Where are the WMD?

[Lanya]

Where are the WMD?

Looks like they're  east, west, south and north somewhat.... of New Jersey.

“The Army now admits

that it secretly dumped 64 million pounds of nerve and mustard agents into the sea, along with 400,000 chemical-filled bombs, land mines and rockets and more than 500 tons of radioactive waste - either tossed overboard or packed into the holds of scuttled vessels.”
wmdclosehome.jpg
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/12/the-army-now-admits/

[_JS]

Didn't Bush find them under his end table in the oval office? Oh right, he was making a funny.

You know, Saddam's son-in-law claimed they were all destroyed when he defected in the mid-90's. I wonder why his testimony was so unbelievable?

Another thing that amazes me is that no one thought to transport a few vials of chemical agents to Iraq and plant them somewhere. Maybe I have a naturally distrusting side, but I just assumed that the Pentagon would do that as a backup plan.

[sirs]

You know, Saddam's son-in-law claimed they were all destroyed when he defected in the mid-90's. I wonder why his testimony was so unbelievable?

Maybe....just maybe, because they had a boatload of other intel & eyewitness testimony that concluded the contrary.  Oh wait, that goes agains the predisposed mindset that Bush lied us into war.  Sorry, my bad

Another thing that amazes me is that no one thought to transport a few vials of chemical agents to Iraq and plant them somewhere. Maybe I have a naturally distrusting side, but I just assumed that the Pentagon would do that as a backup plan.

See?  Bush can do no right.  WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?  Because Bush is just that bad, right.  Gads, if Bush WERE as evel, as sinsiter, and as diabolical as the Looney Left keeps perseverating on, that's precisely what he would have done.     

[_JS]

Maybe....just maybe, because they had a boatload of other intel & eyewitness testimony that concluded the contrary.  Oh wait, that goes agains the predisposed mindset that Bush lied us into war.  Sorry, my bad

Actually that took place under President Clinton's watch, so you can stop your Bush crusade of deliverance.

See?  Bush can do no right.  WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?  Because Bush is just that bad, right.  Gads, if Bush WERE as evel, as sinsiter, and as diabolical as the Looney Left keeps perseverating on, that's precisely what he would have done.     

Look at your sentence again. "that's precisely what he would have done." I never mentioned Bush, I said "The Pentagon." No where did I say that Bush was "evel" [sic], "sinister," or "diabolical."

Seriously Sirs, you've got some kind of issue with the President and it ain't healthy.

[Michael Tee]

Congratulations to sirs, who has just found a new way of vindicating his lying "President."  Think up all the evil dastardly things he DIDN'T do and then use his failure to do them as proof of his goodness.

That's absolutely brilliant, sirs.

except I guess the corollary is to think of all the NICE things he didn't do, and use his failure to do them as proof of his evil nature.

Hey, it doesn't work after all.  It's a wash.  

OK sirs, hand back that Nobel Prize.

[Plane]

Congratulations to sirs, who has just found a new way of vindicating his lying "President."  Think up all the evil dastardly things he DIDN'T do and then use his failure to do them as proof of his goodness.

That's absolutely brilliant, sirs.

except I guess the corollary is to think of all the NICE things he didn't do, and use his failure to do them as proof of his evil nature.

Hey, it doesn't work after all.  It's a wash.  

OK sirs, hand back that Nobel Prize.

...except I guess the corollary is to think of all the NICE things he didn't do, and use his failure to do them as proof of his evil nature.

Got an example?

[sirs]

Maybe....just maybe, because they had a boatload of other intel & eyewitness testimony that concluded the contrary.  Oh wait, that goes against the predisposed mindset that Bush lied us into war.  Sorry, my bad

Actually that took place under President Clinton's watch, so you can stop your Bush crusade of deliverance.

You mean as soon as Bush took office, there was a whole different set of intel and defector testimony to the contrary, that came to the forefront?  And all those other intel agencies did a 180 in concluding Saddam did indeed get rid of all his WMD?   Do tell   

See?  Bush can do no right.  WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?  Because Bush is just that bad, right.  Gads, if Bush WERE as evel, as sinister, and as diabolical as the Looney Left keeps perseverating on, that's precisely what he would have done.   

Look at your sentence again. "that's precisely what he would have done." I never mentioned Bush, I said "The Pentagon."

Oh that's right, the President as CnC has no control over the Pentagon & the military.  Once again, my bad     

No where did I say that Bush was "evel" [sic], "sinister," or "diabolical."

Nor did I ever claim you're a card carrying member of the looney left, ala Tee

Seriously Sirs, you've got some kind of issue with the President and it ain't healthy.

And what issue would that be, Professor?

[_JS]

Actually that took place under President Clinton's watch, so you can stop your Bush crusade of deliverance.

You mean as soon as Bush took office, there was a whole different set of intel and defector testimony to the contrary, that came to the forefront?  And all those other intel agencies did a 180 in concluding Saddam did indeed get rid of all his WMD?   Do tell

I meant that? Please indicate where I suggested that both President Clinton and President Bush did not dismiss the claims of Saddam's son-in-law.

Oh that's right, the President as CnC has no control over the Pentagon & the military.  Once again, my bad     

Ummm....yeah....

And what issue would that be, Professor?

I'm not real sure, but your defensiveness is palpable. It is like someone made fun of your mom on the first grade playground.

[Xavier_Onassis]

See?  Bush can do no right.  WHY THE HELL WOULD THEY?  Because Bush is just that bad, right.  Gads, if Bush WERE as evel, as sinsiter, and as diabolical as the Looney Left keeps perseverating on, that's precisely what he would have done.     Roll Eyes

===================================================
Well he is as sinister and diabolical and evil... but you forgot the one thing that he is above all attributes: INCOMPETENT.

[sirs]

Actually that took place under President Clinton's watch, so you can stop your Bush crusade of deliverance.

You mean as soon as Bush took office, there was a whole different set of intel and defector testimony to the contrary, that came to the forefront?  And all those other intel agencies did a 180 in concluding Saddam did indeed get rid of all his WMD?   Do tell

I meant that? Please indicate where I suggested that both President Clinton and President Bush did not dismiss the claims of Saddam's son-in-law.

I kinda wish you'd focus Js.  You referenced how apparently we didn't take Saddam's son-in-law's word more pertintly.  I referenced how the reason was liklely because there was far more testimony and intel to the contrary.  You then propped up Clinton as if that's when we had received such evidence, as if Bush hadn't.  When I made that clarification, now you're back-ing up as if you didn't really infer such.  So which is it.  Clinton alone had a boatload of defector testimony and intel indicating an overwhelming conclusion of Saddam's WMD presence, with a small smattering of contrary intel, or they both did?

Oh that's right, the President as CnC has no control over the Pentagon & the military.  Once again, my bad     

Ummm....yeah....

You're the one perplexed as to why didn't the Pentagon plant evidence to bolster Bush's WMD claims

I'm not real sure, but your defensiveness is palpable. It is like someone made fun of your mom on the first grade playground.

Perhaps it has to do with having to deal with abstract distortions, ignored timelimes, and turning a complete blind eye to the overwhelming intel that our President had access to, making extremely tough decisions based on it, and instead just cast him off as some dufus, not paying attention to anything, especially those polls, only doing it because...................................?  Well, you tell me.  Why did Bush take us into Iraq?  What's his real reason Js?   Please enlightnen us

[_JS]

By the way, the statement was mine.

If I were leader and took my nation to war based primarily on the notion that the enemy had illegally produced and may well use WMD, then I would have ordered some sort of black ops to plant some WMD somewhere in Iraq - just in case. Consider it insurance purchased against Tenet's "slam dunk" case.

I never said I wouldn't have been a Machiavellian asshole in this hypothetical scenario. Plus, that might have kept up public support for the war.

[_JS]

I kinda wish you'd focus Js.  You referenced how apparently we didn't take Saddam's son-in-law's word more pertintly.  I referenced how the reason was liklely because there was far more testimony and intel to the contrary.  You then propped up Clinton as if that's when we had received such evidence, as if Bush hadn't.  When I made that clarification, now you're back-ing up as if you didn't really infer such.  So which is it.  Clinton alone had a boatload of defector testimony and intel indicating an overwhelming conclusion of Saddam's WMD presence, with a small smattering of contrary intel, or they both did?

No, you misunderstood. It was Clinton's team that first dismissed Saddam's son-in-law's testimony that the WMD were destroyed.

You're the one perplexed as to why didn't the Pentagon plant evidence to bolster Bush's WMD claims

I hope I clarified that with my last post. Sheesh, don't be quite so defensive.

Perhaps it has to do with having to deal with abstract distortions, ignored timelimes, and turning a complete blind eye to the overwhelming intel that our President had access to, making extremely tough decisions based on it, and instead just cast him off as some dufus, not paying attention to anything, especially those polls, only doing it because...................................?  Well, you tell me.  Why did Bush take us into Iraq?  What's his real reason Js?   Please enlightnen us

I'll ignore the mostly useless response here. There is one good point though, have we seen the contrary evidence? I know that we've seen plenty of the comments made on evidence that supposedly pointed out that Saddam had copious amounts of WMD. What about the evidence to the contrary? There were some books written, but the authors were cast as "disgruntled employees" even by some here before they ever read those books (if they ever read them, which I doubt). So has that evidence come to light?

[sirs]

No, you misunderstood. It was Clinton's team that first dismissed Saddam's son-in-law's testimony that the WMD were destroyed.

No I understood perfectly.  And I gave you logical reasons why

You're the one perplexed as to why didn't the Pentagon plant evidence to bolster Bush's WMD claims

I hope I clarified that with my last post. Sheesh, don't be quite so defensive.

Not I.  Just referencing how Bush is apparently not so diabolically evil as some your fringe brethren would have us believe

Perhaps it has to do with having to deal with abstract distortions, ignored timelimes, and turning a complete blind eye to the overwhelming intel that our President had access to, making extremely tough decisions based on it, and instead just cast him off as some dufus, not paying attention to anything, especially those polls, only doing it because...................................?  Well, you tell me.  Why did Bush take us into Iraq?  What's his real reason Js?   Please enlightnen us

I'll ignore the mostly useless response here. There is one good point though, have we seen the contrary evidence? I know that we've seen plenty of the comments made on evidence that supposedly pointed out that Saddam had copious amounts of WMD. What about the evidence to the contrary? There were some books written, but the authors were cast as "disgruntled employees" even by some here before they ever read those books (if they ever read them, which I doubt). So has that evidence come to light?

Ok, so you're going to ignore my direct question, and then ask one yourself.  Hmmmmmmmm  So, what about the evidence to the contrary?  I've seen and heard precisious little, yet have been exposed to an overwhelming amount of intel referencing that bolsters both Clinton's and Bush's claims.  The point all along has not been that the global intel and every other research report was 100% that Saddam had his WMD stockpiles.  More like 90-10, and following 911, Bush went with the 90 that deduced Saddam's WMD were a definative threat if placed in the hands of terrorist cells like AlQeada.

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

[_JS]

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

For a myriad of reasons, he wished to fight an unjust war.

[Plane]

So, can I get a Js reason why Bush took us into Iraq?

For a myriad of reasons, he wished to fight an unjust war.

If resident Bush had not chosen to invade and depose Saddam what would Democrats be saying?
Would they be praising hs restraint?

I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h6gehCPvpk

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gore-assaults-reason.html