Posted on 11/23/2005 7:08:24 AM PST by Valin
Oh, I like!
Bookmarking.
Another BTTT Valin post
I'm saving this one for the next time my ultra-lib uncle sends me a diatribe about Bush destroying the world.
Excellent - bookmark
duly noted and bookmarked.
I've been looking for that quote from David Kay. I remember watching his testimony twice, and I was sure he had said "it was worse than we thought" or something like that. I was close.
Noone seems to want to bring up his report when rebutting the Dems.
nice summary- thanks
Saddam has harboring Al-Zarqarwi and Al-qaeda operatives and figthers before the war. If he was a man of peace he should have turned them over to us. We found enough uranium to build a couple of dirty bombs, 500 tons of enriched uranium that could have been used to build a nuke. And the British intel report of july 2004 reaffirms that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Niger. If these points were expressed to the American people on a daily basis the terrorists and their allies in the democrat party would be defeated.
VERY GOOD SUMMARY! Bookmarking.
One thought that I had. Since Bin Laden saw the attack on our homeland as the start of WWIII, isn't it interesting that he had 19 Saudis conduct the operation? Perhaps in the chance that we would aim our aggression toward the homeland of the attackers, Saudi Arabia? Sound familiar? The Democrat battle cry? "Why aren't we battling the Saudis since the hijackers were Saudis?"
later read
Bookmarked
Got my Thanksgiving "talking points", thanks!
No, I think we found 500 tons of uranium, 1.77 tons of which was enriched. Still, enough for me to say, "Hello, what do you mean we found no evidence of WMD??" (And where did the regime get that uranium, hm? Does Joe Wilson know?)
Right. But this is hard evidence. Why in your opinion doesn't the administration shout this stuff every chance they get?
Bump.
bump! thanks for posting...
Great stuff!
Now, let me see, insurgents have used arms stockpiled by Sadaam to kill 2,000 Americans and a multitude of Iraqis. That does not constitute a WMD? And what about the 40,000 suicide bombers Iran keeps claiming to have? WMD?
GREAT!!!!
BTTTTT!
I have no idea! Sometimes I wonder if they just think, "Well we're too busy doing the real job to bother refuting extremists." I like Dubya but I don't think he understands the PR situation very well.
Excellent post, Valin. Copied and saved.
Wizard or Jim,
Do either of you know whether the 1.77 tons of enriched uranium had been, in fact, declared previously by Saddam? Moonbats seem to think we knew in advance about the uranium, but I can't find independent confirming evidence about whether this was the case.
It certainly seems to me that if in fact the enriched uranium was NOT declared and unknown to us before the war, then it's game-over for the "there was no WMD" crowd.
I've said this before and I will continue to say that Scott McClellan is a HORRIBLE press secretary - he stands there looking like a sweaty porky pig and just comes off as way too defensive.
Mr. President, puh-LEEZE call up Ari, offer him whatever it will take to get him back, and I guarantee you will see polls start to move in your favor in very short order.
bookmark to refute the tired talking points of rudderless leftists.
Saved to my Iraq file.
Nevertheless, this is at best a secondary objective when viewed within the context of the Admisitration's overall foreign policy.
Bottom line: ANY form of stable government would be acceptable as long as the supply of oil to the global market is not disrupted.
"Nevertheless, this is at best a secondary objective when viewed within the context of the Admisitration's overall foreign policy. Bottom line: ANY form of stable government would be acceptable as long as the supply of oil to the global market is not disrupted."
My moonbat/bs detection meter just pegged....coincidence?
Friend, just as the liberals were wrong about the first Gulf war being "about oil," they are wrong again about Iraq being "about oil." If it were about oil, we'd have confiscated oil fields in Iraq and Kuwait by now. We'd have demanded the Iraqis pay for the war by providing us cheap or free oil. None of these things happened. The "no blood for oil" idiots can continue to scream this meme about a "war for oil" but facts will remain their enemy.
Gee Willie. What was the role of Oil in 9-11-01? Such a pity you are so aggressive at spewing forth your 9-10-01 political dogma. Sorry Willie but the viability of your Neo-Isolationist political views died with the Twin Towers.
Th absurdity of this "War for Oil" propaganda lie is proven by Chavez and Venezuela. We get about 6 times as much oil from Venezuela as the Mid East. If the free flow of Oil governed policy we would of invaded Venezuela, not Iraq. But that is right, in the Pat Buchananites fever swamp reality doesn't exits until Pat tells his acolytes like Willie what it is.
bookmark & bump
bump to bookmark
No coincidence... it is accurately indicating that you're full of it.
Friend, just as the liberals were wrong about the first Gulf war being "about oil," they are wrong again about Iraq being "about oil."
Oil is the only strategic interest that we have in the Gulf region.
If it wasn't for oil, we'd ignore the feuding Islamic tribes just like we ignore the Hutu and Tutsis.
You are right sir. It's nice to know there are people who think like I do (Free Republic helps me keep my sanity) but until an MSM network turns away from the Dark Side, we won't get through to enough of the country.
That's true. And I understand. But I wish they'd never backed off an inch and never let this "well, maybe we didn't have the greatest intelligence about WMDs" message come out. I guess from their point of view it only shows how incompetent their enemies over in the CIA are, but to the average DUmmie, it's an admission that "we made a mistake," which we did NOT.
Urban Legend: The United States Armed Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
Reality: 1968, July 17. A group of Ba'athists and military elements overthrow the Arif regime. Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr re-emerges as the President of Iraq and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC). Ba'ath party seeks U.S. help in re-arming Iraqi military but is turned down.
In 1972, Saddam (Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Deputy to the President, and Deputy Secretary General of the Regional Command of the Ba'ath, then knowing that the Soviet Union will re-equip the Iraqi Army, travels to Moscow. Iraq and the Soviet Union sign a treaty of “Friendship and Cooperation.” Another reason Saddam signs the treaty is because it obligated the local communist party, which is very strong, to co-operate with the Ba'ath Party, which is not so strong at that time.
At the time of Operation Desert Storm, 80% of Iraq military equipment was of Soviet manufacture. The bulk of the remainder is manufactured in France.
Urban Legend:The United States "Gave" chemical weapons to Saddam.
Reality: On November 25, 1969 Nixon renounced U.S. use of chemical weapons and promulgated the first international bans on chemical weapons.
In 1971 Iraq begins chemical warfare research at Rashad to the north east of Baghdad. Research is conducted on a number of chemical agents including Mustard gas, CS (tear gas) and Tabun. Iraq starts biological warfare research in the mid-1970s. After small-scale research, a purpose-built research and development facility was authorized at al-Salman, also known as Salman Pak. This is an indigenous program assisted by the Soviet union. A chemical weapons programs requires no more than a group of competent chemists and the money to operate.
Urban Legend: The united States gave Saddam his biological weapons.
Reality: Saddam received no help from the United States to develope Biological weapons. In the 80's the Iraqi government made two purchases of seed germs from the American Type Culture Institute which provides them for legitimate medical research. The cultures were ordered by the University of Bahgdad, but later used for their bio-weapons program which was developed with the help of the Soviets. When it was confirmed during the course of the Iran/Iraq war that Iraq was engaged in the development and use of chemical and biological weapons, their access to the Type Culture Institute was cut off, as was access by several other contries.
Urban Legend: The United States enabled Iraqi nuclear programs>
Reality: In 1959 Iraq's nuclear program was established under the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. Under a nuclear co-operation agreement signed with the Soviet Union in 1959, a nuclear research center, equipped with a research reactor, was built at Tuwaitha, the main Iraqi nuclear research center. In 1981, a French built nuclear reactor was destroyed by the Isrealis before going online. The United States played no part in Iraq obtaining nuclear capability.
BUT BUT...Don Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand and was smiling!
Doesn't that mean we were allies?
(I've actully had someone say that to me.)
bump
Well that's interesting since the needle didn't move until I happened upon your bit of moonbattitude....so it ain't me, bud, it be you.
Oil is the only strategic interest that we have in the Gulf region.
BS. A stable middle east is a strategic interest for us - democracy in the middle east is also of great strategic interest for us in that demcracies tend to not to harbor or support terrorism.
If it wasn't for oil, we'd ignore the feuding Islamic tribes just like we ignore the Hutu and Tutsis.
Who was president in 1994 again? Sounds like a case could be made for incompetence for not intervening.
Question: why should it be of any more importance to us than the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi???
Answer: Oil.
"Question: why should it be of any more importance to us than the conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi??? Answer: Oil."
Why did you simply ignore the fact that I pointed out to you who was president during the Rwanda massacre? Why did you just assume that I and the rest of America wouldn't have supported full-blown military action in Rwanda to stop the killing (as I did, in fact, at the time) if we'd had a competent commander in chief? Why do you ignore the fact that Slick Willie, your namesake, is on record for apologizing for NOT going into Rwanda? Why are ignoring the fact that we did go into oil-less Kosovo to stop similar massacres? Answer: You're a moonbat.
You've been owned. Back in your closet, troll.
bump
Well when you take a position such as that,
I see no reason to comment further.
As far as I'm concerned, you've sufficiently displayed that you're a interventionist boob,
and there's nothing that I can add to it.
These are more like Turban legends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.