OFF to work so I'll make it short .

MR Ritter can only speak with authority on subjects he is aware of. IE; 1998 not 2003 .

HE left in 1998 and political speak for I have not SEEN proof does not mean that He does not KNOW there is proof Kind of like SGT Schults saying "I see Nothing I see Nothing"

BUT what he does say is that ( Based on his Own personal observations) Is that he only removed 90-95% of WMD"s

Spin that as you wish but it is what he said.

Further If I am correct then since they did exist ( other wise why have plants to build them) and he did not destroy them then they ARE.

I am no Bush supporter he has out spent any Dem that I can think of .

The War is on it's face un advised, IN my opinion. but the truth is that the Minutia of the goings on in the world are beyond my scope.

You are right Clinton did not create an air strike against a weapons facility.

HE did agree that Sudam did have WMD's and as a result posed a threat.

And the idea that If Sudam had WMD's he would have used them is not well thought out.

Sudam was a survivor he knew that once used ( WMD's) against a superior force He was doomed ! History shows he had no trouble using them against the weak. If Used The world bodies would have "Had" to turn their backs ( a position the Cheese eating surrender Monkeys are familiar with) on Him.

That He was a survivor is clearly evidenced buy his capture Hiding in a peasants back yard not with a Bomb strapped to his chest but surrounded with money he hoped to support him if he escaped. Not standing up facing his enemy. AS far as I know he only faced an armed force once and he was shot and fled.

AT least he did not have suicide committed on him like his hero Hitler.

Chuck Presnail

Slick Willy did bomb an asperin factory though ,

Chuck Presnail in gray

OFF to work so I'll make it short .

Accurate woulda been better

MR Ritter can only speak with authority on subjects he is aware of. IE; 1998 not 2003 .

Unless you wish to argue that Saddam somehow acquired WMDs between 98 and 03, so what?

HE left in 1998 and political speak for I have not SEEN proof does not mean that He does not KNOW there is proof Kind of like SGT Schults saying "I see Nothing I see Nothing"

You digress: Given that no WMDs have been found in the ten years following Ritter's statement, it appears Mr. Ritter's assessment was spot on: Saddam was telling the truth; Bush was lying.

BUT what he does say is that ( Based on his Own personal observations) Is that he only removed 90-95% of WMD"s

So what?

Spin that as you wish but it is what he said.

No "spin" is necessary, history has effectively demonstrated that Bush was lying.

Further If I am correct then since they did exist ( other wise why have plants to build them) and he did not destroy them then they ARE.

LMAO! Nossir, that ain't the way it works. What is known is that Saddam had WMDs at one time. All else is speculation and conjecture.

I am no Bush supporter he has out spent any Dem that I can think of .

You might want to think of FDR's administration and government spending as a percentage of our GNP.

The War is on it's face un advised, IN my opinion. but the truth is that the Minutia of the goings on in the world are beyond my scope.

If you're a citizen, you have a stake. I don't know about you, but I don't have any spare grandchildren I want to see sacrificed in a civil war because Bush lied.

You are right Clinton did not create an air strike against a weapons facility.

HE did agree that Sudam did have WMD's and as a result posed a threat.

Threat to whom? Clinton was concerned with the danger Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries posed to American aircraft in the "no fly" zone, not WMDs.

And the idea that If Sudam had WMD's he would have used them is not well thought out.

Oh?

Sudam was a survivor he knew that once used ( WMD's) against a superior force He was doomed ! History shows he had no trouble using them against the weak. If Used The world bodies would have "Had" to turn their backs ( a position the Cheese eating surrender Monkeys are familiar with) on Him.

Allow me to correct your faulty thinking. WMDs are ideal for use against superior forces, that's why the call 'em "weapons of MASS destruction" - they tend to even the odds in a hurry when one side has numerical superiority. Furthermore, had Saddam used them against the US, none of the Muslim countries - including our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, et al - would've batted an eye.

That He was a survivor is clearly evidenced buy his capture Hiding in a peasants back yard not with a Bomb strapped to his chest but surrounded with money he hoped to support him if he escaped. Not standing up facing his enemy. AS far as I know he only faced an armed force once and he was shot and fled.

Had he been a "survivor", Saddam would've quit Iraq while the gettin' was good; instead, he hung around 'til it was too late to get out. Saddam was a cowardly despot and undoubtedly guilty of various crimes against humanity, but he didn't start the war in 2003, Bush did. As I see it, Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of around 4,000 American soldiers and every last one of them died in vain because Bush lied to America. Their needless sacrifice on the basis of Bush's lies reminds me of one of Kipling's Epitaphs:

"If any ask you why we died, tell them because our fathers lied."

Hi all,

Really gotta wonder if Cheney's medication is doing the job or not?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080317/ts_nm/iraq_dc


Kevin

cowboy_bc wrote:

arent you canadian?

Jack Mac Fan in gray

Re: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080317/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Really gotta wonder if Cheney's medication is doing the job or not? -Cowboy BC

arent you canadian?

Whatever his nationality, inquiries into the efficacy of Bush's handlers meds are certainly a legitimate concern. One can only wonder what the hell Cheney was smoking.

If Cheney really thinks nearly 4,000 US soldiers and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis killed since Bush invaded Iraq and embroiled us in a sectarian civil war - not to mention a $500 billion hit to our economy - constitutes a "successful endeavor," I'd sure as hell hate to see a failure.

Death toll:

Just to put things in perspective:

[URL="http://http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071112a.html"]http://http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071112a.html[/URL]

for what it's worth..


Doug

MR. Stoval

You have said that Clinton only attacked Iraq beacuse he wanted to protact aircraft . You have said so in many posts. read below.

(ME)You are right Clinton did not create an air strike against a weapons facility.

(Turns out we were both wrong.)

HE did agree that Sudam did have WMD's and as a result posed a threat.

MR Stovall * " Threat to whom? Clinton was concerned with the danger Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries posed to American aircraft in the "no fly" zone, not WMDs. "


Here is the transcript of Pres Clintons address to america on the day he attacked Iraq



SEE: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
he repets this message throut the speach but here is the first Paragraph

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

SO ? " want to re think that only to protect aircraft in the no fly zone" thing.

Chuck Presnail

The puppet master Donald rumsfeld has been calling the shots for decades i don't know why Americans are so gullible, & why they even bother to vote, its laughable .

Chuck Presnail in grayj, deletia

You have said that Clinton only attacked Iraq beacuse he wanted to protact aircraft . You have said so in many posts. read below.

Here is the transcript of Pres Clintons address to america on the day he attacked Iraq...

You're right about Clinton's four days of air attacks on Iraqi targets other than AA installations, dead wrong in your inference that Clinton attacked on a unilateral basis as you imply. In reality, Clinton attacked Iraqi targets with unanimous approval of the UN Security Council; in contrast, Bush attacked Iraq without UN approval, while claiming he was not acting unilaterally.

Put another way, Clinton didn't necessarily lie about his reasons for bombing Iraqi targets - although the cynic in me thinks impeachment proceedings certainly had something to do with the timing - while Bush indisputably lied about his reasons for attacking Iraq.

Clinton lies were exposed by a soiled blue dress; Bush lies have resulted in nearly 4,000 body bags.

Tom Stovall, CJF wrote:
But they also resulted in about 800,000 fewer future airplane hijackers too

I have to wonder too...since the invasion.....Israel/Palestine "war" has been pretty sparse.....gotta wonder if allot of them have bit the dust in Iraq?

Steve

HoustonFarrier wrote:
Hi all,

They ain't done yet and any anyone thinking that the militia's in Iraq arn't gearing up as we speak for a US election celebration are fooling themselves.

Kevin

HoustonFarrier wrote:
I dont understand that response. The war has created far more 'terrorists' than previously existed. It has incited far more hatred for the west than has ever existed and has armed the violent Jihadists with much more ammunition to recruit folks who otherwise would not go down such a road. So by saying the war has resulted in 'fewer future airplane hijackers' you may have just gotten it completely backwards.

As far as Israel is concerned the government still continues to destroy homes and extinguish lives disproportionately. Its not unheard of for a retaliatory Israeli air strike to kill a dozen kids, or to take out a suspected terrorist in the middle of a busy market with a cruise missile. Not that those who fire the katusha rockets at Israel are any better (or any worse for that matter).

As far as the suicide bombers are concerned;
I think what we might need a mandatory 5 day waiting period on Explosive Suicide Vests.
See this news report for more info.

SlowShoe wrote:
OK...how many existed BEFORE the war....and how many are there now ?? Please be specific and cite your references, so I can verify. How do you know that the ones there now who have survived weren't ALREADY sympathetic to those goofs PRIOR to the war??? Did you interview them all ???

I can just as easily say there have been far more terrorists killed by us than created by us. Truth be told, I don't know if that is true or not.....but hell, why not say it....if I say it enough, it'll be true Just like that hoky-pokey that we created more terrorists.

I have a news flash for you......I was in that neck of the woods way back in the late 70's...they already hated us back then........

Steve

I can let the numbers from this graph do some of the talking:

Here is a link to the page containing article explaining the research ect.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/aftermath.html

Here is snipet worth looking at:
"In fact, 91 percent of foreign policy experts surveyed by the Center for American Progress and Foreign Policy for the newest version of the Terrorism Index say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States. Eighty-four percent of those experts do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, and almost all—92 percent—agree that the war in Iraq is negatively affecting U.S. security. - Source


My point:When you start killing a lot of people, destroying lives, cultures and countries these individuals have families, friends and people from similar backgrounds who are enraged at the source of such things. It turns out thats exactly who the next 'terrorist' will be. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that there is going to be some sort of blowback for the decades of such meddling.

It's not Al Qaeda with some master plan for world domination controlling a network of cells. Its just individuals who share a common idea who feel so enraged that they go out and do these disgusting acts.

You cant have a war on terrorism, its an ideology not a thing. Thats like saying were going to have a war on 'thinking about the best way to get hot girls.'