On Mon, 23 May 2005 18:51:35 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...


"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 May 2005 16:22:13 GMT, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:



I wouldn't trade every life in Iraq for a single one of them.


Or maybe, OTOH, I would, gladly and in a heart beat.

J.

Also noted..and I know its from the heart.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

Follow-ups to: alt.politics

Gunner wrote:
...

They were all speaking in the late 1990s when Clinton bombed Iraq to
"degrade" an Iraqi WMD capacity that we are supposed to believe
disappeared in the inspection-free years that ensued, only to be
resurrected as a false justification for war by the Bush
administration."


Evidently Desert Fox finished off what was left of the WMD program.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

That is not to say that Saddam Hussein abandoned his 'WMD ambitions'
no one ever denied that. But the evidence is that Iraq concentrated
on missile development, just pushing the edge of the imposed limits,
and had put off WMD developement hoping to be able to resume it
at a later time.

No one, or nearly no one, argues that Saddam Hussein would have
not become a threat if he could, we just argue that was still
successfully contained. Despite that, there were still plenty
of good arguments for the invasion, they just weren't sufficient
to get the Congress to pass a war powers resolution. Bush,
unlike Clinton, evidently was not willing to blatantly violate
the War Powers Act.

--

FF

On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:11:53 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

You of all people should know emotionalism causes blindness.

And, after ~ 100,000 + of your friends, relatives, neighbors,
fellow citizens and fellow Arabs are murdered by some crazed
neocons with their packs of lies and love of wars ....
--
Cliff

On 23 May 2005 14:52:05 -0700, wrote:

No one, or nearly no one, argues that Saddam Hussein would have
not become a threat if he could

Unlike Herr shrubbie & the neocons, eh?
--
Cliff

On 23 May 2005 14:41:30 -0700, wrote:

The Watcher wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:31:17 -0400, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:

(snip)
The point is, finding *two* shells, or bombs, or whatever they were
is such
a ludicrous response to the question of where are the WMDs, that the
only
possible response to YOUR response is to make a joke of it.

Wrong. Unless you redefine WMD's(like Cliffie and others of his ilk
have TRIED
to do) to change the meaning of the phrase so that it no longer
includes
chemical munitions, the 2 rounds found are still WMD's, in which case
the
absolute statement which people keep making "No WMD's have been found
in Iraq."
is a lie.

As has been pointed out many times, the two(2) chemical shells were
most likely duds scavenged from old test ranges or battlefields.
They certainly were WMD shells and no doubt there are hundreds more
such duds scattered accross the old battlefields of Iraq. Thus it is
literally a lie to say there were not WMDS in Iraq. But to argue
that those previously fired but unrecovered duds are _the WMD_
that justified invasion is even more dishonest and to do so that
would be to lie about the substance of the matter.

I see that you've spotted a few with Winger's Disease.
--
Cliff

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...


It looks like the Committee is trying to draw a veil over the whole thing:

http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fu...&HearingID=232

notice that the Galloway report is missing. Guess they are still reeling
from the smackdown they suffered.


Heh, heh, that's real interesting. They posted the testimony of all six of
the other witnesses, but not his.

Hmmm....


Hmmm.... A week later and the Senate Committee still haven't posted the
Galloway testimony just lame excuses:
http://hsgac.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fu...&HearingID=232

Even better the Jordanian they accused him of coniving with to defraud
the Oil for Food program has just been given big arms contracts by the
US government.

"Senator Norm Coleman, said that the contract was irrelevant
to its investigations into abuses of the UN-controlled
"oil for food" programme in Iraq.

Meanwhile, doubt has been cast by Mr Galloway's advisers on
the authenticity of the four documents used by Senator Coleman
to brand the MP an oil trader last week. They insisted yesterday
the Senate had so far only shown them English-language translations
of allegedly genuine Iraqi documents.

The Arabic originals, which were mostly hidden behind the English
translations, appeared to be very blurred, repeatedly copied
documents."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...p?story=640428