Please tell me why it was continued for so long if those behind PNAC weren't in "power" for lets say....oh about 8 years.

That was great....ly retarded. PNAC was not in power for 8 years. We did not invade Iraq for 8 years. PNAC gets in power. We invade Iraq. It must be a coincidence. PNAC should have invaded while they were out of power. Yah, that's the ticket. :roll:

They certainly did try, though. They sent letters to Clinton urging him to take action in Iraq (meaning, invade.)

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and keep that head of yours buried deep in the sand, CsG. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Sad....so very sad.

Hey, nice comeback. Run out of tinfoil? As I said, you can continue with your PNAC tinfoil BS but it doesn't change anything. Yeah, it's sad...sad that your hate has robbed you of any sense of reality.

It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Again conjur -none of that changes anything. No matter how much you chant PNAC - it doesn't make it so. Remember, Saddam had plenty of time to comply. He didn't. The reasons Duelfer thinks Saddam stonewalled are irrelevant. What's relevant is that he did so(or rather didn't). He never fully complied with the cease-fire agreement HE SIGNED.
Now again, I don't expect you RBHs to understand that, or understand/admit you are trying to rewrite/rejudge things done in the past on information we now have. But again, it doesn't change a whole lot. Sure WMDs may not have been as big of a threat as all the intel agencies around the world thought - but it doesn't change the necessity of his removal.

As long as you are going to continue to bring up the PNAC BS - I'm going to bring up the tinfoil PNAC pipe. It's really an argument that only the most deluded and rabid Bush haters fully believe.

CsG

Go ahead and keep that head of yours buried deep in the sand, CsG. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Sad....so very sad.

That's too funny. David Kay* just used that same phrase in the same context on The Today Show this morning.


* You all remember David Kay, right? He was the Bush hero who was going to vindicate the administration when he replaced that Euro-weenie Hans Blix. Only Kay wasn't the politiical hack they expected. Kay searched and searched and ultimately came back and said no WMDs. That David Kay.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
Go ahead and keep that head of yours buried deep in the sand, CsG. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Sad....so very sad.

Hey, nice comeback. Run out of tinfoil? As I said, you can continue with your PNAC tinfoil BS but it doesn't change anything. Yeah, it's sad...sad that your hate has robbed you of any sense of reality.

It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

 

[T2T III]

I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread - but, I think a lot of the WMD report is really being taken out of context. Just checking the news out this morning revealed that Iraq had the facade to make it appear that they had WMD to the Iranians. This process even fooled the intelligence of the Iraqi intelligence agencies.

Go figure. While there might not be any current WMD, the writing was on the wall. It was also reported that Saddam was just waiting for the sanctions to expire - then, he would have kicked production of such weapons back into gear.

For those of you who stick to the "No WMD was found, GOP got owned" mentality, please go back and re-read your sources. Clearly, there is some interesting content there that might provoke some thoughts for you.


[Edit:] I will now refrain from posting in the P&N section for another few weeks. The bias towards the GOP around here gives me the creeps. :Q

 

[GoPackGo]

CIA 2002 - Saddam has WMDs - It's a "slam dunk"

CIA 2004 - Saddam had NO WMDS

How do we go from Slam Dunk and we know where they are to....nope didn't have them, wasn't trying to get them.

It wasn't just Bush that thought he had them...it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Israel, Britain, Russia..etc..etc...

So whats the story here? Bush may have rushed to war...but I always thought the reasons were valid based on years of history and reports.

There has to be more to this than just "Bush Lied"

The level of conspiracy that would have to take place would be monumental.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech
I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread - but, I think a lot of the WMD report is really being taken out of context. Just checking the news out this morning revealed that Iraq had the facade to make it appear that they had WMD to the Iranians. This process even fooled the intelligence of the Iraqi intelligence agencies.

Go figure. While there might not be any current WMD, the writing was on the wall. It was also reported that Saddam was just waiting for the sanctions to expire - then, he would have kicked production of such weapons back into gear.

For those of you who stick to the "No WMD was found, GOP got owned" mentality, please go back and re-read your sources. Clearly, there is some interesting content there that might provoke some thoughts for you.


[Edit:] I will now refrain from posting in the P&N section for another few weeks. The bias towards the GOP around here gives me the creeps. :Q

same goes for the gop supporters

Iraq was trying to bluff Iran that it had wmd's, had no intentions for them against the US, not a threat.

For Saddam to start trying to get wmd's after the sactions were lifted it something that was pretty obvios, to me at least. Preventing countries from getting wmd's is hard and after sanctions were lifted there would be very little legal base to stop him. Like with North Korea and Iran there is no other way than political presure.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
CIA 2002 - Saddam has WMDs - It's a "slam dunk"

CIA 2004 - Saddam had NO WMDS

How do we go from Slam Dunk and we know where they are to....nope didn't have them, wasn't trying to get them.

It wasn't just Bush that thought he had them...it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Israel, Britain, Russia..etc..etc...

So whats the story here? Bush may have rushed to war...but I always thought the reasons were valid based on years of history and reports.

There has to be more to this than just "Bush Lied"

The level of conspiracy that would have to take place would be monumental.

Ahem, you forgot about Colin Powell's statement on 24 Feb 01:

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

The bad WMD intel was invented to justify a war that PNAC wanted, and that the public wouldn't otherwise support. They have let George Tenet and the CIA take the blame, but this "information" was cooked up elsewhere IMO.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
CIA 2002 - Saddam has WMDs - It's a "slam dunk"

CIA 2004 - Saddam had NO WMDS

How do we go from Slam Dunk and we know where they are to....nope didn't have them, wasn't trying to get them.

It wasn't just Bush that thought he had them...it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Israel, Britain, Russia..etc..etc...

So whats the story here? Bush may have rushed to war...but I always thought the reasons were valid based on years of history and reports.

There has to be more to this than just "Bush Lied"

The level of conspiracy that would have to take place would be monumental.

Ahem, you forgot about Colin Powell's statement on 24 Feb 01:

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

The bad WMD intel was invented to justify a war that PNAC wanted, and that the public wouldn't otherwise support. They have let George Tenet and the CIA take the blame, but this "information" was cooked up elsewhere IMO.

What a mess

 

[tallest1]

Phantom Voice: Tell them the WMDs were moved to Syria

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's far from hatred, CsG. It's disgust. Disgust that a completely feckless President has allowed this organization to take over control of our foreign policy decisions. The facts could not be more clear if you have truly read those articles.

The fact you are still apologizing for this administration is proof positive of one of two things:

1) You actually did not read the articles
2) You refuse to admit the person you support has failed miserably


I was man enough to admit I was wrong in my support of Bush after having read all of the facts. You should do the same.

Well, ofcourse YOU think you were decieved or some other such nonsense because you were weak and just followed. I however didn't just follow blindly as you'd understand if you got over your RBH. That's fine you think you have to hate Bush - some of us don't and your hatred isn't going to change it.
No conjur, you didn't read the facts - you read the facts that support your Bush hate. IE: you fell into the left's trap of BS.
Again since you keep trying to ignore it:
Can you kindly show us which pieces of the cease-fire agreement he fully completed?

CsG

I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

dont forget kerry. kerry also thought he had them

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur...explain how other nations thought he had WMD and so did Clinton while he was president....I mean I think this is more than just Bush.

That's been covered MANY times up here before, GoPackGo. And, you should know the answer.

Here, I'll give you a hint.

1998 vs. 2003.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
CIA 2002 - Saddam has WMDs - It's a "slam dunk"

CIA 2004 - Saddam had NO WMDS

How do we go from Slam Dunk and we know where they are to....nope didn't have them, wasn't trying to get them.

It wasn't just Bush that thought he had them...it was Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Israel, Britain, Russia..etc..etc...

So whats the story here? Bush may have rushed to war...but I always thought the reasons were valid based on years of history and reports.

There has to be more to this than just "Bush Lied"

The level of conspiracy that would have to take place would be monumental.

It is a slam dunk. Bush has gone from Saddam has WMD and we can prove it to now Saddam wished he had WMD and that is still a slam dunk, what's the problem???

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: nick1985

dont forget kerry. kerry also thought he had them

He didn't advocate jumping over the inspection process and warmongering over them though.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't think I was deceived, CsG. I know I was.

I can see the facts in those articles.

It's your blind support of Bush (that much is very obvious to anyone up here) that is affecting your ability to rationalize. And, I am not weak. I am far from it. I am a strong believer in looking at the issues. Looking at the facts and then judging based on them. You, however, ignore everything that is critical of Bush and dismiss it with the wave of a hand.

Sorry, but you are not a Jedi and Bush *is* a failure as President.

Conjur, you're just wasting your breath on the "true believer" -- Cad would support the war no matter what the circumstances were. It doesn't matter how many times the administration flip-flopped on their basis for invading Iraq, it doesn't matter if the stockpiles of WMDs didn't exist, it doesn't matter if Iraq spirals into civil war. We're facing a "faith based" administration who want to remake the Middle East in their image and you've got folks like Cad eagerly lapping it up.

You could deliver a mountain of evidence that the administration was FoS, and these PNRWC types would still ignore it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

You could deliver a mountain of evidence that the administration was FoS, and these PNRWC types would still ignore it.

I think CsG is clinically insane. Like someone who thinks they're Jesus Christ. Except this guy thinks there are WMDs in Iraq.

What's PNRWC?