The dog ate my WMDs

Here's an interesting editorial by New York Times author William Rivers Pitt.

Quote:

---

No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment.

No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program.

---

The list of claims is endless... One million pounds of nerve gas can't just be hidden... Over 300 possible hot-spots have been researched... absolutely nothing has been found. The dog must have eaten it. Or maybe it wasn't there to begin with...

The Bush administration does everything it can to not have to answer questions... they are being asked anyways: 35 Representatives demand "with specificity that the administration back up it's oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact."

Quote:

---

Representative Henry Waxman's letter to Condoleezza Rice
What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts."

---

Here's a summarized list of people who are responsible for those lies...

- George W. Bush: Brainwashed -although it's hard to use the words 'Bush' and 'brain' in one sentence - by the neo-cons, and now the biggest neo-con of them all, although he'll never call himself one... he can't pronounce it. Probably doesn't understand the tactics of the neo-cons, and is probably the only neo-con who actually believed that Saddam's mass-destruction weapons (oh wait... the dog ate those) were a direct treath to the US.

And the spindoctors behind Bush...

From bottom to top:

- Michael A. Ledeen: member of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI)... Richard Perle's companion.... Specialisation: intimidation... Quote: "Everyone who has studied the national character of the United States, will conclude that we are a war-hungry people and that we love war"

- John Bolton vice-minister of Foreign affairs... Colin Powell's bulldog, always watching the 'soft' Powell... Vice-president of the AEI. Quote: "International laws and organisations who stand in our way, can be ignored."

- Donald Rumsfeld minister of Defense... Wolfowitz's puppet after Wolfowitz was found 'too controversial' to be minister of Defense....Connected to the AEI, the Wall Street Journal, and the infamous Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Captured memo of his: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit S H (Saddam Hussein) at the same time. Not only UBL (Usama)... Go massive. Sweet it all up. Things related and not." (memo captured by NBS).

Things related or not... well well... :/

- James Woolsey Pentagon, CIA and marines advisor... managed to connect 911 *and* the anthrax-letters to Saddam...

- William Kristol The Weekly Standard CEO... Used to run the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which is part of the New Citizenship Project, an educational organisation aimed at promoting American world domination.
The PNAC produced the infamous Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century-report. This was relaesed way before Bush became president. It set the outlines for a war on Iraq...

- Douglas Feith Vice-minister of Defense. Maintains the contacts with the Jewish lobby, and with Jeruzalem Likoud-party. Perle and Feith wrote a memo to Likoud-leader Netanyahu in 1996, advising him to dynamitize the Oslo-peace-talks.

- Richard Perle Member of the Defence Policy Board in the Pentagon (he quit a couple of months ago because of his ties with The New Yorker). Spread the fable that an Iraqi secret agent had met with Mohammed Atta in Prague.

- Paul Wolfowitz Vice-minister of Defense. Propagandist for a more agressive Cold War-strategy. Has relatives in Israel, and is the link between the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Bush-government.

- Dick Cheney Vice-president. Got Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith and Bolton in the government. Turned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs into a PNAC-club. Has been president of Halliburton for five years, the world-leader in petrol-engineering. During that period, he managed to get 3.8 billion dollars in government-support. Leader of the first Gulf War. Founder of the Office of Homeland Security. Voted in 1985 against Mandela's freedom. Co-writer of the Defence Policy Guidance 1992-1994, setting the outlines for pre-emptive wars.

Why so impatient Negative? Heh. It's only been around 6 weeks, and Iraq is the size of California.

If your gonna cast such a small net, then perhaps i should give you a bigger one to toss around. I'm sure you are familiar with U.N resolution 1441 right? Where even the U.N believed Saddam had WMD. So don't just act like this was our sole belief, many nations believed WMD to be in existence inside Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, i want to see these "WMD" myself, but i say give it a little while longer, 6 weeks just isnt enough time to finish looking.

Quote:

---

In UNSCR 1441, all 15 members of the Security Council declared that Iraq's non-compliance with its disarmament commitments was a threat to the international community, and that Iraq remained in material breach of its obligations under relevant UNSC Resolutions.

---

I don't think anyone really believed that those weapons existed,
but I also doubt the other easy explanations. What plausable theories
are there for this war?

[list=a][*]To steal Iraq's oil[*]To satisfy the Israeli lobby[*]neo-wilsonian idealism mixed with stupidity[/list=a]

Oil; I doubt it, but time will tell. There would be no way to hide it if they tried
to exploit that oil for US benefit

Israel; They have concerns closer to home. Sadaam Hussein is (was?) not a
radical islamist, and not the most aggressive opponant of Israel. Why would
they use their dwindling influence to agitate against Iraq when they have
bigger threats right on their doorstep?

Yeah, the third option, ie the self-righteous belief that the USA is
the evangelist for democracy. This messianic faith in our political
system has been the justification for all US wars since 1860
:cool:

Quote:

---

Oil; I doubt it, but time will tell. There would be no way to hide it if they tried
to exploit that oil for US benefit

Israel; They have concerns closer to home. Sadaam Hussein is (was?) not a
radical islamist, and not the most aggressive opponant of Israel. Why would
they use their dwindling influence to agitate against Iraq when they have
bigger threats right on their doorstep?

Yeah, the third option, ie the self-righteous belief that the USA is
the evangelist for democracy. This messianic faith in our political
system has been the justification for all US wars since 1860

---

The oil: Yeah we don't want that darn oil, if we did we would have taken it back in 90-91. I still think a trip to ANWR would do the trick.

Israel: Yeah, they have too much terror at home to fight against. I would also add that Saddam was giving upwards of 20,000 dollars to each "homicide bombers" family, so i think he has done more than his fair share of harm against Israel (if not directly,indirectly).

We only flirted with colonialism one time (if i'm not mistaken) in the Philippines , and it just was'nt our taste or style. Democracy is what we promote, we have no interest in occupation or colonialism.

Forgive me for yawning. :rolleyes:

I'll be back in a year or so when the experts have a little time to find what they are looking for.

In the mean time you go ahead and discuss lack of evidence, while France and Russia get repaid for all of their "legal activities" in Iraq. :thumbsup:

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident. ;)

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

- Cheers,
jag291

:p

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident.

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

We all have the right to say whether or not the US was right or wrong. Who are you to imply that we don't have that right?

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

That's one of the few problems in our constitution; that we give one man the ability to decide whether we go to war or not.

The problem with thinking that Saddam was "the biggest threat out there" was that, well, he was not the biggest threat out there.

The threat of nuclear war between India Palistine is a bigger threat. The leader of Northern Korea is a bigger threat. Al-Quida is a bigger threat (it's a world wide organization that spans numerous countries. Ecetera.

We had "bigger fish to fry" and more important issues to deal with. That war was just a mistake. Sure it was an under budget war (the budget on it was huge), but since Bush refuses to allow other countries and the UN to help us rebuild the country, the bill falls on us, baby. Piping alone will cost us 9 billion. No wonder the federal government is making such huge cut backs in each state money wise.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

That's a silly statement. We can say that about any country or person, this could even be said about the USA. "If we don't take them out now, then by golly, they'll get us eventually!"

That argument has no solid foundation, it's simply an assumption, a guess. It's no foresight into the future. We had no proof that Saddam would do anything to the USA, but we did have proof of other middle eastern leaders that did openly say that they would harm the US. We knew of many organizations that vowed Terrorism. We had proof of so many others, but why did Bush go after the one in which he had no proof of hostilities?

Sure, he may have killed his own people, but there are so many more countries with leaders who do that as well! even more so! And they had weapons of mass distruction.

"To each their own."

Take care

'Chelle

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Green Bird
:p

A) I have no more trust in the Times after the Jayson Blair incident.

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

B) Who are you to say that what the United States did was right or wrong... the people who went to war had their reasons and if they say its for security then its for security.

We all have the right to say whether or not the US was right or wrong. Who are you to imply that we don't have that right?

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

C) The leaders of our nation (US) have been given a certain amount of authority to decide what to do in times of danger. So obvisioulsy they felt that Iraq and Saddam were a threat to the world and they did what they felt was approriate. I, as a United States citizen, respect my government's authority and fully support what they did in Iraq.

That's one of the few problems in our constitution; that we give one man the ability to decide whether we go to war or not.

The problem with thinking that Saddam was the biggest threat out was that, well, he was not the biggest threat out there.

The threat of nuclear war between India Palistine is a bigger threat. The leader of Northern Korea is a bigger threat. Al-Quida is a bigger threat (it's a world wide organization that spans numerous countries. Ecetera.

We had "bigger fish to fry" and more imortant issues to deal with. That war was just a mistake. Sure it was an under budget war (the budget on it was huge), but since Bush refuses to allow other countries and the UN to help us rebuild the country, the bill falls on us, baby. Piping alone will cost us 9 billion. No wonder the federal government is making such huge cut backs in each state money wise.

D) Additionally, if Saddam or Iraq did something in the future, who would the world blame for not taking him out? It would be the United States, not only would we get blasted for not killing him during the Gulf War, we would get blasted for not foreseeing the incident and stopping him and his country when we had the chance.

That's a silly statement. We can say that about any country or person, this could even be said about the USA. "If we don't take them out now, then by golly, they'll get us eventually!"

That argument has no solid foundation, it's simply an assumption, a guess. It's no foresight into the future. We had no proof that Saddam would do anything to the USA, but we did have proof of other middle eastern leaders that did openly say that they would harm the US. We knew of many organizations that vowed Terrorism. We had proof of so many others, but why did Bush go after the one in which he had no proof of hostilities?

Sure, he may have killed his own people, but there are so many more countries with leaders who do that as well! even more so! And they had weapons of mass distruction.

"To each their own."

Take care

'Chelle

---

A) No, its not just Jayson Blair... how many top executives resigned after the incident, the entire place is corrupted.

B) I'm not saying that you can't have an opinion but I believe the people that took our country to war are in a better position to judge what they did than you. These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense). As the connection between Saddam and bin Laden is concerned, I'm aware that our government said that there was a link between the two, and has yet been unable to back it up, but remember, it's only been (guess) six weeks since we had troops in Iraq. I doubt that sensitivie information like that will easily be found... it will take time and when we do find it, you all'll be singing a different song. President Bush never changed his statements, he always said that we are fighting terrorism (and continues to) but he added another objective to our agenda, what's wrong with that? And then finally you said that people that fought in the war had no choice? Did we draft them? No, we don't have a mandatory military service in America. They joined and they knew they would be taking orders from a higher power, additionally if they don't want to fight for America, they can easily get an dishonorable discharge.

C) Our President does not have the right to declare war on anyone by himself. I recommend that you freshin up on your constitutional knowledge. Our government is based on a sytem of checks and balances, in which, to declare war, Congress (538 or so members, Sen + Reps) must approve war. Bush cannot simply say that I don't like Mr. Putin so let's bomb his ass, he must go to Congress and get it approved. Secondly, who are you to judge, with your limited knowledge, to say which was a bigger threat. You are a mere civilian, so unless you see what the President saw, I wouldn't make those statements if I were you.

D) I agree that my last statement is an assumption but let's look at the current world views of many countries and imagine what would happen... would everyone say the world as a whole is to blame? NO! Or would it be... the US missed his ass in the Gulf War and now he's bombed _________!!!! (Fill in the possibilities.) YES!!! The entire international community would be on our asses.. you know that as well as I do. Then you said we had no proof.... back into history we go... how about Kuwait.. doesn't history repeat itself... who could tell what Saddam would've done next... he could've launched SCUD's at Isreal or he could started terrorist attacks against America... we did what most people do, we got rid of a problem before it got out of hand.

- Cheers,
jag291

Quote:

---

One person out of how many in the Time? Please. If you let one person represent the whole, -laughs-, then that just speaks volumes about you.

---

Well i have to head out for my education here in a bit, so i don't have much time to go through your entire post here, but i would like to add one more person to the list there, let's see, oh how about a nobel peace prize winner Rick Bragg.

Quote:

---

Our "president" claimed at first that Iraq had ties to Osama Binladin (that was never proven). So he said we went to war to fight terrorism. Then he changed his tune. We were then fighting to liberate the people of Iraq. After a little time, we were going to war because "they had weapons of mass distruction". Which were never found, though Bush's administration are frantically trying to find anything that would justify their attack on Iraq. Good luck Bush Minor.

The people who actually went to war had no reason or say about it. Remember that.

---

Ok mrs green bird, would you care to explain this facility? Salman Pak

Quote:

---

These people have access to plenty of information that you don't and are able to see things that you don't so unless you are actually in the President's cabinet or in Congress, I take your opinion as worthless (no offense).

---

Consider the diabolical logic of it. They have information that we don't have because
they keep secrets from us Since they keep us in the dark, they claim to be
better qualified to make decisions that ultimately affect our security. They can't
reveal these secrets because we can't be trusted with such sensitive information.

Do you get some perverse pleasure from having your government treat you like
a child? "Trust me. I know what's best for you." Those claiming most
loudly to be fighting for "democracy" need to practice it here at home.

BTW, did you know that few members of congress are allowed to read
much of that information. I guess they don't have "security clearance"
Who's in charge here any way?
:cool: