‘I dream of a map without Israel’
Well it didn’t take long for this!
Newly-installed Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar on Sunday reiterated Hamas’s desire to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic state.
“I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it,” Zahar said in the interview. “I hope that our dream to have our independent state on all historic Palestine (will materialize).”
This dream, he added, “will become real one day. I’m certain of this because there is no place for the state of Israel on this land.”
He also called on the US to abandon its long-time partial policy that favors Israel and to refrain from exerting political and economic pressure on the Hamas cabinet.
“There are so many countries which support the Hamas cabinet and its stance,” he said, without elaborating. “We will establish diplomatic relations with these countries.”
I think I liked Dr. King’s dream better!
April 2, 2006 - 10:14 PM on April 2nd, 2006
The Israelis should just clean house; clean out that entire region. Solve the so-called Palestinian issue once and for all.
If your next door neighbor looked over the fence, said he had a gun, and was going to kill you and your entire family, what would it make sense to do (and calling 911 isn’t an option)?
That’s right, go over there and kill him first. Why let him get the advantage? Why let him get the first shot? He stated his intention, and had the means to do it.
April 3, 2006 - 07:51 AM on April 3rd, 2006
Is that your ‘final solution’? Would you use gas chambers and burn the bodies like the Nazis did?
April 3, 2006 - 08:04 AM on April 3rd, 2006
2. sure..whatever it takes.
Zelda, your oh-so-subtle comparison is riduculous
German Jews during WWII = Innocent victims
“Palestinians today” = Muslim animals.
Am I the only one here that remembers those pictures of the “palestinian” steet festivals on 9/11? The beaming smiles? Passing out candy? One big disgusting barbarian circle jerk.
Fuck the “palestinians” (I use those quotes because there really is no such thing…. just a bunch of Arabs that the other countries don’t want, sent there to keep doing their dirty work and blowing up women and children on Tel Aviv buses)
April 3, 2006 - 10:09 AM on April 3rd, 2006
Yeah, Robert, not following you on this one.
April 3, 2006 - 10:20 AM on April 3rd, 2006
Quite a leap, Zelda. What Isreal should do is overwhelm them militarily, then remove them from the West bank. Send the “Palestinians” back to the Arab countries.
If they can’t get along, they will just have to leave. Israel has bent over backwards, given back land they won in war, just to get along with those pukes. But it is never enough.
Actually, it is enough.
April 3, 2006 - 10:45 AM on April 3rd, 2006
I thought other Arab countries won’t accept Palestinians.
April 3, 2006 - 10:52 AM on April 3rd, 2006
Robert, just to clarify; you are saying that the Israeli military should go into the villages and cities in the West Bank and forcibly remove ALL the men, women and children from their homes, neighborhoods, jobs and places of worship –
and unceremoniously dump them all on the East Bank of the Jordan river?
April 3, 2006 - 10:55 AM on April 3rd, 2006
5- Zelda, it is my understanding that most arab states want a Palestian state for the following reasons:
1. The Palestianians are like the gypsies of the Arab world..no one wants them..
2. They will support the Palestinians over the Jews in a heartbeat.The hate for the Jews is far superior to that of the Palestinians
April 3, 2006 - 11:01 AM on April 3rd, 2006
#6: Here are the two choices:
1. Do what you describe.
2. Sit there and be annihilated yourself.
YOU make the call!
April 3, 2006 - 11:55 AM on April 3rd, 2006
2. Israel doesn’t exactly seem like they are on the verge of annihilation regardless of what the nutcases in Iran are saying.
April 3, 2006 - 12:01 PM on April 3rd, 2006
I don’t understand the left’s fascination with “palestinians”. Can someone expain this to me? Is it because they also hate jews and america?
On 9/11, when I saw the dancing “palestinians” that’s all I needed to see. These fuckers need to go.
April 3, 2006 - 12:05 PM on April 3rd, 2006
RE: #8.
There are a few more choices that I think you are missing:
3. not feel threatened by innocent men, women and children.
4. NOT ascribe the actions of a few onto the greater majority.
April 3, 2006 - 12:16 PM on April 3rd, 2006
#10:
In case you weren’t aware of it, HAMAS is in charge in the Palestinian area, NOT a bunch of innocent women and children.
And the actions of a few (like the ones in charge) are what matter, and if/when they get the means to do it (like nukes) THEY WILL DO IT!
Why, oh why, does self-evident truth have to be explained?
April 3, 2006 - 12:50 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Hey Robert, come on..after all, there were only 19 hijackers on 9/11…don’t judge all radical muslims based on the actions of a few!!!
April 3, 2006 - 01:08 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Maybe you’re right, Mike…maybe some of the Al Qaeda leadership, Hamas, etc., are really nice guys who just want to get along! Maybe they really do want to protect the environment, save the whales, defend women’s right to choose, and care about the poor!!!
Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing, where have all the flowers gone, long time ago…
Kumbaya…Kumbaya!
Ohhh, I’m feeling sooo Liberal!!!
April 3, 2006 - 01:34 PM on April 3rd, 2006
15. Just so I can prepare you for your life as a liberal..remember the following.
You never have to actually be right about an issue (communism, terrorism, etc.) you just have to say what makes YOU feel good.
April 3, 2006 - 01:55 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Also America and Wal-Mart are evil and hypocrisy is a must.
April 3, 2006 - 01:56 PM on April 3rd, 2006
The UN represents the greatest achievement in the history of mankind.
April 3, 2006 - 02:29 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Thank you for your assistance! Thinking Liberal is difficult for me, it doesn’t come naturally. It goes against common sense and all of the wealth of life experiences I have had.
Just one more thing: is a lobotomy required, or optional?
April 3, 2006 - 03:23 PM on April 3rd, 2006
LOL…you guys are dorks.
RE: #11.
“In case you weren’t aware of it, HAMAS is in charge in the Palestinian area, NOT a bunch of innocent women and children.”
Guy…duh! Which is why I asked you if what you said in your #4 post was really a wise thing to do, when it’s Hamas in charge and not innocent men, women and children. Remember, you’re the one who suggested rounding up the Palestinians – young and old.
“Why, oh why, does self-evident truth have to be explained?”
Yeah, seriously!!! Why am I constantly correcting you and pointing out your intellectual errors?
Does it make you feel like more of a man to say “they should round up men, women and children”?? How do you think it makes ME feel to have to call you, a grown adult!, out on something like that?
I mean, I don’t mind, but…don’t you?
RE: #14.
“You never have to actually be right about an issue (communism, terrorism, etc.) you just have to say what makes YOU feel good.”
RE: #16
RIGHT ON, Zelda. (!)
April 3, 2006 - 03:28 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Liberalism is a form of mental illness… Robert, 1985
April 3, 2006 - 04:16 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Conservatism is a form of mental illness…SF Liberal, 2006.
April 3, 2006 - 05:06 PM on April 3rd, 2006
Eh heh, ehe heh, tee hee you’re just a riot, SF Liberal! How original? Where did you come up with that? Gosh, you Liberals are sooo smart! Wow, you’re impressive!
April 3, 2006 - 05:56 PM on April 3rd, 2006
LOL…yeah, Robert. And what you wrote was such a golden nugget of wisdom, I almost changed political status.
Dork.
But really, I don’t think you or your team has the copyright on the ability to think the political opposition, as a whole, has a mental illness.
I mean, Bush was re-elected…:lol:
April 4, 2006 - 01:50 AM on April 4th, 2006
Best definition of the basic difference between Liberalism and Conservatism I have seen:
A Conservative believes what he sees.
A Liberal sees what he believes.
A generalization, of course, but one that captures the fundamental difference.
What say you, RightVoices community?
April 4, 2006 - 09:10 AM on April 4th, 2006
April 4, 2006 - 01:22 PM on April 4th, 2006
Hey, came across some classic shit for the “Bush Lied” crowd…read this and try to keep from busting a gut.
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998″We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998″One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 “The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998″If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 “We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998″The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998″(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 “Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 “The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats > October 9th, 1998″We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998 “[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
Nancy Pelosi – House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection processes.”
President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 “Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 “One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999″Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001″This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002″I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”Joe Biden > August 4, 2002″[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 “This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
> August 4, 2002 “I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.” > August 4, 2002 “We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.” > August 4, 2002 “First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 “I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 “[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously.”
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 “I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 “I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002″We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002″We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”> September 23, 2002″Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 “(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002″We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” > September 27, 2002″There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.”
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002″The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002″I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 “With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002″There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 “It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002″In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002″Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 “Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002″He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 “Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 “I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003″Without question, 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. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America’s response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world’s response to his misconduct. 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”> January 31, 2003 “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
United Nations Inspections Reports
The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003″One bottleneck for Tabun production is the availability of precursors. Iraq may have retained up to 191 tonnes of NaCN [potassium cyanide] and up to 140 tonnes of DMA.HCl [dimethylamine hydrochloride].”
The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003″In total, at least 300 to 350 R-400 and R-400A bombs remained unaccounted for by UNSCOM.”
The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003″A document submitted by Iraq in February 2003 outlining the production of Clostridium perfringens [gas gangrene], did not add any detail to previous Iraqi declarations. No evidence to support the declared destruction of the agent was provided.”
The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003″Based on its estimate of the amounts of various types of media unaccounted for, UNSCOM estimated that the quantities of additional undeclared agent that potentially could have been produced were: 3,000 – 11,000 litres of botulinum toxin, 6,000 – 16,000 litres of anthrax, up to 5,600 litres of Clostridium perfringens, and a significant quantity of an unknown bacterial agent.”
The United Nations (UNMOVIC) > March 6, 2003″There are 550 Mustard filled shells and up to 450 mustard filled aerial bombs unaccounted for since 1998. The mustard filled shells account for a couple of tonnes of agent while the aerial bombs account for approximately 70 tons.”
April 4, 2006 - 02:55 PM on April 4th, 2006
RE: #25.
I’m not sure what your point is. Is it that both Republicans AND Democrats were 100% wrong on Iraqs W’sMD?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6.html
April 4, 2006 - 07:37 PM on April 4th, 2006
Once again, the obvious must be explained to you, SF Lib. I will do so, out of charity. For us Conservatives, we see educating the Liberal as a necessary burden, a “good work”.
Mike’s point: If you believe that Bush lied, then you must also acknowledge that every politican listed, including Democrites, lied also.
That’s all. Simple enough, eh?
April 4, 2006 - 08:10 PM on April 4th, 2006
Putting on my Leftist, hate-Bush hat:
Uhhh, Saddam never had WMDs (sic)!
Saddam’s WMDs were destroyed by Bill Clinton’s missile strikes!!!
Bush lied! And all of those quotes by Democrats that Mike listed, plus the UN report abstracts, they were just testing to see if Bush would lie, that’s all!!! And HE DID!!!
April 4, 2006 - 08:34 PM on April 4th, 2006
SF Liberal posts a 2004 article to prove his point. Apparently, he doesn’t get the latest information, or his SF Comical and Air Jizzeera sources simply have refused to update the situation.
In addition to the many examples of evidence of chemical weapons found, plus something like a hundred tons of enriched uranium, we recently got the report from Saddam’s #2 General who stated that WMD were moved to Syria. It was done by Russian Special Forces.
So stop blathering that saddam had no WMD. Repeat after me:
1. Saddam used WMD (chemical, against the Kurds and Iranians).
2. The U.N. catalogued them (see Mike’s post, UN report excerpts).
3. If Klinton’s missile strikes, with laserlike precision, had somehow destroyed the WMD, there would be plenty of physical evidence left to prove it.
4. Now we have the statement (from someone who would know) that WMD were moved to Syria.
5. We know it was done by Russian Special Forces.
6. We now have translated audio tapes where Saddam himself talks about his WMD PLUS his Al Qaeda connection, and as a bonus, his intentions.
Say all of that several times, if necessary, so it will sink in. And don’t ever say again that there were/are no WMD. You no longer have any excuse for doing so.
Anyone who says that is either hopelessly uninformed or intentionally ignoring the truth.
The education of the Liberal—the Conservative’s burden…
April 5, 2006 - 07:45 AM on April 5th, 2006
Robert..thanks for translating, I thought the point of posting those quotes was fairly self-evident…but, sometimes I overestimate the cognitive skills of your average liberal. It’s tough to get past that mantra-like “bush lied, bush lied, bush lied” that goes through their pea-sized brains 24 hours a day.
The point is not so much that almost every single democrat came to the same conclusion as the president.. the point is that they now have amnesia, and are trying to convince the unwashed idiots (san fran being one) that they NEVER said it!!!!!!
It’s quite amazing really…here is how it works.
Step A. Madman is running wild in the middle east, killing hundreds of thousands of religious minorities, threatening israel and stockpiling weapons.
Democrat A. Hmmmm in order to actually win an election…maybe I should actually take a stand that it’s the best interests of my country and it’s people.
Republican PResident. Invades said madman, annihilating his pathetic forces in a matter of weeks.
Democrat A. Screams quagmire, calls the war a conquest for votes and oil, denies ever supporting it, calls for impeachment.
San Fran Sam. Eats it up like cherry Jell-o
April 5, 2006 - 08:22 AM on April 5th, 2006
Mike, glad to try to help. It is a chore, but the education of the Liberal is a noble duty.
Somehow I suspect SF Liberal will still have difficulty comprehending this reality. Some Liberals are militantly ignorant, making it very difficult, if mnor inpossible, to educate them.
April 5, 2006 - 09:55 AM on April 5th, 2006
Are you guys adults? Like, seriously. Or is it computer time in third-period? Most adults I know and associate with don’t talk like you do, unless they were dropped at birth or something. If you’re trying something as childish as that, you’re really going to have to do better next time.
With that said, where should I begin to correct your posted errors…?
RE:#29.
Mike’s point: If you believe that Bush lied, then you must also acknowledge that every politician listed, including Democrats, lied also.
…That’s all. Simple enough, eh?
Robert…look at what I wrote in #28. I said: “I’m not sure what your point is. Is it that both Republicans AND Democrats were 100% wrong on Iraqs W’sMD?”
LOL…I obviously knew that was what Mike Kilos point was, because I wrote it RIGHT THERE. Maybe you should have your eyes examined…you’re clearly unable to read things that are right under your nose (!).
It’s obvious that you are not even reading/comprehending my responses; you’re just letting out these knee-jerk reactions and trying to puff yourself up like some bird. You really don’t need to, I’m totally unimpressed.
>sigh
April 5, 2006 - 10:20 AM on April 5th, 2006
SF, the actual point is that both the Bush administration AND the dumbocrats were…RIGHT on Saddam’s WMD’s.
April 5, 2006 - 10:21 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #31.
SF Liberal posts a 2004 article to prove his point. Apparently, he doesn’t get the latest information, or his SF Comical and Air Jizzeera sources simply have refused to update the situation.
Yeah, if you’re referring to NewsMax.com, then maybe I am out of touch with the Neoconservative-fantasy-world “updates”.
The last OFFICIAL thing we all heard, and the OFFICAL government line on Iraqs W’sMD…there were no actual W’sMD in Iraq, and hadn’t been since 1991.
http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html
Oh, and about that joke of a lie that Saddam had his W’sMD sent to Syria? Yeah…false.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501554.html
Robert…get a clue, guy. Try looking at sources other than the ones you ideologically agree with. You might learn a thing or two.
You have just been schooled. From now on, I don’t want to hear from you that there “was”an Iraqi W’sMD and that they were moved to Syria. You have been presented with OFFICIAL government documents that show otherwise. Learn from your mistakes and grow. It’s what all adults do.
Now everybody, lets see what “insult” Robert will try to throw at me after just having to teach him a lesson on Iraq W’sMD using 100% official government docs.
“errr…but…I…uuhhhhh, KKKlinton…Kerry….”
April 5, 2006 - 10:26 AM on April 5th, 2006
Mike Kilo, guy, your own government has released report after report confirming there were no W’sMD in Iraq.
Seriously, it’s time to get over it and move on.
EVERYONE else in the world has accepted this, except a small, shrinking minority of American conservatives.
You guys who deny it are starting to look like holocaust deniers.
not a good side to be on, Mike.
and you know what, no one is telling you to turn liberal or anything. just man up and admit that Bush, Kerry, Clinton….EVERYONE was wrong on Iraqs weapons.
April 5, 2006 - 10:32 AM on April 5th, 2006
who is everyone else in the world? Kofi Annan? North Korea? Al Jazeera?
I got news for you, SF…99% of the “rest of world”…sucks.
and I know, I’ve been there.
If you are so damn fond of the “rest of the world”…go live there! You’ll love Germany’s 70% tax rate and 25% unemployment…it’s fantasticshe! And France, with it rioting muslim animals, c’est bon!
I don’t give a flying fuck what the “rest of the world” thinks. Saddam had WMD’s, used them on Iran, his own people, etc., we uncovered mass graves of gassed Kurds, if that isn’t evidence of the use of WMD’s, you are just an idiot.
April 5, 2006 - 10:36 AM on April 5th, 2006
LOL…why are you guys so angry? R.E.L.A.X.
Your gnashing teeth and foaming at the mouth is very unbecoming of grown men. Why disrespect the seriousness of this site with your childish invective?
I’m not going anywhere just yet, I’m here on this board to offer a BADLY needed differing opinion. You don’t need to make yourselves look bad day after day after day tripping over yourselves to “insult” me. It doesn’t bother me, but you think you’d feel a little ashamed at your behavior.
just look at what you two have written in the past DAY:
I overestimate the cognitive skills of your average liberal
the dumbocrats
but the education of the Liberal is a noble duty
…SF Comical and Air Jizzeera sources
I suspect SF Liberal will still have difficulty comprehending this reality
Liberals are militantly ignorant
San Fran Sam. Eats it up like cherry Jell-o
what is all that?
April 5, 2006 - 10:37 AM on April 5th, 2006
Then again, if it’s a land of illiterate third worlders, astronomical taxes, high unemployment and the periodic rioting….you’re already in the right place!
April 5, 2006 - 10:46 AM on April 5th, 2006
Mike, SF Liberal will never acknowledge information that contradicts his opinions. You could whack him over the head with a 2×4 and he’d say “What 2×4?”
April 5, 2006 - 10:52 AM on April 5th, 2006
SF Liberal, perhaps I have grown impatient and testy because you do not seem to be progressing at all with respect to your education. Myself and others have tried very hard, posting much information and well-reasoned analysis to counter your opinions. That should be a logical treatment for Liberalism.
But unfortunately, you just don’t seem to be responding to this form of treatment. I guess it is like other forms of treatment; some cases of Liberalism can be cured, with time, if the Liberal wants to change.
You don’t appear to want to change, and so it is not surprising that some would grow weary of trying to help you. Perhaps your case of Liberalism is too far advanced already?
I prescribe that you listen to Michael Savage daily, on 910 AM KNEW. I think it comes on about 5 or 6 pm. After a month or so, let me know how it’s going. OK?
April 5, 2006 - 10:57 AM on April 5th, 2006
#37: One more thing: Look at the liosty of our insults you have compiled. No profanity, no juvenilism, Very intellectual, subtle insults.
Twice you’ve called me a “dork”. I think the last time I heard that was in high school, about 30 years ago.
So who is the sophomoric one?
April 5, 2006 - 11:15 AM on April 5th, 2006
San Fran Liberal….how can you even say everyone was wrong on Saddams WMD? He used them for gosh sakes. You need to see the movie called Iraqi Truth Project. They interview some of the people who survived these chemical attacks and others who lost someone and still others who survived the tortures. It’s a very good movie and like the movies of the holocaust it was filmed for documentation; just the way Saddam liked it. It’s never been a matter of NO WMD but WHERE DID THEY GO? We recently learned that alot of them were shipped out.
I for one never disbelieved those weapons weren’t there.
April 5, 2006 - 11:32 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE:#41.
I prescribe that you listen to Michael Savage daily, on 910 AM KNEW. I think it comes on about 5 or 6 pm.
Guy, it’s VERY intellectually unhealthy for you to take seriously an entertainment radio show as a source of information and news. You understand that, right?
SF Liberal, perhaps I have grown impatient and testy because you do not seem to be progressing at all with respect to your education.
Robert, there’s your problem right there, my friend! You’re trying to “teach” me. Thanks, but what you’re peddling is no better than kiddie smut in my book. You can keep it.
This isn’t a football game. There isn’t a winner or loser in respect to ideas.
YOU’RE OPINIONS ARE NO BETTER THAN MINE. repeat and rinse.
That aggressive, obnoxious, third grade kind of Michael Wiener (I mean, Savage..weren’t you the one whining about stage names being insincere, earlier?….oh, that was Mike Kilo) political talk is entertaining for some, but it’s very light on substance.
When you listen to someone day in and day out telling you over and over again that liberals are your enemy, it can get to you. And I think it has, in your case. (!)
I suggest you turn off the Hate-Talk Radio for one week and see how your attitude improves. Try it.
April 5, 2006 - 11:36 AM on April 5th, 2006
SF.. on the same token, you might turn off the liberal, hate-Bush chorus of SF chronical, NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. and try and learn something for once.
or, you can stay in a wolf blitzer / Katie Couric / Marureen Dowd bukakke fest, shouting, “BUSH LIED!” “HALLIBURTON!” “WIRETAPPING” AAAAAHHHHHH!!!!
April 5, 2006 - 11:38 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #42.
Look at the list of our insults you have compiled. No profanity, no juvenilism, Very intellectual, subtle insults.
what does profanity have to do with it? No juvenilism??? Are you kidding? EVERY “insult” you lob at me is juvinile!
How about making an argument or finishing a debate WITHOUT talking like a thrid grader? Think you can do it for me? For the RightVoices community? You lower them all when you talk like the way you do. Don’t you get that?
Twice you’ve called me a “dorkâ€. I think the last time I heard that was in high school, about 30 years ago.
Oh My God. Are you telling me that you are a 40 something year old man? And you talk like that????
Why do you post such immature comments?
April 5, 2006 - 11:39 AM on April 5th, 2006
I’m no Weiner fan (hold the jokes, please), however, you have to admit..talk radio has gone a long way toward breaking the idiotic liberal monopoly in the MSM that gave us, what I call the most frightening poll ever taken in american history.
“Most Trusted Man in America”…Walter Cronkite.
SF, if you think that’s a good thing…….there is nothing more I can say to you. It should scare the living shit out of anyone that people “trust” an asshole reading a teleprompter.
April 5, 2006 - 11:40 AM on April 5th, 2006
45: You are a complete moron. You are beyond hope, beyond salvage.
April 5, 2006 - 11:41 AM on April 5th, 2006
48. I am?
April 5, 2006 - 11:45 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #43.
San Fran Liberal:.how can you even say everyone was wrong on Saddams WMD? He used them for gosh sakes. You need to see the movie called Iraqi Truth Project. They interview some of the people who survived these chemical attacks and others who lost someone and still others who survived the tortures.
I can say everyone was wrong on Iraq’s W’sMD because it’s the truth. The US government, under GW Bush, has released reports that say as much. This isn’t a NYT, CNN, liberal line; this is the official United States government line.
I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. not some “liberal” truth, but it’ll be in the history books/taught in school kind of truth.
It’s never been a matter of NO WMD but WHERE DID THEY GO? We recently learned that a lot of them were shipped out.
Your government, under GW Bush released a few reports that deal with that theory. The US military has disproved the idea that Iraq sent all their W’sMD to Syria. If it was true, do you think Bush would let that happen? Don’t you think we’d be occupying Syria as well as Iraq if they had Saddams W’sMD?
It’s ok to be wrong, BonBon. I’m not rubbing your face in it. But it is important to be honest with yourself and others. Look up the info on your own, and don’t just go to RightWing news sites like NewsMax. Go to government sites. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
April 5, 2006 - 11:47 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #49
Robert, what are you talking about???? Did you just hit Mike Kilo????????
April 5, 2006 - 11:50 AM on April 5th, 2006
“For the RightVoices community? You lower them all when you talk like the way you do. Don’t you get that?”
Ah, so now you’re speaking for the RightVoices “community” (another Liberal term). I am sure that the “RightVoices community” desires and needs your approval, your validation.
Debating you is an utter waste of time. Points go right over your head. You can’t even recognize satire, sarcasm, or a joke when you see it (like the listening to Michael Savage deal). You have little or no originality of thought, simply regurgitating the dogma of the Liberal virtual religion (as in the illegal immigration discussion and the death penalty issue). You keep reiterating the same nonsense, even when whacked over the head with the 2×4 of reality (WMD in Iraq discussion).
You won’t acknowledge even the obvious. You are truly a case that proves that Liberalism is a form of mental illness.
These discussion threads are about information, opinion, and some entertainment. Many posters try to inject some entertainment value in the form of satire, or jokes. Your posts are not even entertaining, they’re just stuck on stoopid.
Here comes the 2×4: whack, whack, whack!
SF Liberal: “What 2×4?”
April 5, 2006 - 11:51 AM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #47.
I’m no Weiner fan (hold the jokes, please), however, you have to admit..talk radio has gone a long way toward breaking the idiotic liberal monopoly in the MSM that gave us, what I call the most frightening poll ever taken in american history.
I understand your point, Mike. I do.
I just think there is a BIOG difference between the professional, peer-reviewed journalistic artform that the “MSM” comprises, and the unregulated, non-peer reviewed world of news “entertainment”.
on one hand, the MSM at least tries to show balance, if not for anything else than credibility. But Someone like Savage can call liberals terrorists and no one calls him on it.
Walter Kronkit would never call an American liberal OR a conservative a “terrorist” when it’s OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE.
THAT’S why people would trust MSM over talk radio…
April 5, 2006 - 11:52 AM on April 5th, 2006
No, not Mike. In my post #47, I referenced post 45 (SF Liberal). Unless something’s gone haywire in the system, it should display correctly. it does on my PC.
Anyway, you guys should know that I was talking about SF Liberal!
April 5, 2006 - 11:53 AM on April 5th, 2006
“on one hand, the MSM at least tries to show balance”
April 5, 2006 - 11:57 AM on April 5th, 2006
SF..you must be joking. Are you in that kind of denial…balance?
Any moron knows the (intended) difference between radio commentators and “news” anchors.
However, the way the liberal media reports…..IS THERE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE???
Hello? Dan, “Full Power, Tall Tower” Rather?
April 5, 2006 - 12:00 PM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #52.
even when whacked over the head with the 2×4 of reality (WMD in Iraq discussion).
I presented you with government links and sources on the Bush Administration Dalfour Report and info on the US military Iraq Survey Project proving my point on Iraqs WMDs.
The only 2×4 that you tried to hit me with was a bunch of second-rate childish insults.
Robert, where are your official US government links that counter what I’m saying? NewsMax.com doesn’t count.
April 5, 2006 - 12:01 PM on April 5th, 2006
Rather took obviously phoney documents, and used his bully pulpit to call the president a deserter!!!!! Jesus, is that your idea of “balance”?
what about how every time Rick Santorum is introduced it’s “Ultra-Conservative Senator, Rick Santorom”
But Ted “Killer” Kennedy…oh no, it’s “Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts”
why do we need to be warned of Santorum’s idealogical slant, but not Kennedy’s? Can you answer that question?
April 5, 2006 - 12:01 PM on April 5th, 2006
Robert…your cracks are showing. You’re straining to hit me.
It’s not working, and you’re kind of making a fool of yourself.
Calm down and stick to discussing politics, not personal attacks.
Isn’t there a moderator here that can step in a calm this guy down?
April 5, 2006 - 12:05 PM on April 5th, 2006
I’ll answer it for you..because, to liberals in the msm…Kennedy is mainstream!!!! Hell, he believes in dismembering a million babies a year, hates the president, wishes the French dictated US foreign policy, etc…. he’s NORMAL!
But Santorum…he’s like a purple headed space monster to them.
April 5, 2006 - 12:07 PM on April 5th, 2006
so what does it tell you that the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to Santorum’s than to Kennedy/San Fran Sam’s?
April 5, 2006 - 12:09 PM on April 5th, 2006
Mike Kilo, of course it can’t be 100% balanced ALL THE TIME.
But you should work to change that from within, not give up on the whole process and start anew. Especially if that new start is entertainment talk radio. There is no peer review with talk radio.
The host like Weiner can say whatever he wants and can get away with it, unlike Dan Rather who says something dumb and gets NAILED (as he should have been) to the cross for it.
does that make sense?
MSM is peer reviewed, and hate-talk radio isn’t.
see how they do not equal each other?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that you shouldn’t invest too much emotionally and intellectually into the other NON-MSM sources…
April 5, 2006 - 12:12 PM on April 5th, 2006
”
Robert:your cracks are showing. You’re straining to hit me.
It’s not working, and you’re kind of making a fool of yourself.
Calm down and stick to discussing politics, not personal attacks.
Isn’t there a moderator here that can step in a calm this guy down?”
Wahhh, wahhh, wahhh (sound of SF Liberal crying and whining).
Here’s a link to a picture of SF Liberal:
http://www.tech-sol.net/humor/funphoto35.htm
He’s also a poster child for the DemoKrat party!
April 5, 2006 - 12:16 PM on April 5th, 2006
“…Dan Rather who says something dumb and gets NAILED (as he should have been) to the cross for it.”
Yerah, Blather got nailed by (hate-talk) bloggers, then hate-talk radio, while the MSM ran interference for Blather.
If it had been left to the MSM, Blather’s fraud would have stood to influence millions of American voters in the Presidential election.
April 5, 2006 - 12:19 PM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #60.
so what does it tell you that the majority of Americans hold beliefs closer to Santorum’s than to Kennedy/San Fran Sam’s?
I’m gonna have to call shenanigans on this one, Mike Kilo.
If what you say is true, then how come a majority of Americans;
did not approve of the Bush Social Security reform?
did not approve of the Dubai Port Deal?
did not approve of the Administration on Katrina?
do not approve of progress in Iraq War (60% now think it was mistake)
Mike, the public CERTAINLY has no love for Democrats, but you just can’t say that they support republicans fully anymore, either.
Post-2004 election, Bush and the republican agenda has taken hit after hit. And the public is more on the fence now than ever before.
Democrats even recently beat out Repubs on the Natty Security issue, once the feather in your Party hat.
That’s why everyone is talking about how this November might see HUGE gains for Dems in congressional mid-term elections. Republicans are looking bad with all that corruption (cunningham, abramoff, delay) and Bush looking even worse with bad Iraq news.
April 5, 2006 - 12:21 PM on April 5th, 2006
San Fran…what good is “peer review” when all of your peers believe exactly as you do?
you don’t think more americans agree with Santorum than Kennedy?
War on Terror? Role Of UN? Gay Marriage?
How much do you care to wager?
April 5, 2006 - 12:35 PM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #62.
are you really 40 something years old?
April 5, 2006 - 12:47 PM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #65.
San Fran:what good is “peer review”when all of your peers believe exactly as you do?
Peer Review: The process also forces authors to meet the standards of their discipline and thus achieve journalistic objectivity. Publications and awards that have not undergone peer review are likely to be regarded with suspicion by scholars and professionals in many fields.
That’s mighty paranoid to think ALL journalists are lefties. I think the numbers are 60/40…lefties to righties.
you don’t think more americans agree with Santorum than Kennedy?
well, it depends on the issue.
War on Terror? Role Of UN? Gay Marriage?
Well, as I mentioned, the Dems now have the lead on the Iraq issue. Bush has a 35% approval rating on Iraq. ouch!
How much do you care to wager?
a gentlemans bet.
April 5, 2006 - 02:21 PM on April 5th, 2006
San Fran, there is no document that says that the WMD’s were not moved to Syria and Lebanon.
As for the security issue: if you are referring to the Dubai Portsa deal..try again! This was the base of the Republican party that fought that one..that is no win for the dems…No take a look at Cynthia McKinney and tell me that the dems are serious about security!
April 5, 2006 - 02:57 PM on April 5th, 2006
San Fran Lib cites old reports, that dealt with particular issues at particular times, as the basis for his assertions that there were never any WMD.
He chooses to ignore, or is genuinely ignorant of, recent developments, all of which have already been deatiled in this thread.
If it doesn’t come from the MSM 89% Democrite, 11% Republican and Independent), to him it doesn’t exist. He probably thinks that Air Jizzeera (Air America) is a swell source of news and information.
April 5, 2006 - 04:51 PM on April 5th, 2006
San Fran Lib cites old reports, that dealt with particular issues at particular times, as the basis for his assertions that there were never any WMD.
LOL…at least I’m actually citing official Bush Admin government docs.
What the hell have YOU presented as evidence that Iraq moved it’s >snickerUntil you provide us with OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT links (like the Duelfer Report, The Iraq Survey Group reports), then you’re full of sh*t.
No, you can’t use blogs, rightwing rags (NewsMax, etc) as sources…I want OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT links.
I’m really interested to see what you can find from the Bush Admin on WsMD sent to Syria. And if they were, why the hell hasn’t Bush bombed the F out of them yet?
I’m waiting…:!:
April 5, 2006 - 04:59 PM on April 5th, 2006
Hey, Peejz, nice moderating job there earlier!
It’s nice to know you’ll kick off / censor LIBERALS who use insult and degrade this site, but when CONSERVATIVES (if that’s what you call him) get crazy, you’re nowhere to be seen.
nice.
RE:#68.
“…referring to the Dubai Portsa deal..try again! This was the base of the Republican party that fought that one..that is no win for the dems”
Oh, but, see, that’s where you are wrong.
ANY problem your base has with the brass, the Dems can use. In this case, the Dems went after Bush, the leader of your party, as weak on security for suggesting an Arab company have control over some of our nations ports.
The Dems POUNCED on the opportunity to look good for once on Security. And it worked. Look at how Bush tanked on the deal, and look at the Dems polling numbers. Thanks to Bush on Iraq, Katrina, and now the Ports, the Dems have a fighting chance to retake the House. Probably won’t, but it’s the GAINS that will matter most.
But, yes, the Ports SNAFU was for sure used to the advantage of the Democrats, if for nothing else, then to make Bush look bad. And Bush is the symbol of the Republican Party…
April 5, 2006 - 05:12 PM on April 5th, 2006
Dear San Fran- I don’t sit on my computer and watch you all day. If you can’t handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
BTW- You cited a 2004 WaPo article as proof of no WMD’s? Please..:roll:
Who are you appealing to with this supposed boost from the port deal? Your base?
Is there something wrong with having an arab company operate our ports? It couldn’t be any worse than the job that the unions and mafia are doing now..What country is an acceptable operator? Cause it won’t be american!
April 5, 2006 - 06:54 PM on April 5th, 2006
I don’t sit on my computer and watch you all day. If you can’t handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
Not upset, can handle just fine. Just thinking there is a bit of a double standard here, that’s all.
BTW- You cited a 2004 WaPo article as proof of no WMD’s?
How EASY it is to be a conservative these days!! If you read or hear something that doesn’t comply with your particular ideology or if it comes from traditional, established, hundred year old publications then it’s instantly discounted and not given a second thought.
Wow! I wish I could do that to all the information that didn’t sit well with me!! Instead I have to critically analyze everything I read and I have to constantly challenge my beliefs to stay on top of my game. Man, that sure makes my brain tired.
That “WaPo” article talked about the Iraq Survey Group (the Bush Admin and the US military WMD hunters) finding no evidence of Iraq moving W’sMD to Syria.
Now, Peejz…you don’t have to take MY word for it, but who would you believe first? The official Bush Administration end report, or some little right wing bloggers with an axe to grind against liberals?
For once, and only once, I would stand with the Bush Admin and their official report on the matter. Why don’t you?
April 5, 2006 - 07:03 PM on April 5th, 2006
RE: #72.
Is there something wrong with having an Arab company operate our ports?
Nope. In fact, I personally couldn’t care less what country runs them. I just think that in ANY political match-up, if a situation presents itself that can be exploited to the oppositions advantage, then by all means they should take it.
…Which is what the Dems did. The Repub base balked at the deal, and the Dem’s seized the moment (and won) by saying; “Hey, WE think it’s a bad idea too!”.
Thus Bush, the leader of the Republican party looked bad on Port Security and the Democratic Party looked good on it.
It’s OK to get kicked in the proverbial n*ts once in awhile in politics. The Dem’s are used to it, and you guys have only forgotten what it feels like.
April 5, 2006 - 07:18 PM on April 5th, 2006
72-Not upset, can handle just fine. Just thinking there is a bit of a double standard here, that’s all. Did I edit you? Who is it you are referring to because I only edit people that annoy the piss out of me with their whining or Fred who is a racist ass that has done one too many drugs!
April 5, 2006 - 07:42 PM on April 5th, 2006
As for the WMD’s
here, here, here, and here
April 5, 2006 - 08:40 PM on April 5th, 2006
Why haven’t we invaded Syria then?
April 5, 2006 - 08:47 PM on April 5th, 2006
So really all the proof you have for the theory that Syria took W’sMD from Iraq is the word of ONE Iraqi General?
None of the other links in #76 said anything about Syria receiving Iraq’s W’sMD right before the American Invasion…
so…
Official Bush Admin Iraq Survey Team saying No W’sMD VS. Iraqi Generals word
April 5, 2006 - 09:11 PM on April 5th, 2006
San Francisco Liberal:
From where I sit, you look like an annoying, whining little ass. First of all, you come to a website called “RightVoices”, and use the name “San Francisco Liberal”. Pretty obvious you intend to be provocative, that you’re looking for a fight. Then when you get a bloody nose, you start whining for the moderators to come to your aid. You are a wimp.
I look through topic after topic here, and you post absurdities; nonsense. You are just trying to provoke people; you claim to take the intellectual high road, but you get down in the mud when it suits you.
Now suddenly you’re a Bush Administration truth zealot, standing on Gov’t reports and willing to fight for them because you have based your entire argument on old information. You are so transparent it is laughable.
When (if) you grow up someday, sonny, perhaps you will understand what older, far wiser people are trying to tell you here. But meanwhile, this isn’t your sandbox. Don’t expect to come here, play, and throw your tantrums without somebody calling you on it.
April 5, 2006 - 09:21 PM on April 5th, 2006
77-All the links tie materials being moved to Syria.
The Dulfer Report said they could not rule out the fact that the materials were moved as they have not been into Syria to look. It is right there in the report, all you need to do is read it.
April 6, 2006 - 07:08 AM on April 6th, 2006
81. Come one Peejz.. SAn Fran Sam will never let a pesky little thing like FACTS get in the way of some good Bush-bashing.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if some of these lefty a-holes actually clammed up for once and got behind our troops?
don’t hold your breath.
April 6, 2006 - 10:17 AM on April 6th, 2006
Peejz…thanks for finding those links. I was kind of taken back when I read SanFrans response. Almost like the holocaust deniers. Just wanted to say thanks again. YOu are the BEST!:cool:
April 6, 2006 - 10:28 AM on April 6th, 2006
Peejz….what are you talking about with those links? I looked all over them, and I couldn’t find ONE item that said Iraq moved W’sMD to Syria!!
What are you talking about, “it’s in the links” ???
Where?
I even did a word find using “Syria” and none of the finds came up in a context of W’sMD and Syria / Iraq.
Seriously. What are you looking at that I’m missing?
I provide actual government documents saying there were no WMDS, and what do you send? Empty links?
Even the CIA time line doesn’t have anything showing Iraq moved…
You lose this one.
There is NO proof that Iraq moved WsMD to Syria.
If they did we would be ALL OVER SYRIA.
PLEASE take off your Blinders!!!!
This is absolutely hilarious! I have proof, and you have NOTHING to prove it with.
LOL…
waiting for REAL evidence…
April 6, 2006 - 10:36 AM on April 6th, 2006
According to new information coming out of Iraq our military is indeed finding weapons and evidence of weapons programs.
The Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, has found hundreds of activities which were prohibited under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons have indeed all been found yet the mention of these finds seems to fly far under the media’s radar. Why?
According to Charles Duefler, a former State Department official as well as deputy chief of the United Nations-led arms inspection teams the types of weapons found are not the specific weapons mentioned by President Bush. ” There is a long list of charges made by the U.S. that have been confirmed, but none of this seems to mean anything because the weapons that were unaccounted for by the United Nations remain unaccounted for.”
Both Duefler and David Kay, found Iraq had “a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses with equipment that was suitable to continuing it’s chemical-and biological-weapons programs” a senior administration official told Insight Magazine. According to this official inspectors have also found a prison laboratory where intelligence officials suspect biological weapons were tested on human subjects.
There is more that has been found though. Among these were uranium-enrichment centrifuges which have one plausible use to build nuclear weapons. Remember that President Bush was convinced Saddam was pursuing nuclear capabilities. Apparently he was right.
In addition Iraqi scientists have consistently told our inspectors they were under orders from Saddam Hussein to hide their activities from U.N. inspectors. Further, the missiles listed as threats to America have indeed been found yet the media has remained silent.
Not to say the media has an agenda but the evidence of WMD’s has indeed been largely ignored by the mainstream press. Everyone heard about it when David Kay reported to Congress in January that the United States had found no stockpiles of prohibited weapons. That was front-page news. Yet, when Kay testified about the discoveries of the ISG the silence fro the media was deafening.
In his testimony Kay also laid bare some other nasty secrets Saddam had been hiding from U.N. inspectors.
So-called reference stains from a wide variety of biological weapons were found in the home of a prominent Iraqi scientist. This was written off by the press as a sort of starter kit and deemed unimportant.
New research on BW-applicable agents, brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin that were not declared to the United Nations.
A line of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, or drones, not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 kilometers [311 miles], 350 kilometers [217 miles] beyond the permissible limit.
Further, evidence from testimony of Iraqi scientists and documents show that between 1999 and 2002 Iraq was negotiating with North Korea for technology for various missiles. These missiles, of course, could have been armed with chemical or biological agents.
There is much more evidence laid out by Insight Magazine that our press seems not to deem worthy. This information is also available on World Net Daily. Every American should check out this evidence and re-think the criticisms of our decision to eliminate Saddam and the very real threat he posed to our nation.
April 6, 2006 - 10:44 AM on April 6th, 2006
And thank you too Mike. I wondered for a few days why the MSM didn’t report alot of this. Saddam is on trial and alot of these things are coming out whether they like it or not.
Question for San Fran….if we hadn’t taken out Saddam and he let loose with his weapons on us. How many American deaths are acceptable to you before we take action?
April 6, 2006 - 10:53 AM on April 6th, 2006
San Fran- I’ll go really slow for you….
in # 79, I said “All the links tie materials being moved to Syria.” and each of the links does show a pattern of materials being shipped to Syria or via Syria..clearly a pattern has been established to show that Syria has been working with or for Iraq for years…
Dulfer does not rule out the possibility that WMDs were moved to Syria because there have been no inspections in Syria, but there is a clear pattern of Syria doing this…therefore Dulfer did not rule out the possibility..
Add to that, an Iraqi that worked for Saddam, and it really isn’t such a stretch.
Do I think that we had intelligence failures and made mistakes? You bet..but not to this degree..The evidence of the destroyed weapons program hasn’t even been found..the weapons that were there in 91′ and 98′…
And as my last source I would like to introduce this into evidence:
“Letterman asked, “Are we going into Iraq? Should we go into Iraq? I’d like to go in. I’d like to get the guy. I don’t like the way the guy looks.”
“He is a threat. He’s a murderer and a thug,”said Mr. Clinton. “There’s no doubt we can do this. We’re stronger; he’s weaker. You’re looking at a couple weeks of bombing and then I’d be astonished if this campaign took more than a week. Astonished.”
Even if the U.S. wins a war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Mr. Clinton said, a threat remains. He noted, “If he’s got these stocks of chemical and biological weapons, and if he knows he’s toast, don’t you think he’ll use what he can and give away what he can’t to people who’ll be using them on us for years to come so he can have the last laugh….”
I wonder who Bubba was thinking of?
April 6, 2006 - 11:01 AM on April 6th, 2006
Okay if he had them and he was so eager to use them; why didn’t he use them when America invaded?
April 6, 2006 - 11:03 AM on April 6th, 2006
Zelda, because he never expected us to actually send an overwhelming force and blow through there.
Once that was obvious, using WMDs would have turned the entire world against him…
April 6, 2006 - 11:09 AM on April 6th, 2006
Peejz, those links you provided earlier, showed nothing about WsMD being transfered FROM Iraq to Syria.
I swear to god…do a word find “Syria” on the links you gave, and look around each word that pops up. NOWHERE does it show Syria receiving W’sMD from Iraq.
The CIA time lines you gave ALSO did not show any transfer of WMD to Syria.
And the latest link you gave from CBS is from 2002, and ALSO does not show any evidence that Syria took WsMD from Iraq. The conversation was PRE-WAR when everyone Repub and Dem alike thought Iraq had WsMD.
So…again….you offer NO proof or evidence that Syria took WsMD from Iraq.
The Duelfer Report leaves open the possibility, but does not present evidence otherwise.
So really, the only “proof” you have is the word of one Iraqi general and all the proof I have is the word of the United States government and the US military.
I say my sources trump yours.:wink:
Seriously guys, to hang onto the idea that Syria took WsMD from Iraq is equal to holding onto the belief that the holocaust never happened. It’s just crazy.
answer this:
If Syria is KNOWN by the US government to have taken Saddam’s WsMD, and Syria is a terrorist supporting nation…WHY HAVE WE NOT ATTACKED SYRIA YET???
We haven’t, because there is nothing to prove they took Iraq’s weapons.
PLEASE. accept this! You are on the fringe with this one. Not even your party supports the idea that Iraq gave Syria it’s weapons.
It’s a WEAK excuse and an attempt to avoid responsibility for supporting a MISTAKE of a war. How sad…
April 6, 2006 - 11:10 AM on April 6th, 2006
Then address MY post, wiseass.
April 6, 2006 - 11:12 AM on April 6th, 2006
San Fran is like an OJ jurer…you could put Nicole’s head, a bloody knife, glove, ski mask, ticket to pango pango, 100,000 cash, and a home movie of him singing, “I killed the bitch” in front of his face, and he still wouldn’t believe it.
April 6, 2006 - 11:13 AM on April 6th, 2006
RE: #85.
Question for San Fran:.if we hadn’t taken out Saddam and he let loose with his weapons on us. How many American deaths are acceptable to you before we take action?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD….THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT – George Bush HIMSELF – HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT SADDAM DID NOT POSSESS WsMD!!!
HOW COULD SADDAM ATTACK US WITH HIS NON-EXISTANT WEAPONS????
This is not new info; it’s been known Saddam didn’t have WsMD since nearly two years ago…
This isn’t JUST liberals saying this; the Republican Party accepts this as well. Just a handful of extremists on the fringe think Syria took all the WsMD from Iraq before the invasion.
You don’t want to associate yourself with wackos, do you?
LOL…
April 6, 2006 - 11:17 AM on April 6th, 2006
You clearly can’t read……
April 6, 2006 - 11:18 AM on April 6th, 2006
and what kind of internet 3 year old uses “LOL” anyway.
Jesus harold christ.
April 6, 2006 - 11:19 AM on April 6th, 2006
Let’s sum up everything the San Fran thinks / believes / espouses.
“Bush bad…ugh.”
April 6, 2006 - 11:26 AM on April 6th, 2006
Even respected Republican politicians are saying that Saddam didn’t have any biological or chemical weapons when America invaded.
I think you guys just want it to be true so badly that you aren’t looking at the facts.
If he had them he would have used them when we invaded.
April 6, 2006 - 11:26 AM on April 6th, 2006
You know what guys, you don’t have to take MY word for it…
“And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet.”
George W. Bush, April 2004
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html
“We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet.”
George Bush 2 August 2004
“Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.â€George W. Bush
March 25th, 2004
“I just feel that the reasons for going in for weapons of mass destruction, the ability of the Iraqis to make a nuclear weapon, that’s all been proven that it was never there.â€
Congressman Walter Jones, Conservative Republican hawk
Member of the Armed Services Committee
June 13th, 2005
April 6, 2006 - 11:29 AM on April 6th, 2006
Zelda, is that sort of like when liberals chant over and over and over again “Bush Lied” “Bush Lied”
because they WANT it to be true so badly?
I think so.
What I am saying is that….clearly mass graves filled with gassed Kurds are ample evidence of WMD (if not sheer evil savagery). As far as I’m concerned, Saddam himself was a WMD. We have reports coming out now of Russian efforts to assist Saddam’s regime in moving weapons out.
Add all this up and what do you get? You get that it was a damn good thing we went and removed this butcher.
that’s all I’m saying.
April 6, 2006 - 11:31 AM on April 6th, 2006
Zelda, thank you.
I’m not being a partisan hack on this one. I swear to god.
I think these people here have invested WAY TOO much emotionally and intellectually to give up on the Iraq thing so easily.
Plus, I think that THEY think if they were to begin to question the War and the WsMD situation, that they would turn into Blue Skinned Liberals. That’s just not true.
I know plenty of Republicans who have changed their minds on Iraq and decided that it actually WAS a big mistake, and that EVERYONE was wrong on the W’sMD. They’re still Repubs. They didn’t turn into “Bush-Hating” Liberals…
April 6, 2006 - 11:33 AM on April 6th, 2006
I mean, 100,000 gassed kurds might not sound like a big deal to you, or to SAn Fran Sam..I mean, the only minorities he cares about are illegal aliens and welfare queens.
But 100,000 gassed kurds today, could be 500,000 shia muslims tomorrow..or 1 million jews the next day, who knows, 20 million americans someday..the fact is, in this world…you can no longer afford to take the risk.
and yes…that means hard line with Syria, Iran AND North Korea..we cannot afford to risk that one day they will have been responisble for killing millions of AMericans. San Fran dosen’t give a shit, because he clearly despises americans.. I, on the other hand, love my country and my fellow citizens, and I want to see everything done to ensure their safety.
April 6, 2006 - 11:35 AM on April 6th, 2006
“Zelda, is that sort of like when liberals chant over and over and over again “Bush Lied”"Bush Lied”
because they WANT it to be true so badly?â€
Yes. They hate President Bush so they call him a liar and chant retarded things like “No blood for oil”.
April 6, 2006 - 11:37 AM on April 6th, 2006
Mike kilo;
You’re blurring the issues again. These are all separate issues. The only thing we are saying is that Saddam did not have biological or chemical weapons in March of 2003.
Don’t take that to mean anything more.
April 6, 2006 - 11:39 AM on April 6th, 2006
Mike Kilo, you’re problem is that you think with too much emotion and not with the facts, at least on this one issue.
Iraq…did…not…threaten…anyone….post-1991….with W’smd.
no threat = no need for war.
April 6, 2006 - 11:52 AM on April 6th, 2006
Unless of course you wound up in a mass grave or a rape room.
Zelda, see post 104, if you want to see a lunatic.
April 6, 2006 - 11:56 AM on April 6th, 2006
Let me see if I get this straight…
instead of citing UN, French, British, American intelligence suggesting Saddam either had, did have, or will have WMDs with the intent of using them.
Bush said, “Look….no one knows what the fuck he has right now, but I know this…he has already invaded his neighbor, and gassed 100,000 of his own people.. those could be jews tomorrow, iranians the next, and us the next..and I’m not chancing it.
you would have been ok with that, San Fran Sam?
I doubt it.
April 6, 2006 - 11:56 AM on April 6th, 2006
RE: #94.
and what kind of internet 3 year old uses “LOL”anyway.
And what kind of grown man believes wacko, fringe element conspiracy theories about WMD’s being shipped to Syria?
Turn off the hate-talk radio…step away from NewsMax.com…and get a clue! Even your own political party doesn’t believe in what you are saying…
That’s pretty sad.
April 6, 2006 - 11:57 AM on April 6th, 2006
in other words.. it wouldn’t matter what Bush said or did, you’d call him a racist, warmongering puppet of halliburton and bitch and moan.
you know what..fine. We didn’t need you anyway.
April 6, 2006 - 11:58 AM on April 6th, 2006
not only LOL but little emoticons as well..
nice.
April 6, 2006 - 12:11 PM on April 6th, 2006
This is pointless…and I’m done with it.
We are there, no matter how much you bitch and moan.
why not win?
Oh, I forgot..the left roots AGAINST America whenever possible.
April 6, 2006 - 12:22 PM on April 6th, 2006
San Fran….try this link to an article about Saddams weapons.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21924
Now before you start whining that it’s only one man, one article, take into consideration that this is just one among MANY such reports coming out of Iraq from MANY different places. There are soldiers who blog that tell stories. If you bother to look at sites other than typical biased places you will come to the conclusion others have. Saddam not only possessed but used, manufacutured, hid and subsequently exported his weapons.
And Mike is right. We’re there so why not win? Why not support our troops? Why not support Democracy?
April 6, 2006 - 12:34 PM on April 6th, 2006
RE:#108.
Wow. You are capitulating THAT easily?
Are you French??
Well, I’m sorry this Liberal had to come by this site and ruin everyones day with his annoying facts and stuff…
FYI – I LOVE America and our men and women in uniform. I have friends who have served in Iraq and one who has died over there in Iraq. So I have nothing but love for the US military.
I just have utterly no support whatsoever for the civilian leadership of our military – i.e. the Bush Admin.
April 6, 2006 - 01:02 PM on April 6th, 2006
88-You really haven’t the capability of reading and comprehending do you?
April 6, 2006 - 01:12 PM on April 6th, 2006
109. Don’t insult me. I’m not french. Your “facts” as you call them are not annoying but show an inherent closed minded individual. I always thought liberal meant open minded but I have learned that it really means just the opposite. Your posts only verify this impression.
Sorry…..I don’t mean to hurt feelings.
April 6, 2006 - 01:12 PM on April 6th, 2006
Zelda- He didn’t have the weapons in March 03′..he had 6 months to move them..
April 6, 2006 - 01:13 PM on April 6th, 2006
#86 Zelda: “Okay if he had them and he was so eager to use them; why didn’t he use them when America invaded?”
His top military commanders were told by our people, in no uncertain terms, that if they carried out any Saddam order to use WMD against our troops, that none of them would live to see the outcome. I remember this very clearly being discussed at/around the time of the invasion.
There are really 2 questions within the Saddam WMD issue:
1. Did Saddam ever have WMD?
2. If he had them, what happened to them?
On #1, he used them against the Kurds, used them against Iran, and the U.N. catalogued them. So it has been well established that he had WMD.
#2: Good question. We have found residue, plenty of physical evidence to show what he had before the invasion. Did Saddam have any eviden ce to show he destroyed them, as some claim? Was there any evidence whatsoever to show that Bill Klinton’s missile strikes destroyed all the WMD? None whatsoever. So where did they go?
Those of us who use logic and reason surmised years ago that they were either well hidden in Iraq or moved out. They haven’t been found in Iraq, so guess what?
In fact, now new evidence has come to light, and is mounting, that they were moved to Syria. I am not going to take the time to retype it as it has been well discussed in this thread.
The MSM has been hammering on the Bush Lied! crap so long that many people are being swayed by that. They also refuse to present the evidence that proves them wrong.
I am not going to follow the MSM-led lemmings over the cliff to ignorance when the truth is plain to see.
April 6, 2006 - 01:30 PM on April 6th, 2006
Re 110: No he doesn’t. He is a Lib-bot; his firmware programming is closed-loop and does not allow for external information input.
He has been programmed with all the information he needs: Bush Lied!, old reports as information sources (nothing updated for at least one year), plus a complete download of both the Democrite talking points and the Liberal Religious Dogma for the Faithful. If he found a link to a posting of a thirteenth-century treatise asserting that the earth was the center of the universe (the accepted version at that time based on the information they had) and it supported his argument, he would rely on it.
He will not even acknowledge, for example, the complete list of Democrites who said Saddam had WMD and was an imminent threat that Mike Kilo posted, but continues to parrot the “Bush Lied!” dogma. He will not acknowledge any of the information in the links you posted, or even address the logical issue I raised in my post above about how it is known that Saddam had WMD before the invasion, and that if they weren’t found after the invasion and there was no evidence they were destroyed, then they must have been moved.
He is a Lib-bot.
April 6, 2006 - 01:49 PM on April 6th, 2006
I am not capitulation, I just don’t feel like wasting my time arguing with the brainwashed.
You are soooo quick to doubt anything that Bush says / does, but when it comes to the WMD line, you eat it up like cereal.
You are a partisan bigot, with a selective cognitive process. It’s like arguing with a monkey.
April 6, 2006 - 02:11 PM on April 6th, 2006
115-He doesn’t even read what his sources say!:roll:
April 6, 2006 - 02:22 PM on April 6th, 2006
Mike Kilo…Guy, you’ve lost it. You’re resorting to personal attacks because your argument failed.
Calling me a partisan “bigot” (?) and a “monkey” just doesn’t work to convince me Saddam gave his W’sMD to Syria. Sorry. I use Bush Admin docs and you use lame insults. Nice job there.
BonBon – I never called you French. I called Mike Kilo French for giving up so easily…
Regarding your FrontPageMag link…a right wing news source does not count as an official source. Imagine if I gave you a link to MichaelMoore.Com as a source. You would laugh me out of the “room”.
All your side has is the word of an Iraqi general saying the weapons were moved to Syria. On MY side I have the word of the Bush Admin and the US military…YOU decide which is more credible.
Robert – guy, same as Mike Kilo. When your arguments are weak, you resort to name calling.
I ALREADY addressed your list of Democrats pre-war statements. listen carefully so I don’t have to repeat it for the 20th time: EVERYBODY knows that BOTH republicans AND DEMOCRATS were ALL WRONG about Iraq WMD’s. Posting their comments may make you “feel” better about it, but it is extremely irrelevant to the situation at hand, which is, WHERE THE “F” ARE ALL THESE WMD’s YOU ARE SAYING IRAQ HAD????
Your LAME and UNPROVABLE answer to that question? “Ummm, maybe Syria has them!”
The only proof you have is the word of ONE Iraqi General.
Now, let’s see if your next post has links to Bush Admin documents saying they actually DO know here the WMDs are: In Syria. Prove to me, with official documents, your side of the argument.
But, one dollar says you’ll just try to make fun of me.
April 6, 2006 - 02:24 PM on April 6th, 2006
Peejz…what are you refering to?
what source of mine am I not reading?
April 6, 2006 - 02:26 PM on April 6th, 2006
Clearly you still have not read my post #85.
I never made the argument about Syria.
You are a bigot.
April 6, 2006 - 02:32 PM on April 6th, 2006
Not only are you a bigot..you are a RACIST as well.
April 6, 2006 - 02:39 PM on April 6th, 2006
April 6, 2006 - 02:43 PM on April 6th, 2006
Insight Magazine & World Net Daily
????
Are you kidding me? That would be like if I posted a link to MichaelMoore.com and told you proof that Bush lied was there and no where else.
Please.
Next…
April 6, 2006 - 02:44 PM on April 6th, 2006
118- San Fran- refer to this that you posted at the administration admitting that thre were no wmds from your post # 96
“And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet.â€
George W. Bush, April 2004
“We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet.â€
George Bush 2 August 2004
“Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.â€George W. Bush
March 25th, 2004
April 6, 2006 - 02:51 PM on April 6th, 2006
Yes, Peejz. Those quotes back up what I’m saying.
George Bush HIMSELF says that there were no W’sMD in Iraq.
Thanks for reposting that. It strengthens my argument.
April 6, 2006 - 02:53 PM on April 6th, 2006
124- No need to thank me. Your response just proved to me that you are an illiterate that can not read, nor do you even pay attention to the words you post.:roll:
April 6, 2006 - 02:57 PM on April 6th, 2006
Yes, you are a racist.
April 6, 2006 - 03:07 PM on April 6th, 2006
“And, of course, I want to know why we haven’t found a weapon yet.â€
George W. Bush, April 2004
Key words: haven’t found a weapon yet
“We may still find weapons. We haven’t found them yet.â€
George Bush 2 August 2004
Key words: “haven’t found them yet”
“Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.â€George W. Bush
March 25th, 2004
This was a joke that the president made in a video to the National Press Club. As he is saying the above line, he is looking under his desk in the Oval Office.
Peejz…maybe he should have looked in Syria, he might have found them there!
So again, thank you for helping me prove my point.
again.
April 6, 2006 - 03:23 PM on April 6th, 2006
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
David Kay, the former head of the coalition’s hunt for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year’s war to overthrow Saddam.
“We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons,” he said. “But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.”
Dr Kay’s comments will intensify pressure on President Bashar Assad to clarify the extent of his co-operation with Saddam’s regime and details of Syria’s WMD programme. Mr Assad has said that Syria was entitled to defend itself by acquiring its own biological and chemical weapons arsenal.
Syria was one of Iraq’s main allies in the run-up to the war and hundreds of Iraqi officials – including members of Saddam’s family – were given refuge in Damascus after the collapse of the Iraqi dictator’s regime. Many of the foreign fighters responsible for conducting terrorist attacks against the coalition are believed to have entered Iraq through Syria.
A Syrian official last night said: “These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false.”
April 6, 2006 - 03:41 PM on April 6th, 2006
I would like to hear thoughts from Peejz, mike kilo, and Robert about their opinions on why we have not yet attacked Syria. I can understand your stance that WsMD were sent there, since it has been shown that something was sent there, but no proof yet of what it actually was.
I also see San Fran’s point, since our government is denying it, regardless of the other sources that are speculating they have been.
So I just want to hear thoughts about why we haven’t rerouted some of our forces to Syria.
April 6, 2006 - 04:04 PM on April 6th, 2006
Do you think, given the current political climate, that it would be doable to invade Syria? Has Assad threatened to use WMD? Do you think it is possible, militarily, to invade Syria, Iran, and North Korea, even though they are all potential problems (N Korea and Iran are saber rattling, and are a higher priority than Syria)? I seriously doubt the U.S. has the resources to conduct any more invasions at the present time.
April 6, 2006 - 04:05 PM on April 6th, 2006
Actually Alyssa, our government isn’t denying it.
Why haven’t we sent troops into Syria? We have contained them up to this point, but they are still considereed a risk to us.
April 6, 2006 - 04:13 PM on April 6th, 2006
130–do you think that when we are able to lower the number of troops in Iraq, that they will be sent to Syria?
April 6, 2006 - 04:15 PM on April 6th, 2006
“EVERYBODY knows that BOTH republicans AND DEMOCRATS were ALL WRONG about Iraq WMD’s. Posting their comments may make you “feel”better about it, but it is extremely irrelevant to the situation at hand, which is, WHERE THE “F”ARE ALL THESE WMD’s YOU ARE SAYING IRAQ HAD????”
Idiot statement of the year!!! How about addressing the use of WMD against the Kurds and Iran, plus the U.N. cataloguing of Saddam’s WMD? Idiot! You don’t address that at all, you just keep bleating “Where are they! Where are they! This is a valid question but doesn’t mean Saddam never had any which is what you keep blathering!
Just for the record: Do you still assert that “Bush Lied!”?
April 6, 2006 - 04:24 PM on April 6th, 2006
Uhh, Peejz…you have some source you can post to back up your claim that our government ISN’T denying WMDs were sent to Syria?
And your reply to Alyssa on why we haven’t attacked Syria is pretty weak.
Because we have them contained? And you are saying Iraq wasn’t contained?
Lady, you can’t just make stuff up because it fits your point of view.
You need to base your arguments in THE REAL WORLD.
And in the real world, the Bush Admin owned up to the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq Pre-2003 invasion and that there is NO FIRM EVIDENCE (other than the word of ONE Iraqi general) to suggest they were sent to Syria.
Alyssa is 100% right to ask “If Syria took all Saddam’s WMDs, then why haven’t we attacked them” …or taken Syria to the UN Security Counsel to demand they hand over the WMDs…or hell, shouted it from the roof of the Capital Building in DC???
because there are no Iraqi WMDs in Syria.
It is a lie in an attempt to save face, having come up empty handed on WMDs in Iraq.
April 6, 2006 - 04:29 PM on April 6th, 2006
Robert, you owe me 1 dollar, dude.
I bet you $1 you couldn’t respond to me without resorting to lame insults…
next time, try to comeback at me WITHOUT weak invective.
and no, I don’t think “Bush Lied” on Iraq WMDs. I think he was mislead by the reports, and I think he then mislead the nation using poor intel. But to say Bush “lied”? No.
April 6, 2006 - 04:31 PM on April 6th, 2006
Ok racist…I’ll play along
Saddam Hussein was a gentle dictator, just hanging out, not doing much at all.
What should we have done? Seriously, I want to know your answer.
April 6, 2006 - 04:43 PM on April 6th, 2006
No one is saying he was a gentle dictator, just “hanging out”…
HOWEVER, CLEARLY…he was not a major threat to the United States. His military was a fraction of the size it was in 1990. He had no Air Force. He had no WMD.
He was militarily contained, especially with the enforcement of the No-Fly zones in the North and South.
What should we have done? My personal opinion is that we should have continued the regional, military containment and the No-Fly Zone enforcement, and we should have encouraged – through various means – the Iraqi people to revolt against the ruling minority-Sunni Baath Party.
That’s it.
My friend would still be alive and his two year old son would still have a father.
April 6, 2006 - 04:46 PM on April 6th, 2006
Mar. 22, 2006
Iraq refuted WMD claims, tapes show
By Charles J. Hanley
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they’d given up banned weapons.
“We don’t have anything hidden!” the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.
At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years” in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. “When is this going to end?” he asked.
It ended in 2004, when U.S. experts, after an exhaustive investigation, confirmed what the men in those meetings were saying: that Iraq had eliminated its weapons of mass destruction long ago, a finding that discredited the Bush administration’s stated rationale for invading Iraq in 2003 — to locate WMD.
The newly released documents are among U.S. government translations of audiotapes or Arabic-language transcripts from top-level Iraqi meetings — dating from about 1996-97 back to the period soon after the 1991 Gulf War, when the U.N. Security Council sent inspectors to disarm Iraq.
continue reading here
April 6, 2006 - 05:30 PM on April 6th, 2006
Syrian WMD’s
Contine reading here
and here
The CIA’s chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing “sufficiently credible” evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Inspector Charles Duelfer, who heads the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), made the findings in an addendum to his final report filed last year. He said the search for WMD in Iraq — the main reason President Bush went to war to oust Saddam Hussein — has been exhausted without finding such weapons. Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s.
But on the question of Syria, Mr. Duelfer did not close the books. “ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war,” Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA’s Web site Monday night.
He cited some evidence of a transfer. “Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said. “There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.”
But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because “the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.”
April 6, 2006 - 05:51 PM on April 6th, 2006
“BAGHDAD, Iraq – Exasperated, besieged by global pressure, Saddam Hussein and top aides searched for ways in the 1990s to prove to the world they’d given up banned weapons.
“We don’t have anything hidden!”the frustrated Iraqi president interjected at one meeting, transcripts show.
At another, in 1996, Saddam wondered whether U.N. inspectors would “roam Iraq for 50 years”in a pointless hunt for weapons of mass destruction. “When is this going to end?”he asked.”
Saddam then turned to a reporter and displaying big puppy dog eyes, said “I’m just a big, fuzzy, harmless Teddy Bear!”
Awww….
April 6, 2006 - 05:52 PM on April 6th, 2006
“Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined,” he said.
THAT right there. I saw this addendum to the final 2004 report when researching my case.
Duelfer HIMSELF says Syria taking Iraqs WMDs has “yet to be determined”
“YET TO BE DETERMINED” is not the same as “WE KNOW IRAQ MOVED WMD’s TO SYRIA AND HERE IS THE PROOF”
“There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.â€
By all means, we should and will investigate. HOWEVER, you cannot say that this PROVES Syria took WMD from Iraq.
So your point is: It’s unknown if Syria took WsMD from Iraq.
I can accept that. Just don’t FOR ONE MINUTE say it’s 100% true, because there simply is no current evidence for it.
And Alyssa hit the nail on the head with the question; “If Syria took WMD from Iraq, why hasn’t the world COME DOWN HARD on Syria?”
I rest my case.
April 6, 2006 - 05:53 PM on April 6th, 2006
OK, Robert, you made me laugh on that one.
April 6, 2006 - 06:00 PM on April 6th, 2006
140–Robert, regardless if someone disagrees with you or not, they all have to admit that was freaking hilarious!
April 6, 2006 - 06:02 PM on April 6th, 2006
Continuing the story:
However, some questions do remain. The above-referenced transcripts and tapes were found wrapped in copies of the Baghdad Free Press dated in 2003, just before the U.S. invasion.
And nowhere was found any documentation that Saddam had destroyed the WMD stockpiles known by the U.N. to exist. None of his former staff, when questioned, could offer any testimony to that effect either.
And what about those tons of enriched uranium found in Iraq after the invasion? “Oh, I was saving that to use as filler in a big sandbox in the Baghdad City Park for kids to play in” explained Saddam.
Regarding yellowcake, which Iraq, it turns out DID try to buy from Niger (despite the lies promulgated by Joe Wilson), it turns out that Saddam thought that was actually a type of birthday cake, which he was planning to use at a birthday for his son Uday. He thought it would be swell to import an exotic cake ffrom Niger! When he discovered his error, the plan was scrapped!
Since we’re Liberals, hate Bush, and love John Kerry – - – WE BELIEVE!!!
April 6, 2006 - 06:04 PM on April 6th, 2006
It’s all entertainment in the end…
April 6, 2006 - 06:59 PM on April 6th, 2006
Peejz;
“Zelda- He didn’t have the weapons in March 03′..he had 6 months to move them.â€
Thank you for your reply. But can we discus this for a little bit? If Saddam won’t use WMDs when his OWN COUNTRY IS INVADED by a superior military force when would he use them??? This is like you’re playing the most important poker game of your life against the best in the world and your send your trump card to a friend who isn’t even involved in your game. It makes no sense.
Even if what you say is completely true about Syria, then Saddam was not the imminent threat to America that you make him out to be. Even in the biggest crisis of his life he did not use WMDs.
April 6, 2006 - 07:03 PM on April 6th, 2006
“It’s all entertainment in the end…”
Ha. So is my crack pipe.
Occasionally you can learn something if you listen though. I’ve even learned a thing or two from my good buddy Snowy Egret.
April 6, 2006 - 07:07 PM on April 6th, 2006
Okay, I’m going back to my crack pipe. (The war on drugs is still a failure, but I guess no one talks about it any more)
But seriously though you guys are in the minority on Iraq/Syria/WMDs. You might just be right, but you are definitely in the minority. Kind of like the people who thought Senator Kerry would be a good President.
April 6, 2006 - 07:18 PM on April 6th, 2006
Zelda- You have followed all the same reports that I have. If I am to believe the AP and the other alphabet news orgs..Saddam didn’t bank on us taking Bagdad..Rumor has it that he thought it would end much like the Gulf War did…He was expecting that Oil For Food coalition he set up to pay off in spades for him. Well it didn’t did it? Saddam’s family had been moved to Syria, and it would be my guess that he did have an escape plan to get over to Syria.. Who knows..But even Clinton figured on the moving of the weapons 6 months before we attacked.
And as for me being in the minority on my belief on this..I don’t think I am a much a minority as you think..and I do think Clinton is right..Syria would be dumb enough to use them..
I would attack them, but I don’t call the shots.
April 7, 2006 - 06:53 AM on April 7th, 2006
Zelda,
You’ll note that I’ve remained mum on your “war on drugs” question.
………………………………….
December 1, 2006 - 01:29 AM on December 1st, 2006
omg, this is reminescent of hitler:
“German Jews during WWII = Innocent victims
“Palestinians today”= Muslim animals.” – Mike kilo
You seem to think that the killing of the jews was horrible, but then say it is justifiable to kill them because they are ALL “muslim animals”. You are just blindly taking sides and advocating the destruction of another people. How is the destruction of any group justifiable? The palestinians arent going away so they should give them some kind of homeland for them and stop giving them a reason to blow stuff up and grovel
December 1, 2006 - 08:08 AM on December 1st, 2006
krak-idiot, The Jews aren’t going away either. Wiping them off the map was Hitler’s, Stalin’s, and your dream. Go to Hell.