Ashland, Missouri
1 posted on
08/08/2003 7:39:20 AM PDT by
rface
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: rface
If the mainstream media can't get away with insisting this is proof that the administration 'lied' to us, this story will be buried.
2 posted on
08/08/2003 7:45:14 AM PDT by
cake_crumb
(UN Resolutions = Very Expensive, Very SCRATCHY Toilet Paper)
To: rface; Poohbah; Southack
A summary of his report, described by officials who have seen it, said Republican Guard commanders were ordered by Hussein's regime to launch chemical-filled shells at oncoming coalition troops, and that Kay believes he will soon know why the shells weren't launched. I know why.
Pucker factor.
US troops unquestionably had some nukes with them for a response in case Saddam did use chemical or bio weapons. I remember us sending a not-so-veiled threat along those lines.
Saddam's Generals wimped out.
4 posted on
08/08/2003 7:50:49 AM PDT by
Lazamataz
(PROUDLY POSTING WITHOUT READING THE ARTICLE SINCE 1999!)
To: rface
May the truth be known. Thanks for transcribing this!
Tony
5 posted on
08/08/2003 7:51:03 AM PDT by
TonyInOhio
(Though the mills of God grind slowly / Yet they grind exceedingly small)
To: rface
Maybe the Globe is warning fellow Demmy terrorists to calm down the rhetoric....or at least begin to retool for the inevitable Kay Report, and perhaps get ready to discount his credibility.
6 posted on
08/08/2003 7:52:46 AM PDT by
sam_paine
(X .................................)
To: New Zealander; cake_crumb
NZ, as a follow up to yesterday, ping....
Otherwise, cake, methinks that this dribble will reach a tidal wave when the time is right. Politics will, as they should (because the Rats and presstitutes made the "no WMD/W lied/16 words etc" mantra for politics) dictate when that wave hits. And it will be so big, it cannot be ignored. Hehehehe....
8 posted on
08/08/2003 8:05:46 AM PDT by
eureka!
(Rats and Presstitutes lie--they have to in order to survive.....)
To: rface
But Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that it would not justify the adminstration's depiction of Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States. They didn't say he was an "imminent" threat. In his State of the Union speech, Bush said we can't wait until a threat is imminent, because of the nature of the weapons involved. Bush wanted to eliminate a future threat.
''Most of us believe that there was some program and some weapons hidden,'' he said. ''But the debate wasn't over weapons, it was over war. In four months, not a gram of anthrax has been found, not an ounce of mustard gas. Was the threat so great we had to go to war? The question for Kay is not was there mustard gas, but was there a substantial amount of mustard gas? If this is all he has -- if he has it -- this just isn't enough.''
He has actually made the administration's case, because the threat they were stopping did not have to be imminent. Plus, having programs was illegal, not just the weapons. They didn't need to have any anthrax stored. According to the former U.N. Commisioner for Iraq, the Iraqis were having trouble making their bio-weapons with a longer shelf life than a few weeks (but they were working to lengthen that), so if they were going to give some to terrorists to use, they would have had to make a new batch anyway, which they could do at any time.
In order to say the administration's case was phony, you have to say they had no programs of any kind, especially biological and nuclear, which he isn't willing to say. The Dean supporters are the types who actually believe there was nothing at all.
10 posted on
08/08/2003 8:07:29 AM PDT by
lasereye
To: rface
But Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said that it would not justify the adminstration's depiction of Hussein as an imminent threat to the United States.
President Bush never said IMMINENT THREAT. Clinton said it in his 1998 speech. President Bush said it was a growing threat. We got to get the bad guys before it reaches immenet level.
From the State of the Union, January 2003:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
To: rface
Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton are deeply saddened by this news....
16 posted on
08/08/2003 8:43:01 AM PDT by
b4its2late
(I don't have a solution; but I do admire the problem.)
To: rface
BUMP for later read.
To: rface
Then why don't these Iraqi military commanders in our custody know the location of the WMD they were ordered to attack us with?
Where is even a single shell or missile or beaker or flash of the stuff?
Show us the WMD. Until then, shut up.
To: rface
David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who has worked with Kay, said Kay has long been a zealous advocate of the idea that Iraqis had been poised to use chemical weapons, even asserting after the war that the weapons had been dumped in the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Perhaps so, Mr. Albright, but the difference is that Mr. Kay has evidence and a lot of it. Show us your cards, Mr. Albright, if you have anything better than a pair.
I didn't think so.
25 posted on
08/08/2003 10:06:30 AM PDT by
randog
(Everything works great 'til the current flows.)
To: rface
A top Bush administration weapons investigator told Congress in closed testimony last week that he has uncovered solid information from interviews, documents, and physical evidence that Iraqi military forces were ordered to attack US troops with chemical weapons, but did not have the time or capability to follow through, according to senior defense and intelligence officials. This is what the Army was telling my son before the fighting broke out. The chemical suits that the invading forces wore were just a precaution in case the invasion did not move fast enough or some Iraqi commander had more smarts than the others.
27 posted on
08/08/2003 10:12:13 AM PDT by
RobbyS
To: rface
-- A top Bush administration weapons investigator told Congress in closed testimony last week Hummm I wonder who that could be! Geeesh.
To: rface
This has to rank as perhaps the most stupid bluff in history. If he showed proof of WMD destruction, he could still be living the good life and engaging in his favorite hobby -- brutalizing people.
35 posted on
08/08/2003 10:49:09 AM PDT by
doug from upland
( Jesse Jackson and Gloria Allred never met a camera they didn't like.)
To: rface
Chem weapons or no, Hussein had it coming for the past 10 years.
To: rface
Didn't we find cyanide in the Tigris when we arrived in Baghdad?
41 posted on
08/08/2003 11:22:48 AM PDT by
thoughtomator
(Objects in post may be more clever than they first appear)
To: rface
''The active deception program is truly amazing once you get inside it,'' he said. ''We have people who participated in deceiving UN inspectors now telling us how they did it.'' I doubt it's "amazing." I've known a few 12 year olds who could easily fool the UN DUmmies.
43 posted on
08/08/2003 11:35:02 AM PDT by
demlosers
(Come out of the shadows)
To: rface
But, but.... I thought Bush Lied???
I mean, that's what the leftists keep telling me..
/dripping sarcasm
To: rface
bump
53 posted on
08/08/2003 4:18:15 PM PDT by
Lady In Blue
(Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Rice 2004)
To: rface; Paladin2
Now Tom Daschle is "deeply MAD." ;)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson