• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Where are the weapons Kerry was worried about?

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
In 1997 Kerry believed there were weapons. Long before Bush said there was "solid evidence". What changed his mind? Does he believe they were destroyed? Was he lied to in 97? What does Kerry know now, that he didn't know then? I'm all for investigating this so-called "solid evidence" by Bush, but the lingering question is that at some point or another nearly everyone believed he had them. So where did they go? Were they destroyed? Were they moved out and sold? Is it all just a scheme by the British Monarchs? :p I want answers as much as everyone else. Answers from Bush, Kerry, those Intelligence Yahoos! All of them on down. If WMD's ever existed where are they now?

Kerry believed it so strongly he suggested a unilateral move. :Q

Link to Kerry's quotes from '97
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I believe 1997 was about, oh, 6 years ago. Perhaps his understanding of what was changed in that time? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change? Now if Kerry backed Bush, and had the same ability to manipulate data as did the president, then I would say hang him too. If he assisted in misleading the public into war, then by all means put him against the wall for treason, if you feel that the fitting punishment.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I believe 1997 was about, oh, 6 years ago. Perhaps his understanding of what was changed in that time? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change? Now if Kerry backed Bush, and had the same ability to manipulate data as did the president, then I would say hang him too. If he assisted in misleading the public into war, then by all means put him against the wall for treason, if you feel that the fitting punishment.
Circumstances have certainly changed, but I want to know what happened to the weapons? If Hussein had weapons at that time, then I just want evidence of them having been destroyed so that we know they weren't transported out. They certainly don't appear to be there now. Almost everyone believed them to be there at some point, and the reason I bring Kerry into this is because something changed his mind in that time: What was it? Obviously politics has something to do with it, none of us are stupid despite what Michelle Goldberg says :p, but I hope there might be more than that. Where did the intelligence change. Hillary Clinton said today that Bush was going on the exact same reports as her husband. She said that was why she backed going into Iraq.

Did Bush believe there was something there based on his intelligence, then overstate it by saying we have evidence?
Did Bush know there was nothing there and go in anyway, knowing full well that it would be an embarrassement?
In the security briefings were the congressmen lied to?
What did the congressmen know? Why didn't they scream "foul" at Bush's "solid evidence" claim?

I can only hope that some of this will be answered in the coming days. Unfortunately it seems to be speculation and partisan fighting on all sides at this point.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I believe 1997 was about, oh, 6 years ago. Perhaps his understanding of what was changed in that time? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change? Now if Kerry backed Bush, and had the same ability to manipulate data as did the president, then I would say hang him too. If he assisted in misleading the public into war, then by all means put him against the wall for treason, if you feel that the fitting punishment.
How can you hold GW to something he said months ago (a period of time as relative as six years or three minutes)? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
I believe 1997 was about, oh, 6 years ago. Perhaps his understanding of what was changed in that time? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change? Now if Kerry backed Bush, and had the same ability to manipulate data as did the president, then I would say hang him too. If he assisted in misleading the public into war, then by all means put him against the wall for treason, if you feel that the fitting punishment.
How can you hold GW to something he said months ago (a period of time as relative as six years or three minutes)? Or are you suggesting that once a statement is made, circumstances do not change?
This is too easy.

Bush had evidence (so he said) that he used IMMEDIATELY for the war.

He said he had it THEN

He he acted on THAT knowlege THEN

He "lost" it. Oops.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
So Clinton should have bombed iraq for 3 days during desert fox? Or is it only a problem when wars/bombing last longer than 3 days?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,198
3,244
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
So Clinton should have bombed iraq for 3 days during desert fox? Or is it only a problem when wars/bombing last longer than 3 days?
That was in response to Saddams shenanigans, was it not?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
So Clinton should have bombed iraq for 3 days during desert fox? Or is it only a problem when wars/bombing last longer than 3 days?
Who cares?
Clinton should not have bombed Iraq or Kosovo. He should have suspended the sanctions in exchange for continuing inspections way back in 1993.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
So Clinton should have bombed iraq for 3 days during desert fox? Or is it only a problem when wars/bombing last longer than 3 days?
That was in response to Saddams shenanigans, was it not?
Wasn't this whole war in response to Saddam's shenanigans? A wiser ruler would've been a little nicer about disclosure of WMD's. If they don't got 'em now why didn't Saddam insure us with proof of destroyed weapons at least. Would've saved us the heartache.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
It's one thing to think such and such has weapons, it's another thing to start a war without sufficient evidence. I don't see why Kerry has to justify anything. We justify our actions, not our thoughts.
Frankly, I don't like Kerry myself. I hope Wesley Clark runs, cus I don't much like any of the candidates now. Not sure about Dean, but the rest just pathetic.
I frankly think 4 more years of Bush = US on its way to bankrupcy.
So Clinton should have bombed iraq for 3 days during desert fox? Or is it only a problem when wars/bombing last longer than 3 days?
Without giving my personal opinion apropos Clinton's jaunts in Iraq (especially considered next to Operation Iraqi Freedom), I'd like to throw in that I think it's a bit obtuse to suggest that a war is a war is a war. You seem to want to blur the line completely between air and missile strikes and a complete and total preemptive invasion for purposes of your argument (namely, to shift the blame from current to past).
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.
Explain Desert Fox.
Explain why sanctions were kept in place during the Clinton admin.
Explain why the "no-fly" zones were kept in place during the Clinton admin.
Explain why every country in the world said that Saddam had WMD.
Prove that Bush/Powell/Blair, etc.,etc. lied.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
1
0
Prove that Bush/Powell/Blair, etc.,etc. lied.
I won't respond to the rest of the questions as they were pretty clearly pointed towards the author of the parent post, however I think I'll stick my three cents into this one.

Undoubtedly, unequivocally, and totally, the "burden of proof" (for lack of a better term) rests solely, entirely and completely on Bush/Powell/Blair, etc., etc. We, as citizens, are not responsible for proving our leaders WRONG in their pursuits; on the contrary, they are responsible for proving themselves RIGHT.

If they cannot do so (which they have not been able to so far), they fail to prove their case. It's sad that most Americans waited until after countless Iraqis and hundreds of Americans/British were killed to question the evidence/intelligence behind this war.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.
Now, to break my silence on this issue.( I can't believe I lasted this long reading all the tripe that has been spewed the last few weeks)

You are a friggin loon if you believe what you posted. Clinton DID attack a "third world country" under the pretense of WMD. Obviously A-Q wasn't a big news thing back then. Read the transcript of Clinton's address to the nation after he ordered the missile attacks - he SPECIFICALLY rested his reasoning on WMD and the IMMEDIATE THREAT they posed.

You need to start thinking for yourself and not slurp up the drivel that is being spewed by a few nutballs. Clinton, Kerry, and etc were FOR attacking IRAQ and DID. They obviously didn't do it to the same scale that Bush has done but the FACT still remains that BOTH attacks were based on WMD and the imminent threat that WMDs pose.

These attacks on Bush, et al. are nothing more than a partisan attempt at slandering this Administration. Should we investigate the intelligence preoceedures we currently have in place to make sure they are up to snuff? HELL YES! But to blame a President directly for a possible Intelligence issue is just plain stupid, he can only make decisions based on info he is given. Can he influence which intelligence gets used? Uhh - Duh- Yes :confused:

Now to the issue of "tricking America"

How the hell could Bush trick EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS (that voted for the resolution last fall)? Are all those people are just stupid? They'd have to claim stupidity if they now think that they were duped. They had access to the intel -they approved of it then - END OF STORY!!! Maybe we should "impeach" and/or remove all the people who voted for the resolution - since without that Congressional approval - Bush couldn't have attacked(well he could have but most likely wouldn't have). So this "blood on his hands" that you people say Bush has - should also be applied to EVERY MEMBER WHO GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO ATTACK!!!

Get real people - you can't change what Clinton did back in '98 and you can't change what his reasonings were - HE USED WMD AND THEIR IMMENENT THREAT AS HIS REASON!!! It doesn't matter "how" - it matters "why" - and the "why" now is the same as it was back in '98.

CkG
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.
Just looking for answers man. Kerry and Clinton were afraid of something too. So there were never any WMD's? No links to AQ? The UN believed enough to investigate. Bush acted on intelligence that plenty of others had access to. It was enough intelligence for many in congress to vote for. Kerry suggested a unilateral attack, why? There's a big lapse in time and somehow we have to believe that the weapons that the UN, our intelligence, british intelligence, and Kerry/Clinton were worried about never even existed? I think they existed and either they were destroyed (hopefully but doubtful), they were moved or distributed some how (perhaps to the Al-Quaida training camp in Northern Iraq, which is the worst case scenario), or they are in Iraq and remain to be found. There's too much unaccounted for, that at one time we knew about, and not just Bush either.


And I agree for the Bush-apologists as much for the Bush-haters, I'm amused by them too. Of course there are better things to do for free-thinkers, than to tell stupid people how stupid they are.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,435
84
91
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.


ummm ...

In a television appearance December 19 1998, Clinton said "I am confident
we have achieved our mission.


"We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and
protect that capability, and on his military and security
infrastructure," the President said.

This after he had the military bomb iraq for three days.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.


ummm ...

In a television appearance December 19, Clinton said "I am confident
we have achieved our mission.


"We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and
protect that capability, and on his military and security
infrastructure," the President said.

This after he had the military bomb iraq for three days.
But..But...But...he didn't "invade" - he only bombed the hell out of em


I guess the "why" that people are/were screaming about doesn't matter now - just the "how" we attacked ;)

CkG
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Let's now seperate the difference between Kerry/Clinton now...

CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).

Thank you, and to all those Bush-apologists... face it he lied and people died; but please continue to amuse those who can think for themselves.


ummm ...

In a television appearance December 19 1998, Clinton said "I am confident
we have achieved our mission.


"We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and
protect that capability, and on his military and security
infrastructure," the President said.

This after he had the military bomb iraq for three days.

Maybe that three-day bombing took out the weapons program which is why they aren't there anymore. :p Nice aim Bubba!
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998? Any stocks of Chemical or biological agents between now and then could have long expired.

Clinton very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998?

He very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
Read carefully;)

That is the "how" and results - NOT THE "WHY"!!!!

Sure Saddam could have destroyed the weapons but he never showed the proof - which would have freed him from sanctions and threats of US military attacks. The ball was in Saddams court - he called our bluff so we threw one right down the pipe!

CkG
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998?

He very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
Thanks I got it this time, it takes a while I am slow. Can you put it in italics too? Just wondering what happened to the weapons that were once there. That's what matters so that the cost of thousands of people and hundreds of soldiers isn't a total waste and the hundreds of potential lives that could be lost if we don't figure out what happened to the WMDs.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,983
0
0
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998? Any stocks of Chemical or biological agents between now and then could have long expired.

Clinton very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain


In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid
Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only
been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in
July or August 1991.

Through sampling of excavated bombs at Al Azzizziyah in 1997, UNSCOM found botulinum
toxin in an R-400 bomb. Iraq had never declared that it had filled R-400 bombs with this agent.
Sampling of R-400 chemical bombs did confirm the presence of the alcohol component for
binary Sarin/Cyclosarin.

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq.

seems the UN wasnt so sure they were not still there.....
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998? Any stocks of Chemical or biological agents between now and then could have long expired.

Clinton very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain


In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid
Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only
been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in
July or August 1991.

Through sampling of excavated bombs at Al Azzizziyah in 1997, UNSCOM found botulinum
toxin in an R-400 bomb. Iraq had never declared that it had filled R-400 bombs with this agent.
Sampling of R-400 chemical bombs did confirm the presence of the alcohol component for
binary Sarin/Cyclosarin.

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq.

seems the UN wasnt so sure they were not still there.....
So why couldn't Bush let the UN inspectors finish their job... maybe we could have spared 63 billion dollars and the lives of 200 american GI's plus the couple that died the last few days.

I mean have some patience :D ;)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
CLINTON NOR KERRY NEVER INSTIGATED A PRE EMPTIVE WAR AGAINST A THIRD WORLD COUNTRY THAT COST THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND HUNDREDS OF SOLDIERS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF THAT COUNTRY'S LINKS TO AL QAEDA (WHICH THERE WERE NONE) AND THE THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WHICH THERE WERE NONE EITHER).
Read that part again, carefully. Pssst I dont think it's sinking in yet.

What year is this? 2003? What year did Clinton bomb Iraq? 1998? Any stocks of Chemical or biological agents between now and then could have long expired.

Clinton very well could have destroyed Weappons of mass destruction, ;) I don't know... But they certaintly arent there now ;) :D
Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain


In addition, photographic evidence shows that R-400A bombs had been located at Al Walid
Airbase in October 1991. This contradicts the declaration by Iraq that R-400A bombs had only
been deployed to Al Azzizziyah and Airfield 37 and that all such bombs had been destroyed in
July or August 1991.

Through sampling of excavated bombs at Al Azzizziyah in 1997, UNSCOM found botulinum
toxin in an R-400 bomb. Iraq had never declared that it had filled R-400 bombs with this agent.
Sampling of R-400 chemical bombs did confirm the presence of the alcohol component for
binary Sarin/Cyclosarin.

As it has proved impossible to verify the production and destruction details of R-400 bombs,
UNMOVIC cannot discount the possibility that some CW and BW filled R-400 bombs remain in
Iraq.

seems the UN wasnt so sure they were not still there.....
So why couldn't Bush let the UN inspectors finish their job... maybe we could have spared 63 billion dollars and the lives of 200 american GI's plus the couple that died the last few days.

I mean have some patience :D ;)
So now it's NOT the "WHY" or "HOW" - it's the "WHEN"? Cripes:p So when I trash that argument will you finally conceed? Because it seems to me that you keep backpedalling and switching the argument;)

Gotcha on the run - better have eaten your wheaties ;)

CkG
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY