Romney Says It’s ‘Entirely Possible’ That Saddam Had WMD And Hid Them In Syria
Romney Says It’s ‘Entirely Possible’ That Saddam Had WMD And Hid Them In Syria
While most have long given up on the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is still a believer. Last night on Fox’s Hannity & Colmes, host Sean Hannity asked Romney whether he thought Iraq hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the invasion. “It’s entirely possible,” Romney said.
Watch it:
Syria did not hide WMD that Saddam Hussein did not have. In April 2005, amidst accusations by Dick Cheney that Hussein transfered weapons to Syria prior to the war, Charles Duelfer of the the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) published an addendum to the ISG’s report on pre-war intelligence explaining that Iraq did not ship weaponry to Syria:
On Syria, the report said that “no information gleaned from questioning Iraqis supported the possibility” that weapons were moved out of the country before the invasion, which was one theory about why no unconventional weapons were found. … Mr. Duelfer reported that his group, the Iraq Survey Group, believed “it was unlikely that an official transfer of W.M.D. material from Iraq to Syria took place.”
Even President Bush, who is known to exaggerate intelligence, admitted after Duelfer’s ISG report that “Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.”
Transcript:
HANNITY: You have kind words for the president, considering the challenging times that we live in. Even though he has low approval ratings. You believe this was still the right thing. If you had to make the decision, based on what we know now, if you were the president there, do you think you would have done the same thing?
M. ROMNEY: Well, it’s almost a null set. Which is if we knew that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, and if he had complied with the United Nations resolutions to allow IAEA inspectors into his country, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We wouldn’t have been having the U.N. sanction him. We wouldn’t have had the U.S. angry. So it’s kind of a null set. It’s impossible.
HANNITY: Am I the only one here thinking that in all the build- up to the war that those weapons of mass destruction got moved to Syria?
M. ROMNEY: It’s possible. It’s entirely possible.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
262 Responses to “Romney Says It’s ‘Entirely Possible’ That Saddam Had WMD And Hid Them In Syria”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sure, he sent them all to Syria, and the Iraqis who moved them there have been nice enough to not use them on us. Right.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pmNO. The WMD were in the Conservatory, hidden by Col. Mustard with a lead pipe.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pmWe do know he won't ever make any again. Thank you President Bush.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pmQuick! Invade Syria!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pmIf the WMD line worked in 2003, surely it'll work again.
Hey, Romney! It's also possible you are a first class idiot!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmOMG, I thought they finished the Kool Aid. They must have made a fresh batch.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pmComment by david
ROFL!!! Love it!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:26 pmOr that he painted them with invisible ink and we just cant see them.
Or that space aliens sucked them up their butts.
Or that some guy stuffed his face into a hat and dictated a whole new book of the Bible.
Whatever-- anything's possible, right?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pmDoesn't really matter much, does it?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:30 pmThese criminals now make their own laws and choose which laws they will abide by.
There never was WMDs and they will NEVER be held accountable unless we make it so, using something other than traditional methods .
Thanks for playing our game, and enjoy your parting gifts, Mitt!!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pmJohnny, who's our next contestant on "The Putz Is Wrong"?
It's "entirely possible" that Mitt Romney says whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear...
May 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pmIt is also entirely possible, that Bush will eventually make a decision that is not motivated by greed or pride. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pmHi! I'm Saddam.
Mind if I hide a few of my weapons here in your country?
Thanks, you're the best!
-xoxo
May 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pmPay him no mind -- it's just something he's got to say to appease the 28 percenters. He can't actually believe it. Can he?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:32 pmMitt later added, "any no one could foresee that terrorists might fly planes into the world trade center. And certainly no one envisioned that the levees in New Orleans would fail. . . . I live in a land of rainbows and candycanes."
May 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pmMr. Duelfer reported that his group, the Iraq Survey Group, believed "it was unlikely that an official transfer of W.M.D. material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited W.M.D.-related materials."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26weapons.html?ex=1272168000&en=759ec4426ad2c84f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
May 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt's entirely possible that Mit is certified nuts. Pandering to the militant right wing of the republican party, what a weasel!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI've come to the conclusion that some people would literally explode if they had to face the fact that their government lied to them.
I used to work with a nice fellow who was sure, absolutely SURE, that Saddam must have had WMDs. Because his leaders were telling him that, so it must be true. He was incapable of even entertaining the idea that he'd been manipulated and lied to. I kind of felt sorry for him.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmIt's fun to watch these morons self destruct. Wait until this comes up in a debate! Is there a SINGLE VIABLE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE??
May 8th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYes, they sent their ONLY defense of an invading army to a country that they were not even allies with. That sounds like GOP/Sean Hannity logic to me. Not to mention that all credible sources (including the GOPee run Government) say otherwise. DUH!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmthe propaganda campaign for the promotion of new wars continues unabated....
as long as they perpetuate the lie, some people will believe this. Goebbels knew this decades ago, and the lie will persist with these criminals today.
The reality is that Saddam Hussein, the evil dictator, was actually more trustworthy than the "leader of the free world" A sad state of affairs this nation has sunk to.
some reading on this:
"Saddam was Right and Bush was Wrong"
May 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmhttp://www.populistamerica.com/saddam_was_right_and_bush_was_wrong
Yeah, I'll bet that what he did -- moved them to Syria. He didn't want to waste his most devastating weapons on a silly little American invasion. He was saving them for something really BIG. Plus Saddam figured that if he hid his WMDs, he'd make President Bush look really bad -- and thaht was more important to Saddam than anything. More important than defending his borders, more important than maintaining power, more important than staying alive even.
Now he can laugh last.
Is that how the thinking goes?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pmOf course, it's entirely possible Romney is blowing hot air.
Actually, it is more than likely.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmBahahahaha!
The only thing more pathetic than Mittwit, is the undeniable fact that there's still an audience he's apparently appealing to that is demented enough to keep swallowing this bongwater! Republicans aren't just stupid, they're lunkheaded submissives who just want to be told what to think!
How embarrassing!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmHey folks, remember that these candidates are the the finest the republic party has to offer.
What a laughingstock this group is. First McBush took the stage about the surge and downtown shopping, and now its Romney with the WMDs. Who is up next? And we have a long way to go and encores to enjoy. Get out the popcorn.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOH, shut up.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:38 pmThat's pretty talented of Saddam to move all those WMD's without our intellegence community knowing a darn thing about it. And those satellites not noticing anything either.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:39 pmMemo to Mitt (the dipsh*t) Romney:
The only people crazy enough to vote for your little Bush lackey a** in 2008 is the pathetic 28% who worship Chimpy.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pmThe WMDs were supposed to be sent to Syria, but the guy driving made a wrong turn and his buddy couldn't read a map. The last anyone saw them, they were in North Dakota looking for John Travolta and Tom Cruise.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pm"It's also entirely possible that the founder of my religion found 'extra, special' books of the Bible hidden inside of rocks!"
May 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pmComment by mikey r — May 8, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Great explanation mikey. Don't forget that Saddam would never fear that his Baathist brothers in Syria would never use those WMD to attack Iraq someday, and that they would happily return every drop after the Americans left.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmEnemies here! Enemies there!!! Enemies everywhere!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmRomney's statement is not that much at odds with what what Duelfer said:
'Mr. Duelfer reported that his group, the Iraq Survey Group, believed "it was unlikely that an official transfer of W.M.D. material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited W.M.D.-related materials."'
"unlikely" and "unable to rule out" and "possible" are not mutually exclusive terms. Romney did not say that that it was definitely happened. It's possible...Unlikely, but possible.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:43 pmRemeber McClown and his 'stroll' through a Baghdad market with a hundred troops and 5 helicopters!
Bahahahahahahaha!
The late night comics risk becoming obsolete as long as the republican candidates are allowed airtime! Republicans ought to rename their debates: "Last Comic Standing!"
GOP headquarters: The Comedy Store!
Bahahahahahaha!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pmPatrick, there weren't any WMDs. Besides, if there were, and they were moved to Syria, wouldn't this be an abject failure of oversight and execution on the part of your hero Bush?
Patrick, there is simply no sense in what you write.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:45 pm"NO. The WMD were in the Conservatory, hidden by Col. Mustard with a lead pipe.
Comment by david — May 8, 2007 @ 3:23 pm"
Hilarious!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pmhe forgot the part about russia and china helping.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmAnd it's entirely possible that an angel gave a carney fortune teller from New York a bunch of golden plates to hide under his bed for him to translate with stones on his eyes and start a brand new cult. Something like, "You let me sniff your daughter's panties and I will make sure you get to heaven. And you young boys, give me 10% of whatever you make and I will make you a God, with your own planet and everything!"
And it's entirely possible that both of these stories are total bullshit.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmMaybe you all have conveniently forgot that almost everyone (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, the French, the British, the U.N., etc, etc) thought that Saddam had WMD. And almost everyone thought he shouldn't have them. You may have forgotton, but I haven't. If Bush is guilty of anything, it is taking action in a post 9/11 world to address a preceived threat that almost everyone agreed on (the speech's are there, look them up). The finest of the democratic party would be incapable of that kind of action. That will become apparent, if and when you get your anti-war democrat in the White House and they drag their feet pulling the troops out; paralyzed by fear of the political consequences.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:48 pmAnother fine example of fear mongering and another reason why the republican party will be damaged for years to come.
Exley, does it mean that since nobody has ever seen a monkey fly out of your butt doesn't mean it never happened?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pm#22 Agreed...That does sound laughably implausible.
Almost as absurd as believing Bush knew all along that there weren't really any weapons of mass destruction, but told the nation and the world there were, invaded Iraq for the stated purpose of disarming Iraq of WMDs, while all the while knowing that no such weapons would be found, and thereby commiting an almost certain act of political suicide.
Is that how the thinking goes?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:49 pmMitt swallowed the kool ade given to us by Rumsfeld. Only Rummy was trying to carry water for PNAC and give us a cause to invade Syria, their number one target. Is this what Mitt is picking up on? Is this Caryle flunky aiming for Syria, now?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pmI used to work with a nice fellow who was sure, absolutely SURE, that Saddam must have had WMDs. Because his leaders were telling him that, so it must be true. He was incapable of even entertaining the idea that he’d been manipulated and lied to. I kind of felt sorry for him.
Comment by margaret
Hey, Margaret, tell us. How is Exley in person? ;)
May 8th, 2007 at 3:50 pmIt's "entirely possible" that Mitt Romney has a family of drunken, albino gerbils living inside his sphincter too --- but i doubt it ...
May 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pmNo, the Easter Bunny is hiding the bloody WMDs.
Let's be honest. This guy Rooney is is in full delirium. Maybe a bucket of cold water would help.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pmRomney all ready went on record as saying that Saddam gave them to Joseph Smith to hide in his hat. What is with this flip flop?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:51 pmthis guy is like so 2003!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmLook under your bed, Mittens.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pmMore likely you'll find them there.
Did Romney look under Chimp's desk in the Oval Office?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:53 pmMaybe you all have conveniently forgot that almost everyone (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, the French, the British, the U.N., etc, etc) thought that Saddam had WMD.
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
And you are conveniently failing to mention that Bush lied about the intelligence that led everyone to this conclusion. Why are you doing this? Are you a liar yourself? Certainly intellectually dishonest at the least.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm#41.... Exley....
May 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pmPretty much how the thinking went.
G. Dubious was HOPING there might be some sort of WMD there, but that is all he had.
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Regardless of what anyone believed then, to believe now, several years later, that Sadaam had WMD and hid them in Syria, is totally ludicrous. Of course everyone thought he had WMD, that is why the UN weapons inspectors were there (until Bush kicked them out). But now, four years later, we KNOW there were no WMD. Bush blames faulty intelligence. Rumsfeld blamed Germany. But NO ONE is stupid enough to believe he actually had them and then moved them to Syria.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pmpaul...you are so sweet to distribute the lies all over a bunch of people.
Anyone with common sense knew that Iraq was NOT a threat to the US. No country would ever strike the US. Granada was not a threat, Nicaragua was not a threat, Vietnam was not a threat, Cuba was not a threat, Panama was not a threat, Korea was not a threat, Iran is not a threat, East Timor was not a threat, and on and on and on and on... but you would believe anything your government tells you. Keep on that.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pmYou may have forgotton, but I haven’t.
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
You sound like a vengeful little bedwetter, paul, ashamed of your own cowardice.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:55 pmIs that how the thinking goes?
Comment by Exley
In ExleyWorld, Cheney never set up an intelligence gathering unit to cherry-pick info, and stovepipe it to Der Leader. In Exleyworld, Bush always works from the purest of motives.
Right.
Ain't plausable deniability grand? It's allowed you guys to duck reality ever since Reagan coined the term.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pmExley, it's also possible to say that the Washington Nationals are 'unlikely' to win the world series this year. It's 'possible' and 'you can't rule it out'. But of course, if you go around saying "The Washington Nationals will win the world series in 2007" then your bound to look like an idiot who knows nothing of what he speaks.
Hope that puts Romney's position in perspective for you.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pm"Almost as absurd as believing Bush knew all along that there weren’t really any weapons of mass destruction, but told the nation and the world there were"
i'd buy that a lot sooner than the nonsense romney's selling. mainly, because the invasion was never about wmd's.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pmIf we follow Patrick1's train of thought and go with the possibility that the missing WMD's are in Syria, then why wouldn't the Syrian government have used them in Lebanon instead of supporting the messy assassinations that have occured there? Wouldn't it have been easier for them to use a chemical or biological weapon that they received from Saddam to achieve their desired ends?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pmI find that the more informed I become as a person, the less I understand ignorant people... Sheesh... That story is as likely as Santa Claus stuffing his fat arse through your chimney on Christmas Eve to leave you a banquet of bow wrapped presents.
The neocons' brains are devolving, I tell you. In another 10,000 years, from lack of use, all that will be left up there is a brain-shaped appendix. And then monkeys will be embarrassed to be related to THEM.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:57 pmpaul - one thing you said may actually be true - those wimps in the Democratic party that went along with this disaster sure SEEM to have been "paralyzed by fear of the political consequences"! I agree with you there.
But even I knew that is was all hogwash and I don't even have a security clearance! All you had to do was follow the story and do a little independent research to see that there WASN'T any WMDs!
p.s. those same wimps seem to be too scared of the "political consequences" to figure out a better way to deal with Iran than threatening them too! I hope they all come to their senses and find some strength somewhere!
May 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pm#22 Agreed…That does sound laughably implausible.
Almost as absurd as believing Bush knew all along that there weren’t really any weapons of mass destruction, but told the nation and the world there were, invaded Iraq for the stated purpose of disarming Iraq of WMDs, while all the while knowing that no such weapons would be found, and thereby commiting an almost certain act of political suicide.
Is that how the thinking goes?
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Nope, but thanks for trying.
The thinking is, Bush didn't know there weren't WMDs. I think he believed as hard as he could that there WERE. So much so that he ignored virtually any evidence to the contrary. And he certainly didn't think invading Iraq would be anything like an act of political suicide. He thought it would be his glorious legacy.
May 8th, 2007 at 3:58 pmBy the way, your democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton, was just like every other democrat in '02 and '03; tripping over herself, trying to look strong on terror, in support of the Iraq War. Now, she's embassassed and explains that she has been lied too. She was in the white house with her husband for eight years. She knows all the intel players (nationally and internationally). Her husband appointed Tenet. By all accounts she is an intelligent woman. By the time of 9/11, they had been out of the white house for less than a year. At that point, she has become so detached from what's going on, she bases her decision making soley on what George Bush says? For being such an idiot, Bush did a good job of fooling Hillary. And the U.N. And Kerry. And the French. And the British. Etc, Etc, Etc. Or maybe democratic opportunistic hindsight is stretching the limits to which the press will overlook.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pmAlmost as absurd as believing Bush knew all along that there weren’t really any weapons of mass destruction, but told the nation and the world there were, invaded Iraq for the stated purpose of disarming Iraq of WMDs, while all the while knowing that no such weapons would be found, and thereby commiting an almost certain act of political suicide.
Is that how the thinking goes?
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I think Bush thought he heard God say there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Unfortunately, it was Cheney whispering in his ear during a sleepover.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pmBlah blah blah blah... in 2001 both Powell and Rice said Iraq has no WMDs and is not a threat to it's neighbours. Furthermore, the press knows that the WMD claim is ALL A LIE, just start mentioning PNAC, Office of Special Plans the downingstreet memos... the evidence we have, the lies we know. Don't let the Straussian neocons get away with this! Scott Ritter is a person that has plenty of information on the matter just as Karen Kwiatkowski.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pmIt's unlikely that Saddam was a threat to the USA. But we can't rule out that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were planning to invade Iraq all along. So it's probable that Bush lied America into this war.
Of course, Mitt knows where the WMD are. The angel Moroni told him.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pm"For being such an idiot, Bush did a good job of fooling Hillary."
Well, he didn't fool me. How interesting. I knew from the first time I heard him speak that everything emerging from his mouth was an audio doo-doo log.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pmpaul = jake
May 8th, 2007 at 4:04 pmPaul, the French weren't fooled by Bush. They know: Il est merde.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmIf we follow Patrick1’s train of thought...
Comment by maddison66 — May 8, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
...we'll end in a train wreck...
May 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pm"Is that how the thinking goes?
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 3:49 pm"
Not quite. You forgot the parts about invisible sky daddies conversing with him, his visions of Iraqis Welcoming Committee greeting our troops with rose petals and open arms, and the crap about 'staying the course'.
He's not a rational man, Exley. He even admits that...
May 8th, 2007 at 4:05 pmFor being such an idiot, Bush did a good job of fooling Hillary. And the U.N. And Kerry. And the French. And the British. Etc, Etc, Etc. Or maybe democratic opportunistic hindsight is stretching the limits to which the press will overlook.
Comment by paul
That would be Cheney and Rove, not Bush. How's that "permanent republican majority" strategy working? Seems a little wobbly.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:06 pmRomney is picking up where Rick Sanatarium left off. Hopefully Romney will meet the same fate.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pmThe Chimperor had a hard on for Iraq long before 9/11, this has been well documented in several books. The ghost writer hired to write Bush's biography (before he turned out to be too truthfull and was replaced by Ms. Hughes, who had a nervous habbit of dabbing her crotch and swallowing whenever Bush was around) said that Bush told him he wanted to be remembered as a "War President".
WMD had nothing to do with Bush's blind desire to War with Iraq, neither did 9/11, but those are the cornerstones of the house of lies to drag us into his little war.
Bush will get his wish, he will be remembered as the War President. Iraq is Bush's War. May he rot in from the inside out for his War. If ever a person deserved cancer, Bush is the one.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pmWhy did the Republicans sit on the investigation into how the Bush administration may have manipulated the intelligence on Iraq's non-existent WMDs? Oh, right, because Bush would be exposed as having lied to the American people. To say that "everyone agreed" is bullsh**, Bush and his cronies manipulated CIA intelligence reports and cherry-picked other reports. If you feed Congress lies, then you shouldn't be surprised if they agree with your lies. And many U.S. allies actually found insufficient evidence to support such a conclusion, including Germany, France, and Russia. You can keep saying "everyone agreed," but it's a demonstrable LIE.
Have a lovely day. :)
May 8th, 2007 at 4:09 pmarguments about 2001-2003 don't excuse romney from saying stupid things in 2007.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pmI think Mitt has been brainwashed by extraterretrials.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:11 pmCome to think of it, isn't "Mitt" a space alien name?
"Hey, Margaret, tell us. How is Exley in person? ;)
Comment by Juan C — May 8, 2007 @ 3:50 pm"
LOL!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pmBush lied to the whole world about WMDs being in Iraq. The only WMDs were in Bush's brain. And look at the carnage.
#2 Thanks for the giggles!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:13 pmWhy do you think Bush wants to go to Mars? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Exactly!! Saddam hid the WMD there!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pmSyria and Iraq entered into a secret Soros pact before the invasion that if Iraq was invaded because of WMD, then Syria would take the WMD so that they'd get invaded next.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:20 pmDamn that Soros!
The basturds all wanted regime change so they told Bush to say that Iraq had WMDs. The people around him all knew that there weren't any but Bush probably doesn't do much thinking for himself so just went along with the plan cuz they told him to.
From what I've read, Rove and gang selected Bush as their candidate because he agreed in 1999 to participate in regime change in Iraq.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:22 pm"How is Exley in person? ;)"
As hard as it may be to believe, I am even MORE charming and likeable than I seem to be on this blog! No...seriously....It's true!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmWhat's Mitten's big plan? Attack Syria? With??????? So the republican answer is the draft or nukes or both.
Another fine example on why the republican party will be the minority party (and out of the White House) for years to come.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pmWell, in his defense...he did save the Salt Lake City Olympics.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:26 pmI am even MORE charming and likeable than I seem to be on this blog! No…seriously….It’s true!
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Except, of course, when you've had about 7 too many 24 ounce "Bud"s at a Mets game, and inadvertently breaking a female's back, but that's a whole different subject
Heh
May 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pmI'm so sick of the "everyone thought he had WMDs" talking point. It is so misleading (a half-truth). Yes, many intelligence agencies figured Saddam had some small time WMDs (since he did have them in the near past). But none of them thought he had or was getting nukes, or that he was IN ANY WAY A THREAT TO ANYONE! That is the truth. Not even Saddam's neighbors feared him anymore. He was completely marginalized.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#61 "The thinking is, Bush didn’t know there weren’t WMDs."
Oh, okay...Well, there are a lot of kooky conspiracy theorists out there who actually think Bush invaded knowing full well that there were no actual WMDs there, even though such a conspiracy does not pass the laugh test.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pmI think what the Democratic leadership was guilty of was actually trusting Bush and his cronies when they said they had a 'slam dunk' when it came to Iraq and WMD.
All the other intelligence agencies around the world were skeptical, at best, of the possibility of WMD in Iraq, but Congress felt that the US with its mighty intelligence apparatus must have some magical insight into Iraq. There was no way that the Bush Administration would trust the drunken ramblings of a delusional taxi driver codenamed 'Curveball' as the basis for bringing us to war.
Congress was wrong, Democrats and Republicans alike, for trusting Bush. Now its time to deal with it and move on.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:30 pm#62. Hmmm, let's see: prior to Bush, we had historic federal surpluses, and Al Qaieda was a relatively isolated mafia in Afganistan. In the immediate post 911 period we had the support of the entire world to hunt and capture Osama Bin Laden and his mafia where they would have been put on trial resulting in what would likely have been a catastrophic blow to the insanity of these Islamo facists.
With Bush, we took our eye off the Osama Bin Ladin ball, invaded Iraq on flimsey intel, without a post-occupation plan, lost support from the entire world, made ourselves look like an amature superpower, bungling everything from securing Bagdad to Abu Gareb to this "surge" fiasco we have now, all while creating the greatest recruitment campaign OBL could have ever imagined.
...and your talking about Hilary Clinton? WTF? The problem we have is singularly GWB. Remember...? HE'S The DECIDER. Take f^&*ing responsibility for what's yours. You voted for this guy. His track record is abysmal at best. What the f^* are you whining about?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pmListen up, trolls: Bush himself said, on national television, that there were no WMDs in Iraq. So just STFU about it already.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pmExley I believe you. You probably are more charming and likeable in person than you seem to be on this blog. Lot of room there.............
May 8th, 2007 at 4:31 pm"it’s also possible to say that the Washington Nationals are ‘unlikely’ to win the world series this year [but] It’s ‘possible’ and ‘you can’t rule it out’."
No, Yikes, that really IS impossible! And you can ABSOLUTELY rule it out!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pm#85 DRxJ,
Well, she shouldn't have been sittin' there!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pmYou know what Juan? I have a feeling that if I was sitting next to Exley at a baseball game we might actually get along okay! But maybe that'd be the beer talking!
:~>
May 8th, 2007 at 4:32 pmExley. I do agree that you are probably more likeable and charming in person than on this blog, because it is not possible for you to be any less likeable unless your name is really Dick Cheney or Mitt Romney or John McPain or well you get the idea.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pmI have studied cults for some time. The similarities to how the Republicans deceive people and twist the truth is astounding.
Romney should win the nomination just for being the most deceptive and willing panderer of the bunch. How much more power hungry could you get to than to change major stances on issues and now play to the conspiracy cultists who are the repigs base?
One thing is for sure, when the Repig who wrote "Dead Right" Frum - years ago said that the Republicans would never win a fair and honest fight with democrats because the country supports the democratic agenda, he was 100% correct. They have to deceive and frighten for votes. Really very sick.
Their whole game is supported by having a cult following who buys into the lies and deceptions. The truth is not something they want involved in any discussion.
This of course proves they do not believe in any from of democracy - for democracy demands an informed public.
The paid trolls here should be ashamed, very ashamed. I guess they are childless for they really don't care about this nation's future, they only wish to back this insane cult which grips their party and through them millions of Americans.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pmHa.
It's also entirely possible that the Iraqis hid the WMDs up Romney's ass as he slept. Just sayin'.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pmAsk him again tomorrow. He will have changed his mind by then.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:34 pmSatyam - I think President Bush is given to exaggerate intelligence in the same way as our beloved former President Clinton....which you never mention.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pmLogan's Law: Once the wingers make something up, they never let it go.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWhy Romney is still glued to this story anyway ? It was proven by the UN inspectors before and after the war, US inspectors twice...before the war and after the war..that there were no WMDS were found in Iraq.
Didn't Bush made jokes about finding WMDS few years ago?
If that's what Romeny is thinking, then good luck America...
May 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pmMitt Romney is such a sad case. A mind is a terrible thing to lose.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pmattention all anti-liberal baboons here: im a repub (maybe libertarian is more accurate). our party is going down the tubes. it isnt just a couple points behind, its imploding. the GOP is in deep crisis and you pinheads are defending mitt romney!?!?!!!
the GOP is about to be totally taken over by the religious right, the top corporations, and the legions of 'neocons' (who are NOT conservatives--they descended from the most greedy, self-serving, and resentful liberals). look at this ridiculous president, his admin, and folks like ann coulter, bill kristol and sean hannity. sheesh...you should be ashamed of yourself for buying into their nonsense.
look at our recent policies, especially this mismanaged war. stop talking about the validity of going after WMDs and start looking at how poorly this war has been prosecuted. and you Angry White Guys--try to be a little open minded and for a moment, look at what this moron is doing to our party.
if the repubs are going to remain the party of economic growth and opportunity, we need to throw out the big spenders, the moralists, and ESPECIALLY the resentful, nasty 'nabobs of negativity' among us.
this party is about to lose the presidency to hillary clinton! and its YOUR FAULT! wake up!!!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm#94, Thanks, Margaret....It would probably be like when Stewie got drunk and talked to Brian on "Family Guy:
Stewie (drunk): I think you...are a special person....now now now...come on...I'm being...I'm being serious...for...for a second...are...are you gonna listen to me? Are you gonna listen to me...so I...can tell you that I respect you? (Knocks over wine glass.)
May 8th, 2007 at 4:41 pmExley is the most likeable and charming troll on this blog.... lately....
May 8th, 2007 at 4:41 pm:)
Clinton did it, too! So did Pelosi!
May 8th, 2007 at 4:41 pmhttp://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-26963349
not that thinkprogress.org would bother to do research, but there are reports from Israli intelligence that do say that Iraq took weapons to Syria.
Mysterious Russian convoys headed by the Russian special forces leaving from Iraq to Syria, etc, etc.
I would urge Liberals to get an education beyond the half-truths and full lies that they get from thinkprogress.org
May 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm"Oh, okay…Well, there are a lot of kooky conspiracy theorists out there who actually think Bush invaded knowing full well that there were no actual WMDs there."
not conspiracy theorists. game theorists.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pmFollow up to Posting #104:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUYzEWa4D2w
May 8th, 2007 at 4:43 pmGrenada was not a threat
Are you sure about that? What other reason would St. Reagan have for attacking them?
Oh, I forgot he wanted the nation to forget about this, so he wagged the dog.
http://www.cnn.com/resources/video.almanac/1983/index.html
Blast levels U.S. Marine headquarters in Lebanon -- October 23, 1983
Reagan orders Grenada invasion -- October 25, 1983
I said this a year or so ago while visiting here. You folks deserve a better grade of troll. These trolls are about as sad and pitiful as they get on the net.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:44 pmhttp://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
here is another source that claims the same thing.....
but it is too dificult and not beneficial to thinkprogress.org to show that there are legitimate sources that do claim that WMDs of Iraq went into Syria.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pm"...Clinton....
May 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pmComment by valiant venus — May 8, 2007"
The French are waking up from there delusions about Bush, liberalism, and the war on terror. How long until American liberals snap out of it?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:47 pmMaybe Sadaam hid all his WMD in Iran? (You know, the sad thing is some trolls might actually think that makes sense!)
May 8th, 2007 at 4:48 pmNo, Yikes, that really IS impossible! And you can ABSOLUTELY rule it out!
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
HAHA
Exley, next time I come to New York you can take me to a Mets game. We were there last month during the big storm and so I missed out on any game. Then I can report back on whether or not you are likable!! hehe Maybe I'm not so likable!!
I'll let you know when I'll be back, probably not until summer of '08.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pmI love this. A country that is being watched by every spy satellite in the Eastern hemisphere has the ability to move massive missiles and other equipment needed for building WMDs without being seen?
Fox News Headline:
Underground tunnel from Iraq to Syria?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pm#113...so you're saying that French troops will be deployed to Iraq very soon. Interesting.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:49 pm"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept the inspectors, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002
"We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
May 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm#
The French are waking up from there delusions about Bush, liberalism, and the war on terror. How long until American liberals snap out of it?
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
#
How? The conservative party has been in charge in France for 12 years now. Their new president-elect believes America should lead the fight on global warming.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pmThat wacky Saddam! He had all those WMDs and other goods and still lost, then danced the Tyburn Jig. Funny guy
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2003/01/31/42821.html
May 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm"not that thinkprogress.org would bother to do research, but there are reports from Israli intelligence that do say that Iraq took weapons to Syria."
Well, golly, if you provide them and they exist then how can they help but be 100% true? I am CONVERTED.
Somewhere along the line I forgot that the only valid research is your research. All links and materials provided by anyone who is not 100% you (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), e.g. anyone who does not share your beliefs 100%, must ergo be false. I am CONVINCED. It HAS to be the case.
Um, right?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmSatyam - I think President Bush is given to exaggerate intelligence in the same way as our beloved former President Clinton….which you never mention.
Comment by valiant venus
Why? He's not President. Did he ride or lift a bicycle with one arm? Fly off a Segway? Don a codpiece land on a carrier? Did he clear some brush? Then it aint news. Thats just you obsessin on Newts affair and trying to hide that dirty little soiled detail of your hip-o-cracy GrOPes
May 8th, 2007 at 4:51 pmComment by paul
> The French are waking up from there delusions about Bush, liberalism, > and the war on terror. How long until American liberals snap out of it?
Wah ha ha ha ha!!
Where are you getting your news from?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pmGoldwaterian - Snap out of it!!! Hillary Clinton may be a woman for you to fear - I do not. She has more positions (or non-positions) on various issues than I have shoes in my closet. She is the most polarizing figure in the race as she tried to be all things to all people. Frankly, I'm urging Fred Thompson to run. He knows where he stands on the issues because he has core beliefs. I AM hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket.....
May 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pmOnce Bush is impeached, we take back the country and you stop fu*king your dog.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:52 pm#39 Pauly: Maybe you all have conveniently forgot that almost everyone (Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, the French, the British, the U.N., etc, etc) thought that Saddam had WMD. And almost everyone thought he shouldn’t have them.
But Bush is the one who PULLED the inspectors right after they gained permission to inspect the palaces with a helicoptor escort. Bush was supposed to use force as a last resort acording to the vote. along with another UN vote which never happened and a real coalition. Remember all those fine Faux news artist renderings of those giant chemical weapons labs under them?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pmExley,
You and Hacker Bob are my favorite trolls, you try to support and defend your positions, unlike the shit stirrers who show up here. I think I see one now.. Oh yeah, hello valienttheshiteater. I hope that's enough smoke up your ass to get you to reconsider whether or not Bush was lying through his vodka stained teeth. Google Mickey Herskowitz. Sorry in advance for the cut and paste, here's a taste.........
..........Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:53 pm“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,†said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.â€
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father’s shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “Suddenly, he’s at 91 percent in the polls, and he’d barely crawled out of the bunker.â€.............end of paste.
111 Valiant....
Legitimate source...? !!!
Are you equating what this site is saying VS. what US & UN inspectors were saying..?!!
They made it clear that there were no WMDS in Iraq...
Bush himself cracked jokes about finding WMDS...
May 8th, 2007 at 4:54 pmUh, Pauly. The new leader in France is of the same party a Chirac. he is also against the war in Iraq and agrees with global warming. not quite the retarded Right we are used to here.
May 8th, 2007 at 4:55 pm"Oh, okay…Well, there are a lot of kooky conspiracy theorists out there"
you don't say.
"Mysterious Russian convoys headed by the Russian special forces leaving from Iraq to Syria, etc, etc."
you had me at 'etc, etc.'
May 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pmJohn Kerry was leading the democratic party at the time. He was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMD (from before Bush's time), that he was a threat and needed to be removed from power. He's sentiments were echoed throughout the democratic party (and the world at the U.N.) at the time. I guess it's just easier for you all to forget that part. If Bush lied, what do you call what everybody else was doing?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pmExley, quoting Family Guy?
May 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pmDude, there's a reason I knew I liked you, even from different political spectrums!
(well that, and we both like beer, baseball...and other b-words)
#115 Sounds like a plan, Yikes. Unfortunately, I do not live in my beloved New York anymore, but I am close enough to get there for the occasional Mets game....Maybe Margaret can come too! And Juan and Zooey and Hacker Bob and Raven and DRxJ, etc....
In fact, let's arrange the First Annual ThinkProgress Baseball Field Trip! TP will foot the bill, I'm sure...
May 8th, 2007 at 4:59 pmWhat is the reason Saddam did not use the WMD?
1...2...3...4...
Now we sit back and wait for the cult rationale...
come on... I am sure Rush has told you what you are to think about this...tell us the cult line.
How about this one...
Repub Cultee: "I believe the Bush adminstration has solid proof there was WMD but they wanted to have something to catch some flak from the left."
Or how about this one...
"I think Cheney said he had proof but he left it in his other briefcase."
May 8th, 2007 at 5:00 pm#105 Thanks, Raven.....The medications have finally kicked in.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pmhe French are waking up from there delusions about Bush, liberalism, and the war on terror. How long until American liberals snap out of it?
Comment by paul —
Iraq wasn't a point of terror till you buffoons went in there and stirred the crap up for some idiotic plans by PNAC and other groups that wanted to go free them, perform democratic experiments, build the infrastructure, train them. They don't seem to much democracy Paul.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm"Frankly, I’m urging Fred Thompson to run."
me too. i want this country to have the trophy-wife-as-first-lady it deserves.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm#121 Read #90, MA. Idiot.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pmAnother delusional ass kissing republican. These guys are pitiful bootlickers.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:03 pmhere's a Fred Thompson campaign slogan just for you, princess valiant:
Flaw and Odor
May 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pmLest you ignorant wingers forget, nothing that Dubya stands for can be considered conservative....he is at best a radical extremist.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm> me too. i want this country to have the trophy-wife-as-first-lady it
> deserves.
Paris Hilton is married?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pm#127
Hacker Bob and Exley star in "My Favorite Trolls!" this Fall on NBC.
When two conservatives wind up working at a liberal blog, the sparks fly and hilarity ensues!!
May 8th, 2007 at 5:05 pmThe French are waking up from there delusions about Bush, liberalism, and the war on terror. How long until American liberals snap out of it?
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
The answer, Paul, is never. Which raises another question: how are you going to handle it when, years down the road, you finally realize that your fervent beliefs about Bush, liberalism, and terror have been utterly repudiated?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:06 pm#135...
May 8th, 2007 at 5:09 pmno problem, Exley, as they say, reality is for those who can't handle drugs....
If Bush lied, what do you call what everybody else was doing?
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Why, believing Commander Cooco Bananas and the 'intelligence' he exclusively supplied them. Poor Paul, tsk, tsk.
Hey Paul, Let's pretend that George Bush could've stopped the march to war whereas anyone else you're trying to accuse could not! Oh, wait, He Could've!! Even though there were plenty of dissenters, Bush demanded the inspectors leave. Bush signed the order. The buck stops with Bush, even if Kerry was swinging from the chandelier and screaming Al Qaeda sympathies...the responsibility, you blame-ducking, liability-shifting chickenhawk loser, belongs to none other than the Commander-in-Chief. Quod erat demonstrandum.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pmProbably didn't want to use the WMD for fear of being nuked. That's why he sent them to Syria for safekeeping and deniability.
Is that crazy and conspiratorial? Well, is it as crazy and conspiratorial as believeing Bush plan and executed 9/11. 35% of you believe that. What happen to the passengers on the airliners and how do you explain the airborne phone calls to love ones? Not to mentiion the tens of thousands you would have to co-opt to keep it covered up.
Makes my conspiracy theories seem downright rational.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm#132, DRxJ,
Love "Family Guy." Frequently, my late night postings are made while I am simultaneously watching "Futurama" and "Family Guy" on Adult Swim (as well as "Baseball Tonight" on ESPN)..
May 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm"How? The conservative party has been in charge in France for 12 years now.
Comment by Chris L — May 8, 2007 @ 4:50 pm"
They don't get that conservative in France = Al Gore in the United States. LOL
Silly trolls, they are so into their semantics that they don't understand cultural divides.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:16 pmThis morning when Larry Elders was filling the Imus slot on MSNBC he too through this pile of excrement against the wall. It was sickening to hear him and Bernie Goldberg run through Bush's laundry list of benefits of invading Iraq. Of course there was the pass for "faulty intelligence" and how all of the countries in the world got it wrong too. Well all except the UN who was actually there, but they don't count because they were there.
Is there a bigger phony in the world than Bernie Goldberg? He went through his usual diatribe about how affirmative action drove him from being a liberal Democrat to becoming a nuanced Republican. Twice he respondeed to a caller by saying that he (Goldberg) had 10,000 criticisms for GWB - yet he still converted to Republicanism including their inate need for hypocracy. It was either stay a Dem or become a Repug - of course there are no other options available if you are independant minded, unless you want to sell a boat load of books to the red meat crowd. He and Coulter should collaborate on their next book and call it "Liberals Screwed up the World and are Going to Hell and Why you Shouldn't Care".
May 8th, 2007 at 5:20 pmPaul rips into it:
"Probably didn’t want to use the WMD for fear of being nuked. That’s why he sent them to Syria for safekeeping and deniability.
Is that crazy and conspiratorial? Well, is it as crazy and conspiratorial as believeing Bush plan and executed 9/11. 35% of you believe that."
Apart from the fact that I regard the classification of lousy chem weapons under the heading of "WMD" as possibly a step too far...
Is that crazy and conspiratorial? ---
Yes
Well, is it as crazy and conspiratorial as believeing Bush plan and executed 9/11.
Hm? If there exists theory X of low likelihood, then the likelihood
of theory Y, also low, does not increase!
35% of you believe that
What?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm"What happen to the passengers on the airliners and how do you explain the airborne phone calls to love ones? Not to mentiion the tens of thousands you would have to co-opt to keep it covered up.
Makes my conspiracy theories seem downright rational.
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 5:14 pm"
Why do you think that they can't FAKE calls???
I guess your not knowledgable in RF??? First, the signals from CELL phones could not work going 500MPH above 3,000 ft. NO WAY IN HELL! Also, many 757's, if not all, did not have the air phones installed and if they were installed they were not ACTIVE!!!!!
Why in gods name do YOU believe it would take "tens of thousands" to perform this????
It would only take a few. High level personnel and some FORIEGN consipirators. Those that would be gone after the event and would be difficult for the media to get wind of them, since they live 10,000 miles away. You know..... Like those jumping Isrealis........
There is MORE EVIDENCE to 9/11 being performed by our government then it being performed by OBL.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pmAn amazing amount of time and energy went into searching for hypothesized WMDs, this same time, energy and cost could have been devoted to a much more worthy cause. Although we may not know if the WMD's actually exist we are aware of the issue of global poverty and we do know that people are dying. The Brogen Project highlights the Millenium Development Goals that are currently being implemented to reduce poverty worldwide. However, there is a $19 billion annual deficiet in the funding for the completion of the goals. Instead the government spends bilions a year searching for phantom WMDS while innocent people die around the world everyday.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:24 pmMy God! The CotLDS produced this idiot! What's next? A nuclear threat from The Vatican? Perhaps, the Dalai Lama will assume control of China.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pmProbably didn’t want to use the WMD for fear of being nuked. That’s why he sent them to Syria for safekeeping and deniability.
Is that crazy and conspiratorial?
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
No, Paul, that's what you call stupid. You're maintaining that Saddam would lose his entire regime be imprisoned, and wear a hempen necklace for the sake of deniability? Geez, you repubs really are inbred aren't you? Like the self-proclaimed aristocracy who wishes to keep the 'blood pure...'
Are your parents siblings?
May 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pmRemoveBush. You're brilliant. It's amazing that someone at the New York Times can't see what you see.
P.S. I'm an airline pilot with about 3000 hours in 757/767. Thanks for the info.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:29 pmWith several hundred thousand Coalition of The Willing troops amassed at his border, Saddam is faced with a choice between fending off the invaders by using his huge stockpiles of WMD or sending his chemical weapons to enemy Syria to make Bush and Blair look. This was a no brainer, make B & B look like big liars. Saddam was laughing all the way to the gallows. Maybe McCain will say hey to him while he's lurking around the gates of hell stalking bin Laden.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:30 pmLike this
http://www.physics911.net/pearl
(Is this actually by "the" A.K. Dewdney?)
versus this
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/phonecalls.html
May 8th, 2007 at 5:31 pmIs that crazy and conspiratorial?
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Yes, paul, it is crazy and conspiratorial. It is also quite stupid, given that Bush himself has admiited on national television that there were no WMDs.
So what's the problem, Paul? Your CIC told you the WMDs don't exist.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:32 pm"P.S. I’m an airline pilot with about 3000 hours in 757/767. Thanks for the info.
Comment by paul — May 8, 2007 @ 5:29 pm"
Sure you are JAKE!!!!!
Just like you were a soldier in the Korean war, until your PLAGERIZED war info was shown to be from someone who was a war hero.
For the sake of argument..... If you are a pilot, then explain to me why it would be near impossible to impossible for CELL phones to work in a plane going 500MPH above 3,000 ft. A pilot would know this.......
EXPLAIN IT!!!!
If you can't, then your not a pilot. Every pilot would know the basics of how RADIO transmission works and why CELL phones could not possibly work in the conditions on 9/11.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:33 pmpaul is really a chariot passenger trundling down the road to Damascus...
May 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pmpaul, nobody can be as stupid as you and be an airline pilot. I ain't buying it.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:34 pmThose crazy Republicans will say anything to avoid acknowledging the culpability of Bush and themselves for supporting his war crimes.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:43 pmi'm intrigued by the "You Decide 2008" logo behind the guest... Regular viewers of Fox Noise are not expected to "decide" anything. The whole reason for watching is so they can be told what think, and how to feel.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:47 pmOkay, Mitt, let's pretend that that's all true.
Flash back to 2003. Saddam is a 2-bit dictator that supports terrorism and has ties to AQ and, in response to our demands that he disarm of WMDs that he might give to his AQ buddies, he decides to play a shell game by stashing them in Syria (supporters of Hezbollah) and says "What WMDs?"
I don't believe any of this, but let's say that it's true.
The wrong answer in this case is to send the $450B+/yr military to go lay waste to the 2-bit dictator. Because you've just agreed to play that shell game with the 2-bit dictator. And playing a shell game is something that you *don't* do with billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of brave lives because we've got more on the line than that 2-bit dictator does, I assure you. It's because we care about life, because we've got a culture of life -- and he doesn't because he's just a aging 2-bit dictator with only himself to lose.
See, Mitt, that's what we were really up against. It wasn't some "great defining war of the 21st century." Even in the most pro-war reading, the issue came down to "are we dumb enough to squander our resources playing shell games with 2-bit dictators and their terrorist buddies?"
Bush chose poorly. And now you're staring back at the table and with a knowing nod saying "Nah, it was the shell to the northwest..."
By that token, you denote that you are not any more fit for office than the current president... which simply isn't enough for me.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:52 pm" Kneepads Solomon Romney Says It’s ‘Entirely Possible’ That Saddam Had WMD And Hid Them In Syria"
LOL! Is the WMDs are with the same man that we can't seem to find, Bin Laden? Yup, there was definitely an invasion of the body snatchers with the entire Republican party.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:54 pmpaul is a married man who has a reputation for propositioning women (and at least one man he thought was a women) here at TP.
May 8th, 2007 at 5:56 pmno wmd's. couldnt have been. couldnt have been removed. now for this to be true we have to believe the following series of events:
clinton was telling the truth in 1998 when he said this: ....The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. ..... This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now. .......If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
ok, so we we believe that to be the truth. so then we must assume that in the period 1998 to 2002 when NO inspectors were operating in iraq, saddam unilaterally (again with NO inspectors present) dismantled all programs and removed/destroyed all stockpiles. the ones clionton was telling us about, remember? in 1998. now, we also must believe that while the inspoectors were there in iraq from 1992 thru 1998 he was indeed carrying on programs and had stockpiles or at least some viable stores of chem/bio. becasue the inspectors were looking for them, and clinton said he had them.
ok, so now, lets stay together on this, is really tricky. so then, when insepctors come back in in 02, he presents a report that is faulty and he says "well, yeah, we dont have anything now". inspectors cannot account for all quantities at this point pre-2001, from either degradation or destruction in period 1992-1998. so assumption must be they are somewhere. so then post invasion they are not found. so it is "conspiratorial" to think they were removed? ah, yes. this alternative relaity is quite interesting but not for serious people. its funny fun and games, but quite silly. the logical asumpotion given the facts is to conclude they were removed.
OR clinton was lieing too. and thats not possible. ahem.
OR....and here is the story noone wants to tell casue its just kind of a little human nature mixed in with fact. not real sexy and doesnt endict either side politically. everybody did the best they could, clinton and bush with what they had at the time, and what they knew. so here goes:
saddam was lied to most of the 90s by his generals and scientists as to what his rela stockpile was. noone inside iraq knew precisely. you dont want to give saddam a memo he disnt want to read, ya know? and beyond that saddam wanted his neighbors to think he had then. to ensure the balance of terror offsetting irans region hegemony aspirations, and of course the hostroical acrimony with kuwait and saudi. so he wanted everyone to think he had them, more than he actually did, and noone really even knew how much that was. so with a combination of destruction by inspectors in 1992-1998 and degradation, and just faked up inventories that saddam wanted faked up, there wasnt really much left if any by 2002. the 2002 report was deficient because it HAD to be for the saddam charade to continue. he couldnt walk around his neighborhood saying "oh yeah, all them dang wmd's: gone. zilch. nada. all gone. we just dont have any left. now iran, could you please invade my eastern border?" but of course if he (saddam) wanted to project that he had wmd's is it really hard to understand why all intelligence from all the world intel organizations said he DID have them? nope. thats consistent actually. and consistent that they werent found. and consistent that in a post-911 environment it was probably a safe bet to assume he had them and remove them or neutralize them. following the clinton doctine (see above). we could aslo throw in clitons iraq freedom act also. and the 1991 war cease fire violations too if we wanted to.
so bash away you boppers as they said in warriors. nobody has gotten it right yet. and i just gave it all to you. the problme is noone can yell at the other side or call them idiots in the real version. sorry. thats life.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pmWhat do you expect from someone whose favourite literature is L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield Earth"?
Cheers,
May 8th, 2007 at 6:06 pmExley...baseball? I´ll wait for you folks in the Guggenheim. :)
May 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pmThey don’t get that conservative in France = Al Gore in the United States. LOL
Comment by unbelievable
Right on. Hehehehe. I wish trolls knew what Left is in Italy, for example.
Headlines: American tourist chokes himself to death.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:09 pmGassed to death by Saddam!
I wonder if it's possible - entirely possible - that Saddam had WMD's ...hmmmm....
May 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pm"but it is too dificult and not beneficial to thinkprogress.org to show that there are legitimate sources that do claim that WMDs of Iraq went into Syria."
ROFL.... Dear heart, I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "legitimate sources." Note, for example, that Sharon was interjecting election propaganda in that interview and he quite deliberately did not say that the rumors were confirmed. Our intelligence agencies heard the same rumors, investigated, and found nothing.
Your second "source" was another of those Chalabi wannabes. Remember them? All those "sources" that claimed that they knew that Saddam had WMDs? That they knew just what he had and where he had it? And every single one of them was either badly mistaken or blatantly lying?
Against this, we have the ISG report, the Iraqi scientists, the Iraqi government documents, satellite and other surveillance, and our own intelligence analysts, all of whom have unanimously declared the rumors to be false. You see, dear heart, out here in the real world, we don't take unconfirmed rumors as gospel truth. We actually insist that the rumors be confirmed.
In short, and as usual, you got nothing.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:11 pm#16 zxz:
"...However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited W.M.D.-related materials.â€
Typo:
"...However, I.S.G. was unable to rule out sooper-dooper-unofficial undercover movement of limited quantities of W.M.D.-related program activities.â€
All fixed up. No charge.
Yeah, yeah, we know, old missile motors ended up on the grey/black market. Along with looted antiquities, etc. Mebbe the Yoo Ess of Aye should have thought a bit about preventing the looting of the country outside of just protecting the Oil Ministry's Chevron files ... you know, like at a minimum, securing the hundreds of ammunition dumps that are a source for some of the weaponry that's killing folks left and right right now?
Cheers,
May 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm"Probably didn’t want to use the WMD for fear of being nuked. That’s why he sent them to Syria for safekeeping and deniability."
Really, dear? And how did he hide those convoys from our surveillance? And how did he completely cover up those laboratories, removing all traces of chemical and biological materials? And how did he get rid of all of the government employees and scientists who knew about the WMD programs? And how did he remove all traces of the documentation for those programs?
Sheesh... Can we get some smarter monkeys, please? Preferably ones who actually think about the problem of covering up and moving a chemical weapons lab or a biological weapons lab or a nuclear research facility? Free clue: it takes more than a pickup truck and a Swiffer.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm"They don’t get that conservative in France = Al Gore in the United States."
They also don't get that most of us don't really care one way or another about France. They seem to assume that just because they absolutely loathe France, we're required to love it. The mind boggles at the cluelessness.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:20 pmIf they think that the WMDs are in Syria, then why haven't we invaded Syria also? Anytime a republican thinks that a third world country has WMDs, we should attack. I'm sure the Syrians will greet us as liberators and throw flowers at our feet. Sean Hannity has changed from a boastful intimidator to a inquisitive whiner . You really are in your last throes !!
May 8th, 2007 at 6:21 pm"ok, so we we believe that to be the truth. so then we must assume that in the period 1998 to 2002 when NO inspectors were operating in iraq, saddam unilaterally (again with NO inspectors present) dismantled all programs and removed/destroyed all stockpiles"
Actually, we have evidence for this from Hussein Kamel, a source that the administration trusted. His every comment on Iraq was trumpeted far and wide, with one notable exception: the comment that the weapons programs were, in fact, dismantled. Kamel was later killed by Saddam Hussein. Unlike Chalabi's goons, this guy actually knew what he was talking about.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm"Sure you are, JAKE!!!!!"
Nah, Paul's just a true believer (i.e., moron) or troll. He lacks Jake's verbal tics.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:28 pm#134 Paddy:
“I think Cheney said he had proof but he left it in his other briefcase.â€
I think it was: "Cheney said he had this marvelous proof, but the margins of the PDB document were too small to contain it."
;-)
Cheers,
May 8th, 2007 at 6:29 pmbut I am close enough to get there for the occasional Mets game….Maybe Margaret can come too! And Juan and Zooey and Hacker Bob and Raven and DRxJ, etc….
In fact, let’s arrange the First Annual ThinkProgress Baseball Field Trip! TP will foot the bill, I’m sure…
Comment by Exley — May 8, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
Count me in! I think we better sit in the bleachers though as the conversation might get a little animated.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:36 pmFrankly, I’m urging Fred Thompson to run. He knows where he stands on the issues because he has core beliefs. I AM hoping for a Clinton/Obama ticket…..
Comment by valiant venus — May 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Your delusional sense of self-importance seems bipolar.
Frankly, nobody here, or Fred Thompson I'm sure, gives a rat's ass who you support or would like to oppose. Why don't you get over yourself, skank?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:39 pmWow! The trolls are really phucking stupid, here! I mean they actually think Saddam could re-start a weapons program from 98-02 with 2/3 of the country under a no-fly zone by the U.S. & UK while simultaneously being under a U.N. embargo!! LOL jeezus phucking christ! What a bunch of dumbasses! LOL.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pmApparently, brain-washing CAN be passed on from father-to-son. Daddy George was brain-washed by command while visiting Vietnam, now, it has infected Mitt-for-brains. TP, formatting buttons STILL NOT WORKING for me. Please check into this.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:47 pmGee Fred, that was quite a long post to say exactly nothing of significance. Your Saddam faked out the world story would hold water except that Saddam said they no longer had weapons and opened up his country to the inspectors who found none. It's a sad state of affairs when a brutal dictator has more street cred than the leaders of the free world - Clinton included. Clinton's statements were at the height of the Lewinsky scandal and all of the Republicans stood in the way of an invasion then. The so called people who became the champions of liberating the Iraqi people let them suffer for 5 more years as a result. If it wasn't for the Clean Break and PNAC none of it would make sense. Go back to writing fiction someplace where your delusions are accepted mantra.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pmOne question I have about Romney is how his candidacy will play out in the Bible belt? Will Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell and the others support this guy? Hard for me to imagine, but then again there is that politics/bed fellows thingy, eh?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pmDidn't Ari Fleisher capture this mentality best?
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
- Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
7/9/2003
I still have a headache from trying to understand the logic of that.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:49 pmThis is silly. If the goal was to get the WMDs, but Saddam was able to move them to Syria before we got there ... then Bush's war strategy STILL FAILED.
This should be obvious. If we were trying to get the WMDs and the war was the best way to do it ... then even if they moved them to Syria, Bush and Company were still DEAD WRONG on their approach.
And, if this is what happened ... well now the nukes we were so afraid of are LOOSE NUKES. The situation is even worse.
Bush has been a giant failure no matter how you look at it. Hannity's Syria defense is completely ridiculous.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:53 pm#40 hellinabucket; you've got it backwards. It was exley who flew INTO a monkey's butt.
May 8th, 2007 at 6:54 pmThe Mets are still playing?
May 8th, 2007 at 6:55 pmI saw them play the Yanks in Yankee Stadium in 1963
I don't remember who won, I was 8.
Thanks anyways Exley, but it's wildfire season now, and I can't get away.
If there's a bush-fire (heh) over the wall,
I'll look for any home run balls...............
"We urge you to" "enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power."
"We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf."
If you haven't read this letter yet from the PNAC gang to Clinton dated January 26, 1998 here's the link:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Check out the names on the bottom who sent him the letter. We should give them the bill for the Iraq war.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:06 pmRomney is determinedly stupid. Does he actually think all he needs is nice hair?
May 8th, 2007 at 7:06 pmThis guy like all bushies ... is a total fake.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pmIt is entirely possible that Romney is a complete imbecile. Inter-marrying will produce genetically defective offsprings...
May 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pmMaybe Saddam hid the WMD'S in Mitts greasy hair. This guy looks like an old dried up ken doll. What a stiff!
May 8th, 2007 at 8:12 pmAccording to Colin Powell Saddam was under surveillance, so how could he move the so called WMD's if he was being watched?
May 8th, 2007 at 8:15 pmThe biggest WMD in Iraq was not only identified, it was contained and then summarily executed. It went by the name of Saddam Hussein. It ended decades of terror killings, gassings, executions, etc. What a much better and safer place Iraq has become. Even in its current state, it is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was. Absolutely the correct decision. Faulty intelligence? Thank God! The bastard has no head now and the country is healing. How I wish we could have done the same to Hitler. At one point, he didn't have any WMD's either. Liberals suck now and always will. Don't warp history and the truth.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:19 pmmmm...nope, Eric.
Still not indoctrinated. Try again.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:24 pmentirely possible??? how bout the whole world knows he did it
May 8th, 2007 at 8:29 pmYeah Juan C, like anyone takes you seriously. "Iran is not a threat". You're not intelligent enough to be in this debate. Go back and finish high school
May 8th, 2007 at 8:35 pmFor being such an idiot, Bush did a good job of fooling Hillary. And the U.N. And Kerry. And the French. And the British. Etc, Etc, Etc. Or maybe democratic opportunistic hindsight is stretching the limits to which the press will overlook.
Comment by paul
Au contraire. Bush did not fool the French, who along with the Germans refused to send troops to a war founded on intelligence they knew was faulty. And they were right. Yet people in this country still roll their eyes whenever "the French" are mentioned. How declasse. How tres Americaine.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pmct, meet Eric...you two are meant for each other, in Disney land...
May 8th, 2007 at 8:42 pmYou’re not intelligent enough to be in this debate. Go back and finish high school
Comment by Eric
mmm...nope. Still not offended nor indoctrinated. What is wrong with you, huh? Come on. You can convince me.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pmHey Eric, have you ever seen the video clip of Donald Rumsfeld on his trip to Bagdhad to sell Saddam the very chemical weapons he used on his own people?
May 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pmThe US set Saddam up in business.
Hi, my name is Juan "Iran is not a threat" C. Everyone else is indoctrinated except me. How could I be indoctrinated by left wing drivel? Indoctrination can only come from the right......right? At least that has always been my belief system. Don't act like you're feathers aren't ruffled. Your blood is boiling over the public skewering. ;)
May 8th, 2007 at 8:56 pmIs he having hair gel problems?
Not looking too good, Willard.
Where's that 500 million dollar hairdo?
We can't have a 1/2 a billionaire in the White House who doesn't take care of his filamentous outgrowth of dead cells.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:08 pmGreat rebuttal, Eric.
Cuz you know, in factories when Industrial revolution began, the workers living in extremely poor conditions, with 8 y/o kids working 12 hours/day, invented a huge propaganda machine in order to convince the world that working in such circumstances was, somehow bad and tried to show the owners, bankers and big capitalists as the bad guys. It was a huge spin and they convinced me. Robert Owen and those 20 textile workers in Rochdale were the masters, then arrived Marx and that rich kid Engels. You know, workers, proletariat wants to take over the world, we have a plan...a really lousy one cuz in fact corporations rule the world...nevermind, buddy, the left is evil. Is so evil that it just gave you an 8 hour/day job with incomes and forbid kids as workers...really evil.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pm#195. No way. Eric takes the (crazy) cake.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:17 pmBut, Eric, Iran is not a threat. That's all in your walnut-sized head. What is it that frightens you about a country half a world away? Is it their climate? That they pray 5 times a day? That they finally kicked out the puppet Shah the CIA forced upon them in 1953?
Oh, that's it. That last bit. The American government is very good at assassinating foreign leaders and installing their own puppets. But they have such bad tempers when their puppet's strings are cut. That's why no one believes the American lies about spreading democracy and freedom. American only spreads investment opportunities for Wall St.
Did you know the Americans tried to install a puppet in France after WWII? They didn't like Charles de Gaulle-- goodness, the Frenchie thought being French was better than being American. Sacre bleu!
Now, Eric, why don't you stick your head in a sack and maybe the angel Moroni will speak to you and tell you where to find the sacred tablets that will tell Mitt how to get America out of Iraq.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:19 pmThis guy will be the next Republican candidate. He has "George W. Bush" written all over him. He's the perfect deer in the headlights, easy to control puppet type the military industrial complex and big oil love. He's a used car salesman in a nicer suit.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:25 pmAnd better hair, and his eyes are further apart..........
May 8th, 2007 at 9:41 pmIt's so easy to figure it out. Bushies knew there were no WMD's because they kicked out the inspectors and attacked before the inspectors could do their job. Why the rush to attack? Because the public would lose support for the invasion. It really is a no brainer.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pm“ok, so we we believe that to be the truth. so then we must assume that in the period 1998 to 2002 when NO inspectors were operating in iraq, saddam unilaterally (again with NO inspectors present) dismantled all programs and removed/destroyed all stockpilesâ€
A common myth, according to Scott Ritter they knew way before 1998 that there were no WMDs, and there was a councious decision to make it seem like Saddam didn't cooperate when he infact did. Places that had been inspected with no traces of WMDs or any illegal activities were bombed anyway. I don't remember how it happened exactly but all you need to do is find various Scott Ritter interviews or read his books.
Office of special plans provided cooked intel to suit the agenda. Karen Kwiatkowski has plenty of information since she worked with those people. The British government has been ordered to release a draft of a 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This will confirm the downing street memo leaks.
2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm Videoclip inside.
The agenda is in the neocon mein kampf "Rebuilding American's defences". There are plenty of websites which has quotes taken from the document so you don't need to read the entire thing.
May 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pmright, romney, and the boogeyman is waiting in the closet with the tooth fairy to give you a surprise tonight when you go to sleep. seems like any sane person would ask the simple question, "if these arms were moved to syria before the invasion of iraq, wouldn't our intelligence agencies and/or satellite images picked up on caravans of trucks aiming towards syria?" followed up with " saddam apparently knew what dummya was planning why would he not keep these WMD's and use them on our forces, saddam was a lunatic, not stupid?" of course, logic is not a neoclown strong point...for either their leaders or themselves.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:06 pmCongratulations David, you just won the Neville Chamberlain award. Now there are two nutcases on this website that have said Iran is no threat. You guys should get together and discuss how peaceful Islam is. They don't want to hurt anybody.....they just want to pray 5 times a day.........waaaaaaaaa. It's the evil US and their puppet regimes they've set up. We hate what America stands for. Everyone is suckered into believing these lies by the Bush Administration. Only we enlightened libs know the truth. We are so smug and cozy in our little left-wing website where no one calls us on the carpet or challenges our elitist views. You guys are the laughing stock of the internet. Your liberal media members are even laughing at your "Iran is not a threat" "N. Korea is not a threat". You probably think Osama is not a threat. He is just so misunderstood.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:13 pmYou probably think Osama is not a threat.
Comment by Eric
Like your President. ;)
May 8th, 2007 at 10:26 pmRomney is crazier than he looks.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:46 pmSince we are speculating, it is entirely possible that Hussein's WMD are actually hidden under Romney's bed.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pmNo, Iran is not a threat for atleast 10 years, for it's about that far away they are from getting the nukes, for which there happens to be no evidence of, since neither CIA nor IAEA have proof of a weapons program.
Neoconservative PNAC imperialists are a threat to this world more than any other group. They know. They know the risks. China and Russia both warned USA back in 2005 against imperialism...
Analysts: Iran's military poses little threat
May 8th, 2007 at 10:54 pmhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-03-05-iran-military_N.htm?csp=34
They are hidden in the fleet of unsold AMC Pacers he inherited from his Dad.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:03 pmUh, yuh, Saddam had 'em but didn't want to use 'em. Moved 'em without US knowing nuttin. Uh, yuh, ah goo goo gah gah. Martians helped him.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:28 pmThese bootlickers are either delusional or just crazy as batshit. I know McCain is crazy as batshit but I don't know enough about this lying asshole to determine which it is.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:30 pmIt is entirely possible that Monkeys will fly out of butt. I think that the likelihood of either (monkeys or Syria having WMD) is extremely remote.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:52 pmObama the jackass said 10,000 people died in the tornadoes in Kansas......lol. Classic.
May 9th, 2007 at 12:13 amEric,
Tell us what Iraq did to warrant a response of over 100,000 soldiers. Not what they might have done, cause that's getting into sheer guessing. (Who knows? Zambia might even have nukes.)
No, you can't rationalize Bush's war. This administration has tried every which way to do so and it has failed. America is no longer falling for their fear tactics. Only a shrivelling 28% is falling for it. How many years of occupation with no end in sight, and sheer misery for the Iraqis, will it take for you to come to your senses?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:24 amSo did Dick Cheney think Iran was a threat or not when his Halliburton traded parts which can be used in the enrichment of nuclear fuels and he pleaded with Clinton to open up the trade embargo with Iran?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0403-10.htm
May 9th, 2007 at 12:29 amGet your figures right Vinnie. What does your 28% figure represent? There are many who don't support the way the war is going because they think there should be an increase in troops, not because they don't think we should be there. What happened to the Democrats "mandate" of winning Congress and the Senate back? I thought it was because America wanted us out of Iraq? Wrong. Look how Pelosi and Reid got spanked with their defeatist, white flag raising approach of a deadline. They got vetoed and they can't get their own party to back them on setting a deadline. Why do you think that is? If there is such a mandate, why isn't there an outcry? Because most politicians and citizens realize you pay now or you pay later. Most prefer to pay now. Ask yourself why no terrorist attacks have occured on American soil? Could it be we showed a backbone and put them on defense? You espouse a spineless policy of cut and run. Any student of history knows war isn't fun, but it does have a purpose. Rewatch 9/11 videos so you can remember that purpose. I know it's hard to stay focused, but try. Even France is getting it, why can't you libs?
May 9th, 2007 at 12:43 amFinally! It took TP two days to get around to mentioning the historic and transformative election in France, which could very well be the death knell for the European left:
Defeated Socialists search for scapegoats
By Martin Arnold in Paris
Published: May 6 2007 19:23 | Last updated: May 6 2007 19:23
Let the finger-pointing begin. Ségolène Royal’s defeat on Sunday night left the French Socialist party in disarray and searching for someone to blame. There is hardly a shortage of scapegoats.
It is the party’s third consecutive presidential defeat. The Socialists now face the question of whether they can ever regain power without ditching their anti-capitalist rhetoric, as the mainstream left has done across almost all of Europe...
â€The left is not credible on so many issues, from the 35-hour working week to immigration and law and order,†says Dominique Reynié, professor at Sciences Po university.
“It is the fault of the left collectively. Ever since their [parliamentary election] defeat in 1983 they have never questioned their fundamental ideology, only thinking they needed to change tactics,†he says.
â€Her defeat will be extremely damaging for the left. Huge divisions will start to emerge at 8pm on Sunday,†says Eric Dupin, author of A Droite Toute, a book on the rightward shift of French voters.
Jean-Marie Colombani, director of Le Monde newspaper, says: “Globalisation is still considered a threat and diabolised as the root of all evil. The left must get out of the ideological impasse in which it has been trapped for too long.â€
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
May 9th, 2007 at 12:57 amhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/bf138202-fbf2-11db-93a4-000b5df10621.html
Oops...The hour is late and weariness is causing me to make mistakes. The French election post was meant to go on the "Boycott France" thread....My apologies.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:01 amHere's a good source. Yes, in this specific poll it's 34% that favor the war. You can quibble over a few percentage points if you want. (I know you trolls need to keep distracted from the main theme.) However, these polls show an almost 2-1 ratio of Oppose/Favor the war.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
I asked two things that you avoided. I would like an answer:
1. Tell us what Iraq did to warrant a response of over 100,000 soldiers.
2. How many years of occupation with no end in sight, and sheer misery for the Iraqis, will it take for you to come to your senses? Or as other posters have put it, "What is your Plan B" if the current surge yields only worse conditions in Iraq. (Which, BTW, appears to be what's happening.)
May 9th, 2007 at 1:04 amExley: The left can't get out of the ideological impasse in which it has been trapped for too long. Look at the looneys here on TP. Let them stay trapped as the world wakes up to their faulty logic and loser mentality. Truth always exposes falacious arguments and philosophies. It's like trying to explain how we landed on the moon to a group of conspiracy theorists. They just believe what they believe in spite of the mountain of evidence.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:06 amAnd to answer your questions:
What happened to the Democrats “mandate†of winning Congress and the Senate back?
V - They did win back congress but they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto. That's an easy one.
I thought it was because America wanted us out of Iraq?
V - Look at the same poll I provided before. In that 57% of Americans favor a bill that calls for a withdrawl timetable.
Wrong. Look how Pelosi and Reid got spanked with their defeatist, white flag raising approach of a deadline. They got vetoed and they can’t get their own party to back them on setting a deadline. Why do you think that is?
V - They got vetoed but that hardly means they lost. Sounds like they're still going to demand something out of this. We'll see. They're actually standing up to Bush more than I thought they would.
If there is such a mandate, why isn’t there an outcry?
V - There is starting to be an outcry. This war has gone on way too long and people are starting to get sick of it. It's only going to get worse.
Ask yourself why no terrorist attacks have occured on American soil?
V - There was one terrorist attack that happened under Bush's watch. There was also one under Clinton. The fact is there have not been many terrorist attacks on American soil. (Unless of course you count McVeigh and the VMT killer.)
Could it be we showed a backbone and put them on defense?
V - One thing you hawks don't understand is that Bush's attitude of pre-emptive war against a country for spurious reasons, and then occupying that country for four years and producing hellish living conditions, has done nothing but provided a breeding ground for terrorists. That is well documented. The reason terrorists hate the U.S. is because of our heavy-handed tactics and our occupying of Arab land.
That is why the 9/11 terrorists attacked us. We stayed in Saudi Arabia well after Gulf War I which infuriated the locals. Our presence was an affront to their religion. Ask yourself, what would you, as just some ordinary Joe think of a country that came and occupied us for four years in a very heavy-handed way including the torture of ordinary civilians. Seriously, think about that for a second!!
And then you hear that your government is about to sign a deal where THEIR oil companies are going to get to dictate the terms of sale for your most precious national resource - your huge, easy to access oil fields.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:19 amVinnie. I'll answer your questions with questions. What did Germany do to warrant our entering in WWII? They never attacked us, Japan did. This is like arguing with third graders. The history of atrocities in Iraq are so exhaustive it boggles the mind you ask the question. It warrants even more than 100,000 soldiers because it's a war. It could very well be Afghanistan, Iran......it doesn't matter where it's centered, what matters is it's defeated. Shut up with your occupation diatribe. Are you going to go on to say we're there for the oil now? Sheer misery? Nice try. With Saddam gone it's been a breath of fresh air. Now they have to face another tyrant - radical Islam. You must hate it when you hear Al Qaeda terrorists are being caught and killed. As long as we are not being attacked, the occupation can last for another 90 years. Suits me fine. America has tremendous resolve and fortitude to stomach hardships in order to make things better. Please read history books. It's video playing, American Idol watching defeatists that can't handle it. France isn't even your friend anymore. Your world is crashing in on you. I hear Canada is still a great place - check it out...please.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:22 amSo if I hear you right, and I can see I do. Let's sum up your viewpoint: America deserved 9/11 because we didn't leave Saudia Arabia quickly enough and our grubby hands wanted the oil. Hmmmmm. So it's our fault. If we could just be more sensitive to other people and cultures. Weren't we at Gulf I because Saddam attacked Kuwait? Guess that shoots some holes in your revisionist attempt at history. Another false argument: Fighting with violence just begets more violence. It's a breeding ground for terrorists. Absolutely false and there is no documentation for that. If that logic is true, when we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, why did they then revert from one of the most aggressive and violent countries to one of the most peaceful? Damn, I hate when history repeatedly backs up my arguments.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:31 amThe bottom line is that you can't answer the questions so you change the topic.
First, Germany didn't attack us but they did attack our allies. They occupied France for Christ's sake.
Secondly, no one doubts the atrocities of Saddam. (Many of which happened BTW when we were friends with Iraq.) However, as you put it, these happened "in Iraq". There was no threat to American civilians. Are you saying we should send our soldiers anywhere there's a certain level of atrocities? You guys always talk about protecting America. Where was the threat TO AMERICANS?
Yes, we are clearly 'occupying' Iraq. What else do you call it when we have over 100,000 soldiers in their country and seem to be calling all of the important shots?
We'll see about the future. My bet is that people are getting sicker and sicker of Bush and his elective war. Watching the news for the past few months, I'd say people are being won over to my side. I don't think the '90 years war' thing would win over many converts. 'Get the troops home and focus on things at home' has a much more rational ring to it.
And while we're at it - Have you served? Do you have children that will go fight for this cause?
And yes, we are there for the oil. Are you aware of the Iraqi Oil Law? Have you read through that? If you don't believe we're there for the oil, then you really don't understand the nature of the capitalist system that we live in. Cheap oil has driven our economy for decades. Expensive oil is giving it some fits. (Go ahead. Call me all sorts of names for using the word 'capitalist' in vain.)
May 9th, 2007 at 1:35 amWay to twist my words. I never said America deserved 9/11. I never even implied it. I was merely explaining why 19 people would feel so much hatred for the US that they wanted to kill themselves committing a terrorist act against us.
Yes, we should try to be more sensitive to other cultures. I'm sorry if that common sense, humane strategy conflicts with your macho crap of tough guy rules.
With your attitude and nuclear weapons, we are really in a sad state. I do believe that someone like you is so twisted and out of touch with reality that you could watch the detonation of a nuclear device that kills hundreds of thousands of people and calmly state that it's for the best since we're in a war. You just don't see the insanity of such a proposal. It's truly a waste of my time arguing with you.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:41 amEric, which one was the only secured building by coalition forces once they entered Baghdad? Ok, I know you dont know...
The MInistry of Oil. Geeeezzz, I guess they were probably looking for Hussein there.
Now, the rest of your posts are cheap propaganda so they are irrelevant.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:41 amWhat did Germany do to warrant our entering in WWII? They never attacked us, Japan did.
Comment by Eric — May 9, 2007 @ 1:22 am
Germany declared war on the US after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
You know, Japan and Germany both being members of the Axis and all.
This is like arguing with third graders.
Indeed.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:47 amI must find myself on a raging liberal blog. Romney said it was entirely POSSIBLE that WMD's went to Syria. Romney didn't say likely, probable or otherwise. He said POSSIBLE. If something has a .0001 percent chance it is possible.
Now who is the koolaid drinker if they have totally-- as in completely--ruled out Syria as the willing recipient of WMD's. Sadaam knew he was toast but he could still totally embarrass Bush and the US by playing hide the ball. The investigator couldn't rule this out. See the following link which discusses the investigators findings of that possibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/26/international/middleeast/26weapons.html?ex=1272168000&en=759ec4426ad2c84f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
May 9th, 2007 at 1:50 amOkay, you oil conspiracists. I'm not saying oil isn't an important national interest. It is. But if you really believe that's why we're there, you're scaring me and you immediately lose any credibility. Question: Was oil the reason for our alliance with South Korea or South Vietnam? What capitalist greed factor kept us supporting our friends there? You libs said the reason we waged the first Gulf War was for oil, but then we left without control of any oil fields.......darn......there goes that argument. I guess we didn't need to "occupy" Kuwait.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:01 amRomney said "It's entirely possible." That clearly implies that there is a significant (i.e. > 0.001%) chance of it being true. IMHO, it shows how out of touch he is on foreign affairs. Indeed, his lack of experience in this regard will be a huge weak point in his campaign.
The article you reference clearly comes to the conclusion that there were no WMD at all. I find the following quote from that article to be the most salient:
"Nonetheless, he said, Mr. Hussein's large corps of scientists and engineers provided much of the critical information that led to the conclusion that Iraq posed little or no threat of using weapons of mass destruction against its own people, its neighbors or American forces."
Again, we sent 100,000 troops to Iraq for what?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:09 amWhat capitalist greed factor kept us supporting our friends there?
Comment by Eric
Of course. Do you think it was the Red Menace? Come on...
May 9th, 2007 at 2:11 amMy arguments are supported by historical facts Vinnie. Go read "Truman" by David McCullough and "Flyboys" by James Bradley. Both of them support the fact that the atomic bomb saved literally millions of lives. Japan was prepared for national suicide with a land assault on the Japanese mainland. It's a universally accepted fact confirmed by the Japanese people. The destruction of two major cities, as horrendous as that was, truly saved millions of lives if the war had progressed as planned with land invasions. It's the utility argument and if you understand the utility argument, you'll understand why there has to be pain in Iraq (and in radical Islam) before there can be peace. You have to be willing to sacrifice something to get something better. If you understand that, you will understand US policy and why it's based on long precedence. That is why they call the Atomic bomb a weapon of peace. Surely you remember MAD (mutual assured destruction) during the Cold War. The atomic bomb kept the war and the body count to almost zero during this period. It was the greatest peace keeping weapon because we all feared it. Fear is the only thing that has kept Islam in check (see Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein). I've lived in the Middle East and I understand the mentality.
May 9th, 2007 at 2:14 amIraq invaded Kuwait.
Kuwait sent out an S.O.S. to the world.
The US offered to move in.
Bin Laden got pissed because the infidels were on the Kingdom.
Saudis told Bin Laden to F*ck off.
that is why the US was and is in the Mid-East
May 9th, 2007 at 2:31 amBy the way, bin Laden is of Syrian descent
May 9th, 2007 at 2:34 amYour strategy of changing the argument and topic is so obvious. You just can't stick to the point. You also have mastered the straw man technique of inventing opponent arguments that they never said.
1. I never stated that Korea or Vietnam was about oil. Don't you remember your history books? We were fighting 'communism', the number one threat to capitalism.
2. I never said Gulf War I was about oil. (Quote me if you can.) However, now that YOU mention it, I do think oil was a big factor in that war as well. We didn't end up controlling oil fields but we were a lot happier with Kuwait owning them than with the uncooperative Saddam.
Maybe you should actually read what I say before you tell me what I said.
Again, have you read about the Iraqi Oil Law? Don't you think you should? Here's a link for you. This is an objective site but there are many sites that talk about how this is nothing but a boon for the American oil companies.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/18/669880-iraqi-oil-law-nears-final-stage
A relevant quote:
"Passage of the law, thought to have been written with heavy U.S. involvement, is one of four benchmarks the Bush administration has set for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's struggling government."
May 9th, 2007 at 2:39 amI thought we were talking about Iraq. Funny how you lead us to Japan and WWII. Are you saying that Iraq was planning a land invasion and we saved millions by sending in our troops? If not, your argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Stick to the point for ONCE in this thread!!!
May 9th, 2007 at 2:42 amAlso, you keep mentioning radical Islam. Wasn't Iraq a secular state under Saddam? I was asking why we invaded Iraq. You then started talking about Islam. One more time, WHAT WAS THE THREAT TO AMERICANS IN IRAQ THAT NECESSITATED US SENDING IN OVER 100,000 TROOPS?
May 9th, 2007 at 2:48 amMitt says there could have been WMD in Iraq...does he mean Weapons of Mormonic Destruction? Romney's Spin Doctors must have a makeover television show called "Queer Eye for the Conservative Guy."
May 9th, 2007 at 6:24 amI invite the 5 sons of Mitt Romney to join the Army rangers and inflitrate into Syria looking fors the WMDs!!!
http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/five-not-for-fighting-willard-mitt.html
Darn! I forgot Mitt's sons are too important to be sacrificed in such a mission! There are too many poor to fill those billets.
May 9th, 2007 at 9:03 amVinnie. You lost the argument when you said that Iran is not a threat. You are the laughing stock of the internet with that statement alone. How can anyone try to explain to you the threat of Iraq when you don't think Iran and N. Korea are a threat right now? You don't even understand we are in a war, hence you can't understand why there are 100K troops there. I've stayed on point numerous times but you ignore it. It bothers you when I bring up historical facts from previous world wars that support my arguments of why we are there and why we are addressing the threat in Iraq and the world theater. My point for bringing up Japan was to explain to your thick head that we are demonstrating force in the Middle East as a deterrent to radical Islam. If you read history, which you want to bury instead, you will see the stark similarities between the fanatical and suicidal tendencies of the Japanese in WWII and radical Islam. Radical Islam is not contained within the borders of any single country but is a virus both here and abroad. They have been fighting us since the late 80's. It is clearly more difficult to play "whack-a-mole" then to confront your enemy head-on. Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer threats because we have placed hundreds of thousands of troops there. They are strategically located smack in the middle of where this virus has been festering. The whole world has benefited from our presence there by the reduction of the Taliban and there promotion of terrorist camps. One third of the Axis of Evil has been dismantled with two legs left: N. Korea and Iran. Those threats are not going away until there is a regime change. Americans have responded properly and effectively. We are the worlds police because we've earned that right. We saved Europe's ass in two world wars because of our late entrances into the world's problems and our isolationist policies. We now have to mentally fight the Vinnies and Juan C's of the world who want to continue this isolationist policy and have us react too late to a third world war. Never again. You don't ignore problems so they go away. Now if you don't understand the truth of why we are there, you can just continue in your conspiratorial ways and keep hating capitalism and trying to make this a Republican v. Democrat thing. Those who have broader vision continue to see the larger picture and focus on fixing the problem. Will it go smoothly? Of course not, no war has ever gone smoothly. 9/11 consolidated US policy to fight radical Islam and that fight is going to last a long time. You can choose to guide our policy or choose to stay in your conspiratorial little world and pretend US policy is just money driven. I suppose the Marshall Plan was an evil strategy by the Truman administration to make Japan and Germany excellent trading partners and economic world powers? Where do you guys stop with this non-sense?
May 9th, 2007 at 9:41 am"we are demonstrating force in the Middle East as a deterrent to radical Islam."
actually, this administration is demonstrating horrible foreign policy as a deterrent to 60% of the american public.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:23 amYou're the same people who thought Reagan was nuts calling the Soviet Union an evil empire and ridiculed his foreign policy and his Star Wars anti-missle program. After the wall comes down, Gorbachev and other former Soviet leaders confirm that the tough stance by the US is what did it. You have to have patience for policy to work - something libs do not have. If you ever find your Roosevelt/Truman/Kennedy foreign policy roots in the Democratic party, you may have a chance. For now, you'll continue to go the way of all socialist regimes like in France and England - into obscurity.
May 9th, 2007 at 11:59 amIt wasn't Syria, it was Mars.
May 9th, 2007 at 1:49 pmMay be the missing golden tablets are in Syria too?
May 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pmOne can only laugh at the notion that the famously paranoid Saddam Hussein would send WMD to another country, out of his control, where a) he couldn't use them, and b) they might in the future be used to attack him. Saddam Hussein would destroy WMD rather than give them away, confident that he could always rebuild the capacity in the future if opportunity presented.
May 9th, 2007 at 4:50 pmTo trrl --
Hmmmm -- Didn't the famously paranoid Saddam send his fighter jets into Iran to wait it out during the first Gulf War?
I am NOT suggesting that there were any WMD -- just that your logic may need a little adjustment....
May 9th, 2007 at 7:06 pmgrand princess cruise line
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:18 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pmGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 10:33 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 10:24 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 11th, 2008 at 4:27 am