Ex-UN weapons inspector in child-sex sting

[TastesLikeChicken]

Except he didn't even change his mind. The weapons were there in 1998, Clinton had them blown up, by 1993 whatever was left had deteriorated into worthless goo. Sir Chicken knows this quite well, but he's blowing revisionist smoke to mislead those with poor memories.

Weapons were there in 1998, except they were blown up in 1993 by Clinton?

WTF are you talking about?

I'd also like to see him back up his claim re., "those 500 or so chemical weapons they found after the invasion." As I remember it, we found a bunch of empty warheads -- NOT actual chemical weapons -- and reportedly a handful that used to be chemical weapons before they rotted away.

As you remember it? Uh huh. The "empty" warheads were found prior to the invasion. They aren't the ones I'm talking about, but nice try at revising history as you remember it.

It's hard to find a decent link because the media was never big on reporting the story at the time, but this old link has some information.

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1210

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Indeed. Doesn't change the fact his intel about Iraq's "WMDs" were right on the money, whereas your worship's claims were unmitigated chickensh@t.

What intel? His intel from 1998 or the intel from 2003?

Gee, what suddenly changed his mind in that time? It couldn't have been the inspection process because he never completed it. Wonder what else influenced his opinion, because that's all it was at the time - opinion. But if you want to laughingly call it "intel," OK. Whatever floats your partisan funboat.

 

[sandorski]

Weapons were there in 1998, except they were blown up in 1993 by Clinton?

WTF are you talking about?


As you remember it? Uh huh. The "empty" warheads were found prior to the invasion. They aren't the ones I'm talking about, but nice try at revising history as you remember it.

It's hard to find a decent link because the media was never big on reporting the story at the time, but this old link has some information.

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1210

"1998"

He meant "2003" when he typed "1993". You'd have known this if you were Reasonable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Weapons were there in 1998, except they were blown up in 1993 by Clinton?

WTF are you talking about?

Simple and obvious typo, you knew exactly what I meant. The WMDs were there in 1998 when Clinton bombed them. Five years later, in 2003, whatever odds and ends survived the bombing and weren't destroyed by the Iraqi government had degraded into worthless goo.

As you remember it? Uh huh. The "empty" warheads were found prior to the invasion. They aren't the ones I'm talking about, but nice try at revising history as you remember it.

It's hard to find a decent link because the media was never big on reporting the story at the time, but this old link has some information.

http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=1210

How convenient for you. The evil librul media didn't cover your fairy tale, so you'll pick your "proof" from some wing-nut blog. Sorry, you'll have to do better than parroting the same unsupported allegations and innuendo the Bush administration used throughout their war of lies.

 

[Bowfinger]

What intel? His intel from 1998 or the intel from 2003?

Gee, what suddenly changed his mind in that time? It couldn't have been the inspection process because he never completed it. Wonder what else influenced his opinion, because that's all it was at the time - opinion. But if you want to laughingly call it "intel," OK. Whatever floats your partisan funboat.

Flap and cluck all you want, it does not change two key facts:

1. He knew infinitely more about Iraq's past and then-current WMD stocks than you.

2. He was right. You were wrong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Simple and obvious typo, you knew exactly what I meant. The WMDs were there in 1998 when Clinton bombed them. Five years later, in 2003, whatever odds and ends survived the bombing and weren't destroyed by the Iraqi government had degraded into worthless goo.

Yeah, Clinton was bombing all the WMDs in Iraq and blowed 'em up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)

It is clear from the target list, and from extensive communications with almost a dozen officers and analysts knowledgeable about Desert Fox planning, that the U.S.-British bombing campaign was more than a reflexive reaction to Saddam Hussein's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM's inspectors. The official rationale for Desert Fox may remain the "degrading" of Iraq's ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the "diminishing" of the Iraqi threat to its neighbours. But careful study of the target list tells another story. Thirty-five of the 100 targets were selected because of their role in Iraq's air defense system, an essential first step in any air war, because damage to those sites paves the way for other forces and minimizes casualties all around. Only 13 targets on the list are facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons or ballistic missiles, and three are southern Republican Guard bases that might be involved in a repeat invasion of Kuwait. The heart of the Desert Fox list (49 of the 100 targets) is the Iraqi regime itself: a half-dozen palace strongholds and their supporting cast of secret police, guard and transport organizations.

Congrats on more historical revisionism though.

How convenient for you. The evil librul media didn't cover your fairy tale, so you'll pick your "proof" from some wing-nut blog. Sorry, you'll have to do better than parroting the same unsupported allegations and innuendo the Bush administration used throughout their war of lies.

Now you deny the fact of the 500 warheads found (even if they were degraded) when it's a fact of Congressional record and the best response you can come up with is a claim of "fairy tale" and "wing-nut"?

LOL. The revisionist denial is strong in this one, not to mention that you can't even get your dates and facts right.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Oh look, it's bowfinger coming in and using the lame old "clinton blew them up" crap again. Seriously, do you really believe that crap?

If he had just written 2003 instead of 1993 he'd be spot on.

It's not like this isn't something that has been proven. There were no mobile labs and the labs that did exist were blown to kingdom come.

Even when the US issued orders for us NOT to guard the UN bunkers and they were looted it didn't matter, chemicals have a short shelf life.

So he's spot on and it's all very well known to anyone who isn't a complete censor of the information they take in.

 

[fskimospy]

I fail to see what the problem is with people admitting that Saddam didn't have the WMDs we thought he did. Even the Bush Administration, the single entity with the most to gain out of finding them, admitted they were wrong.

Very odd for people to continue fighting for a position that even the originator no longer believes. Must be a 'librul' media conspiracy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

"1998"

He meant "2003" when he typed "1993". You'd have known this if you were Reasonable.

Reasonable? The fuck? How would Clinton blow up Iraq's WMDs in 2003? Instead of reason how about applying some knowledge of history concerning who was President in 2003?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah, Clinton was bombing all the WMDs in Iraq and blowed 'em up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)



Congrats on more historical revisionism though.


Now you deny the fact of the 500 warheads found (even if they were degraded) when it's a fact of Congressional record and the best response you can come up with is a claim of "fairy tale" and "wing-nut"?

LOL. The revisionist denial is strong in this one, not to mention that you can't even get your dates and facts right.

Being RAF i can tell you one thing, if you want air superiority and free reign for bombers the FIRST STEP is to take out the enemies ground to air artillery and airforce.

The other targets were intelligence assisted direct strikes and the labs were destroyed, there wasn't a single WMD built since 98 in Iraq and the once they had were either already confiscated or destroyed.

It was a successful mission for the RAF and the USAF along with the MI6 and the CIA using good intel.

That you'd deny the last true success that the USAF and RAF had says a lot about you, nothing nice.

 

[Craig234]

He should have changed his mind about IM'ing 15 year-old girls too. He sure misjudged that one.

Was the question whether heshould masturbate toa 15 year old, or about your wrong statemets?

 

[sandorski]

Reasonable? The fuck? How would Clinton blow up Iraq's WMDs in 2003? Instead of reason how about applying some knowledge of history concerning who was President in 2003?

That would certainly be an error. Except you made the error, because he didn't say what you think he said.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Reasonable? The fuck? How would Clinton blow up Iraq's WMDs in 2003? Instead of reason how about applying some knowledge of history concerning who was President in 2003?

Reading comprehension is not something you do very well. He said that the WMD's seized were deterioating in 03, not that Clinton bombed Iraq in 03.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That would certainly be an error. Except you made the error, because he didn't say what you think he said.

Saddam claimed he blew them all up in 1993 too.

Somebody was wrong.

 

[sandorski]

Saddam claimed he blew them all up in 1993 too.

Somebody was wrong.

Oy vey /facepalm

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Being RAF i can tell you one thing, if you want air superiority and free reign for bombers the FIRST STEP is to take out the enemies ground to air artillery and airforce.

The other targets were intelligence assisted direct strikes and the labs were destroyed, there wasn't a single WMD built since 98 in Iraq and the once they had were either already confiscated or destroyed.

It was a successful mission for the RAF and the USAF along with the MI6 and the CIA using good intel.

That you'd deny the last true success that the USAF and RAF had says a lot about you, nothing nice.

OMG. You're RAF? It's only about the zillionth time you've mentioned that in this forum. So the fuck what. I was USAF, long before you were RAF...son. Nobody cares about that either.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Saddam claimed he blew them all up in 1993 too.

Somebody was wrong.

Holy fucking hell you are daft man.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

OMG. You're RAF? It's only about the zillionth time you've mentioned that in this forum. So the fuck what. I was USAF, long before you were RAF...son. Nobody cares about that either.

The point wasn't that i'm RAF but of course you'd focus on what WASN'T the point so you can ignore everything else i wrote.

Son, if you ever were USAF i'd like to introduce you to a good friend of mine, Common Courtesy, i bet you two have things to talk about.

Or perhaps not, eh?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

The point wasn't that i'm RAF but of course you'd focus on what WASN'T the point so you can ignore everything else i wrote.

Son, if you ever were USAF i'd like to introduce you to a good friend of mine, Common Courtesy, i bet you two have things to talk about.

Or perhaps not, eh?

I can ignore everything else you wrote because it was bullshit. Clinton's bombing of Iraq had little to do with ridding Iraq of WMDs. It was a show of force to send a message about noncompliance with UN sanctions. And no, I don't believe it was a distraction from the Lewinsky affair. That kind of BS was pure partisan speculation.

 

[BoberFett]

Sex acts don't invalidate political acts.

Bill Clinton's positions on issues, lke Bosnia, were not 'less credible' for the Monical scandal.

Eliot Spitzer's crusade against Wall Street abuse wasn't suddenly wrong because of his sex scandal.

John Edwards' positions on poverty in America weren't less worthy because of his sex scandal.

Interesting that you used all Democrats in your example. I'm sure NOBODY thought less of Larry Craig or Mark Sanford's actions in office after their scandals. Oh wait, no, you and the rest of the Democrat horde attack outed Republicans all the time.

 

[Craig234]

Boberfett, examples are not about party. Point to one post by any liberal about Larry Craig OR Mark Sanford saying their sex scandals proved they'd been wrong on policy.

One post.

You're an idiot.

 

[amdhunter]

Any guys on this thread wanna cyber?

<-- 12/F/hawt

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I can ignore everything else you wrote because it was bullshit. Clinton's bombing of Iraq had little to do with ridding Iraq of WMDs. It was a show of force to send a message about noncompliance with UN sanctions. And no, I don't believe it was a distraction from the Lewinsky affair. That kind of BS was pure partisan speculation.

Wow, you really are fucked in your head, aren't you?

Out of 144 targets about 40 or so were known artillery to air and ATA units, the rest of the 100+ were factories, about 20 or so were military chemical labs.

Since you "used to be USAF" you should know this, it's not even classified, i'm fairly sure you can find most of it on google.

The firewall doesn't let me use search engines so you'll have to search for it yourself but that shouldn't be all that hard, even for a brainfucked child like you.

 

[sandorski]

Any guys on this thread wanna cyber?

<-- 12/F/hawt

Ritterrrr!!!!!!

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Any guys on this thread wanna cyber?

<-- 12/F/hawt

Hacked?