Tonight on "Hardball with Chris Matthews"

[RightIsWrong]

Does the "Downing Street Memo" prove America was misled about the need for war in Iraq? Join Chris for a Hardball special report.

I wonder which direction he will go with this? Either way, the topic seems to be picking up some steam with the MSM.

 

[her209]

The Downing Street Memo by itself cannot prove anything.

 

[Genx87]

Which is unsurprising because the MSM in this country just loves to work with unverifiable sources.

 

[NeenerNeener]

America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

:thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Reality doesn't need a link

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Reality doesn't need a link

In your case humor me.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Sure. Oh, sorry, it was Powell and Condi not Rumsfeld.

Powell and Rice declare Iraq is at bay

Even a video with their own words .... say it with my now class "OOOOOOHHHHHH AWWWWWWEEEEEE"

Powell and Condi video

quoted text from link provided.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Sure. Oh, sorry, it was Powell and Condi not Rumsfeld.

Powell and Rice declare Iraq is at bay

Even a video with their own words .... say it with my now class "OOOOOOHHHHHH AWWWWWWEEEEEE"

Powell and Condi video

quoted text from link provided.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Oh yes before 9-11.

Please reread my question as I clearly stated "after" 9-11.

Here is my question again

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Sure. Oh, sorry, it was Powell and Condi not Rumsfeld.

Powell and Rice declare Iraq is at bay

Even a video with their own words .... say it with my now class "OOOOOOHHHHHH AWWWWWWEEEEEE"

Powell and Condi video

quoted text from link provided.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Oh yes before 9-11.

Please reread my question as I clearly stated "after" 9-11.

Here is my question again

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

Did WMD's magically appear after 9/11?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
America being misled about the need for war in Iraq seemed self-evident before the DSM.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

you're aware that the policy (as admitted by rumsfeld and condi) over IRAQ prior to invasion was that he wasn't a threat to anyone let alone us and he had no stockpiles of WMDs.

Really? This is news to me.
Got any credible links?

Sure. Oh, sorry, it was Powell and Condi not Rumsfeld.

Powell and Rice declare Iraq is at bay

Even a video with their own words .... say it with my now class "OOOOOOHHHHHH AWWWWWWEEEEEE"

Powell and Condi video

quoted text from link provided.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Oh yes before 9-11.

Please reread my question as I clearly stated "after" 9-11.

Here is my question again

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

Did WMD's magically appear after 9/11?

No, but concerns regarding their status sure did.

Let me highlight the part of my question that deals with that.

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

 

[chambersc]

how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Genx87

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

There WERE inspectors there. Remember Hans Blix? The inspectors said there were no signs of WMD's, and sure enough, there were no WMDs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Genx87

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

There WERE inspectors there. Remember Hans Blix? The inspectors said there were no signs of WMD's, and sure enough, there were no WMDs.

If they believed that after nearly 5 years of no access and a timeline of Saddam covering things up and changing their declarations. Then why didnt the UN suspend the sanctions on Iraq?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Genx87

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

There WERE inspectors there. Remember Hans Blix? The inspectors said there were no signs of WMD's, and sure enough, there were no WMDs.

If they believed that after nearly 5 years of no access and a timeline of Saddam covering things up and changing their declarations. Then why didnt the UN suspend the sanctions on Iraq?

Funny how so many of the other countries thought the inspections were working. Oh wait. they found NO WMDS. I guess the inspections did work, huh.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Genx87

You dont believe we had legitimate concerns with a madman not allowing access to search his country for known WMD stockpiles after 9-11?

There WERE inspectors there. Remember Hans Blix? The inspectors said there were no signs of WMD's, and sure enough, there were no WMDs.

If they believed that after nearly 5 years of no access and a timeline of Saddam covering things up and changing their declarations. Then why didnt the UN suspend the sanctions on Iraq?

Funny how so many of the other countries thought the inspections were working. Oh wait. they found NO WMDS. I guess the inspections did work, huh.

Working eh? They werent even in Iraq for nearly 4 years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

 

[dannybin1742]

as steven coll-bear (sp) said about two weeks ago on the topic of if (JS): the media today has the credibility to uncover another watergate?

"no, it doesn't" JS: "what doesn't" SCB: "the truth, the truth doesn't have enough credibility to uncover and expose scandals"

genx is a perfect example of a war mongering neocon who can't seem to find reality from a hole in the ground, still perpetualing the lie that 9/11 is why we went to iraq, and iraq was somehow behind 9/11

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Termites infest your house.
Some guy in the next street has trouble with the police.
Termite infestion in his street.
The guy has said he wants your house removed since it blocks his view.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

You know, with an irrational mind like yours bush could justify exterminating the Eskimos after 9/11 and you'd be lapping it up. What part of, "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" don't you understand. You can blind yourself, but you cannot blind the people responding to you in this thread. Your argument is rationalization and illogical crap.

If the eskimos were ramming planes into the skyscrapers in a city near you I might consider the idea.

There is nothing irrational with making sure WMD's that could fall into the hands of the very people who just killed 3000 of your citizens is dealt with.

We screwed around long enough with that security threat during the 1990s. Lobbing a few missiles and hoping he complies with the very treaty he signed is foolhardy.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: chambersc
how can concerns develop after 9/11 of WMD stockpiles if a) you said they didn't magically appear and b) the policy was as such (no known threat nor stockpiles). if there was no concern prior to 9/11 how can there be one post?

Lets see
Terrorists hit us at home
Madman no complying with UN inspection treaty he signed
Terrorists are all from the Middle East.
Madman has said he wants to bring America down.

Connecting the dots yet?

Before 9-11 we were fine with lobbing a few cruise missiles his way. After getting slapped in the face we need to start thinking of the worst case scenarios and dealing with them before it happens.

Want a current example of this? Watch the US mexico border get dealt with after terrorists blast some urban area with a WMD.

Termites infest your house.
Some guy in the next street has trouble with the police.
Termite infestion in his street.
The guy has said he wants your house removed since it blocks his view.

Terrible analogy that has little to do with this subject.