PDA

View Full Version : Downing Street Memo



Pages : [1] 2

kermi3
06-17-2005, 08:39 PM
The story about the Downing Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo) Memo (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html) is just starting to break over here in the states. House Democrats held a late night hearing in the only small room that the House leadership would allow them to have Thursday night. I guess this has the potential to be real big. If it's true, it's a much better reason for impeachment than the presidents sex life....

Anyway, a question for those of you in the UK, I was wondering how much the memo was being discussed over there, and what people were saying.

sean
06-17-2005, 09:54 PM
it's a much better reason for impeachment than the presidents sex life

If I'm not mistaken, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

kermi3
06-17-2005, 10:02 PM
Indeed, I stand corrected, the comment was ment in sarcasm.


Though Clinton's lies were certainly a reason for impeaching him, I still believe that manipulating the country into war under false pretenses (assuming you take the implications of the memo to their furthest extent) is a far better reason for impeaching a president.

(I also don't think anyone should've been asking Clinton those questions, but that's a different issue.)

sean
06-17-2005, 10:14 PM
Sounds fair. I'm not gonna deny that there very well may have been tampering with inteligence, etc.. but WMDs or not (and I'm still of the opinion that many were shipped to Jordan in the weeks before the inevitable invasion), Iraq still, in my opinion, needed to be invaded. Rape chambers. Mass graves. Oh won't somebody pleease think of the children!?

Now I think there needs to be an investigation into the shamming of inteligence, but I don't think everybody should be using this to attack the current administration as a whole. Sure there are lots of places that need to be invaded. Take for example, Zimbabwe. Robert Mugabe took over the country after several years of being a "freedom fighter against a racist government". However, this was against one of the least racist governments I've ever heard of in Africa. In my opinion, he was and is in every sense of the word a terrorist. He refuses UN aid, and the majority of his country is dying from starvation, AIDS, and the police who help themselves to anything they see fit from civilians. I wouldn't be surprized if his mass graves were accompanied by rape chambers - but what the heck does America want from Zimbabwe? We can't destory them all, so let's start with the ones most relevant to US interests.

kermi3
06-17-2005, 10:30 PM
Sean - I agree with you that we can't go attacking everyone, we can't be the world's police. It's not the US's job, right, or responsibility.

However, what concerns me is that the decision to go to war in Iraq might not have been a well-informed and necessary decision. I'm most concerned about the possibilities of altered intelligences misleading the public. If the administration did doctor intelligence to fit their desires and start the country down the path to war, then they should be attacked.

sean
06-17-2005, 10:32 PM
This is funner without rep.

(Hey someone else needs to jump in here. I think we're about done. And I'm going to bed.)

Govtcheez
06-18-2005, 06:10 AM
> If I'm not mistaken, Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

About his sex life. Bush won't get impeached because there's absolutely no way he'll go under oath. That means he'd have to take responsibility for something for once.

Saddam was and is a very bad man. There's absolutely no doubt about it. However, like you said, there are plenty of bad men in the world. What the hell was the point of going after him when there was already a war going on in Afghanistan? We've found no WMDs, the people of Iraq hate us, we're stretched so thin that if something really bad actually were to happen, we'd be boned, and we're not even getting the oil that the dumber people think this war was for. I was 100% behind invading Afghanistan, but Iraq makes no sense at all.

> This is funner without rep.

Funner is not a word. rep-- :mad:

nvoigt
06-18-2005, 07:14 AM
the decision to go to war in Iraq might not have been a well-informed and necessary decision.


A good part of the world has been lamenting about the fact before the first soldier even entered Iraq, so I don't really think this is news at all.

If "old europe" learned one thing from the recent past, it's that even a head of state can be a lying, cheating, murdering psycho bastard. And waving a thousand flags of the respective country doesn't make it any better.
Not saying that Bush is any of that, but patriotism must not neccessarily be a good thing. It can also be a very powerful propaganda weapon to wipe away any reasonable argument. And just like a nuclear weapon, there is not really a "good" use for it.

Glirk Dient
06-18-2005, 08:18 AM
The downing street memo is too debatable to use as evidence. It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the timeline of events and is therefore thought of as a fake. On top of that why go to the U.N. if you decided to use military action before going to the U.N.? The memo doesn't hold up as credible evidence.

1) It was written by a third party
2) The word fix has several meaning
3) The third party does not attribute the word fix to a direct quote from either Bush or Blair
4) Why has none of the people that seem so concerned regarding the memo asked the person that wrote it what it means
5) Regime change in Iraq has been "Official US POLICY Since 1998).

7smurfs
06-18-2005, 09:03 AM
The downing street memo is too debatable to use as evidence. It doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the timeline of events and is therefore thought of as a fake. On top of that why go to the U.N. if you decided to use military action before going to the U.N.? The memo doesn't hold up as credible evidence. To make it look like they are legit?

VirtualAce
06-18-2005, 08:24 PM
I agree as well that the whole war issue is losing ground and that there well may never have been a good reason to go. Several of my friends and I'm sure several of yours are over there right now and it does not make it easy to talk about. While I'm sitting here in my air-conditioned room at home, they are over there doing the job they signed up for (your job is whatever they tell you it is) and so I do not want to dishonor their courage nor their sacrifice.

However, facts are facts. It is clear that there was more behind the scenes than we knew about or were led to believe. As for impeachment, I'm not sure it's a good practice to get into to begin looking for crap to impeach all of our President's. Many, many past Presidents have made similar mistakes including Lyndon B. Johnson with the Vietnam War and perhaps even Harry S. Truman with the dropping of the atomic bombs. Today that would not be acceptable, of course, but then not many could question the decision. Today people would be finding a reason to impeach him.

I guess here is the point. If you go looking for trouble and for reasons to impeach a President, we could find dirt on just about every President out there. Clinton's case is simply a matter of lying under oath and that the chief citizen of the United States should not do that, however, I do agree the trial was directed more towards his personal life than anything which was simply not fair. But the fact remains that Clinton did lie under oath in a U.S. court and the penalty for any citizen that does that is very clear in our system of law. Clinton violated that....and with that I have a problem.

But I do not agree that Clinton was necessarily a bad President nor deserving of the media mess he received. As for his decision with the Monica thing, well that is his business....but it is the business of the United States if he lied under oath in a court of law. It is unfortunate that some did not stick to the facts and instead attempted to attack him.
Not exactly our most noble moment in American Politics.

I hope we don't go down this road with every President in the future. He does something we don't like, we look for a way to remove him legally. That's not what our system is about.
If Bush manipulated the system then he was wrong. But he is not the first person nor the last person in power that has or will do that. Clinton did much the same, as did Reagan, and on down the line.

So I don't think it's a healthy practice to begin pointing fingers at every President for offenses that, in past times, would not have been considered grounds for impeachment. We will see what happens with our next President. But since we are in 'impeachment mode' I think we will begin to see a very unfortunate pattern evolve in our political system.
Time will tell.

sean
06-18-2005, 08:29 PM
We've found no WMDs,

Yes we have - just not in amounts large enough to be considered, "stockpiles". And once again - Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may have.


the people of Iraq hate us

They're not the majority.


On top of that why go to the U.N. if you decided to use military action before going to the U.N.?

My personal opinion is, "Why go to the U.N.?" :D

webmaster
06-18-2005, 11:07 PM
Yes we have - just not in amounts large enough to be considered, "stockpiles".

I must have missed a, uh, major news story somewhere because all I've ever heard were reports of possible findings that were later retracted or that weren't actually findings of weapons. Given that they are, after all, weapons of mass destruction, it doesn't really seem like having a "stockpile" of them is really necessary for it to be important. But I could be wrong; do you have a source?

Edit: So, looking into this a bit more, the ever-helpful wikipedia points out two finds: a shell containing mustard gas and an IED made from a shell containing sarin. It's not entirely clear that these weapons came from Saddam's regime, but we did find the in Iraq.

sean
06-18-2005, 11:16 PM
I recall artillery shells loaded with Sarin nerve gas. I'll find the source in the morning.

jverkoey
06-19-2005, 04:26 AM
Civil War.

*yawn*
*shuts down computer*

Govtcheez
06-19-2005, 06:16 AM
> Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may have.

Once again our excellent intelligence has no idea where. It's not as if we blindly decided to go in there. We had had our eye on Iraq (whether as an invasion target or not) for quite some time. Where'd they go?

> They're not the majority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22403-2004May12.html

Four out of five Iraqis report holding a negative view of the U.S. occupation authority and of coalition forces, according to a new poll conducted for the occupation authority.

In the poll, 80 percent of the Iraqis questioned reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the U.S. and allied militaries in Iraq.

Saddam claimed he didn't have them. The UN inspectors said there was no evidence he had them. Is it more likely that he didn't actually have them, or that Bush is lying?

> I'll find the source in the morning

IIRC, they found two shells containing long inert sarin gas. If you find any evidence that there have been any of the stockpiles, by all means contact major news locations, because no one's said anything.
Time will tell.While I agree that it's silly to impeach every president, if it is found that Bush led us to war based on lies as it appears, then I think it's warranted. 1700 Americans and thousands of Iraqis have died, billions of dollars have been spent. Billions more have been spent on top of what was told to us in the beginning. None of our interests have been advanced, besides propping up a friendly government in the region, which will undoubtedly come back to bite us in the ass.

golfinguy4
06-20-2005, 07:29 AM
Yes we have - just not in amounts large enough to be considered, "stockpiles". And once again - Saddam had plenty of time to ship the WMDs elsewhere and there is evidence that he very well may have.



They're not the majority.



My personal opinion is, "Why go to the U.N.?" :D

Sorry sean, but I'm bored at work, aka time for me to tear you a new arsehole...


A) Saddam had WMD's? According to what, our little CG graphics we showed to the UN? I'm sure the purple boxes were real convincing. Need the Kennedy pictures of nukes in Cuba be brought up again as a form of comarison? Would the leader of any nation say "the word of the US president is good enough for me?"


B) Already refuted.


C) Why go to the UN? I don't know, maybe because the UN and not the US is the world police? If the UN decides to take Saddam out of power, it's the world's decision; that carries a bit more weight than the decision of a single (and yes fallible) nation.

sean
06-20-2005, 07:47 AM
If the UN's there we need to go to them, but the number of times that this country's been screwed over or messed around by the UN leads me to believe that the US would be a lot better off if the UN never existed at all.

And after some research I was thinking of the shells govt talked about - looks like I'll have to concede defeat on this one - but I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.

Brian
06-20-2005, 07:57 AM
but I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.

They were in 2003.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 08:01 AM
>but the number of times that this country's been screwed over ... by the UN leads me to believe that the US would be a lot better off if the UN never existed at all.

Please elaborate. I don't recall ever being "screwed over" by the UN.

> I still stand by my other points that WMDs were not the only reason for going to Iraq.

But they were the biggest selling point. I've said this before, but if Bush had just said "Saddam is a really bad man and we're going to kick his ass to try and stabilize the Middle East", I probably would have supported the war. Instead, he makes up this crap about WMDs and Hussein harboring al-Qaeda members and everything and we get into this garbage. No thanks. The continual whitewashing of stuff by the administration certainly doesn't help my opinion, either.

sean
06-20-2005, 08:29 AM
UN:

http://patriotpetitions.us/intro.asp?id=4

And I agree with govt's second paragraph.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 08:46 AM
I'll check out that link when I'm not at work.

edit: If you agree with my second paragraph, why do support the war? Do you feel the ends justify the means? You don't care about being lied to as long as something happens?

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 08:59 AM
I still don't believe bush lied. I think he was simply given information on how it is most likely that Iraq had WMDs...so likely that it is pretty much guaranteed. Much like the OJ trial. He then used that as the biggest point because if we said Sadam is a bad man, people would say "So what...it's none of your business to tell people how their country should be". If we said he was a direct threat to America and harboring terrorists(especially after 9/11) then there would be a whole lot more support for the war.

I also think that instead of trying to defeat our invading armies, sadam instead hid WMDs and also traces to terrorists he supported in order to make America look bad and instead of him defeating us we would defeat ourselves and the world would hate us. That seems a whole lot more effective than trying to fight us.

pianorain
06-20-2005, 09:15 AM
<offtopic> Anyone else miss the Iraqi Minister of Information? </offtopic>

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 09:30 AM
> I think he was simply given information on how it is most likely that Iraq had WMDs...so likely that it is pretty much guaranteed.

Oh ok. So he just led us to war on intelligence that pretty much everyone else thought or knew was faulty. He's not a liar, he's just incompetent. That's fine with me! And what is pretty much guaranteed?

> Much like the OJ trial.

I... um... okay...

> sadam instead hid WMDs and also traces to terrorists he supported in order to make America look bad

When proof of any of this turns up, let me know. Instead you're just justifying it based on no evidence.

> instead of him defeating us we would defeat ourselves and the world would hate us. That seems a whole lot more effective than trying to fight us.

Yeah, giving up has proven to be a much better strategy for him.

> <offtopic> Anyone else miss the Iraqi Minister of Information? </offtopic>

I hear he's our SecDef now :)

sean
06-20-2005, 10:02 AM
I do miss the Iraqi Minister of Information... he was a hoot. "This is a complete lie. American forces are nowhere near Baghdad"... and there's a tank rolling through in the back.

Well we're having our floors redone with wood, and I'm not gonna have much access to the PC for a week, so this is probably my last post for a while (govt - you better not forget that letter!) - so here's my final two cents:

Before we invaded Iraq, Bush gave a speech outlining the reasons. WMDs were first on the list, but they were by no means the only reasons. Among others were the aforementioned rape chambers, mass graves, etc... (whether you think that's any of our business is debatable - I think it should be, personally). We knew he had WMDs that were given to Iraq when they were helping us in the middle east, I think in the 70's. Some of this stuff had gone missing - which leads to wonder what else has gone missing.

I'll try and find some information to document this (though that may take a while), so for the mean time this is, as govt said, just an unsupported theory: In the weeks before the imminent invasion - hundreds of trucks were seen leaving for Jordan. Somehow or another our inteligence lost track of them - but the contents of those trucks was never accounted for. I agree with Girk Client - I don't think Saddam thought he had any chance of winning a war against the US. He still claims he won Desert Storm, but thats... well we all saw the tanks driving out of Kuwait. Look at it this way - he either spends resources fighting, which wouldn't have workd because he either loses the long way, or actually does use WMDs if has them, but at that point other world forces would just join and kill him quicker. Or he spends his resources hiding WMDs and when he finally does lose, he looks innocent.

The only things I think Bush did wrong were push the WMDs as the main issue (though in that situation I very well have misconstrued things the same way), and although he planned the invasion quite well (his generals, at least), I think a long-lasting guerilla war was inevitable, and perhaps could've prepared better for the current situation.

But of course, the main reason I support Bush is just the social issues, so most of this is irrelevant for me - I would still support him.

edit: on top of the information in the link I sent govt (which isn't all the well argued, I will admit), here's a slightly forgotten story from the first night of the invasion. A "target of opportunity" arose when inteligence located the bunker where the Hussein's and most of the deck of cards would be sleeping. They sent in an F-117 to take out the bunker, but somehow, the Iraqis managed to track the stealth fighter and put enough AA fire in the air to compromise the mission (the F-117 was never hit, but had to leave before the job was finished). Anyone know who taught the Iraqi's how to track stealth Aircraft? The French.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 10:10 AM
> and there's a tank rolling through in the back

Dude, special effects! Baghdad is like the Hollywood of the Middle East! Everyone knows that!

> In the weeks before the imminent invasion - hundreds of trucks were seen leaving for Jordan.

Proof please. This is the first I've heard of that. Besides, Occam's Razor applies here.

> He still claims he won Desert Storm, but thats... well we all saw the tanks driving out of Kuwait.

Special effects! Seriously, Saddam's opinion on Desert Storm is really irrelevant. His rule depended entirely on showing no imperfection at all, so of course he's going to say that.

> But of course, the main reason I support Bush is just the social issues, so most of this is irrelevant for me - I would still support him.

You realize you can say he shouldn't have gone to war and still support him, right? You and I obviously disagree on social issues, but I can see why you'd support him there. I see no reason at all to support his war unless you're deluding yourself.

edit:
> Anyone know who taught the Iraqi's how to track stealth Aircraft? The French.

Um... So what?

sean
06-20-2005, 10:18 AM
No, I think he should've gone to war. I disagree with some of the stuff that went on the background like if evidence really was doctored, (though I'm not entirely convinced of that) and things like that. I still think he should've gone to war.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13835

Granted, I'm sure this is biased, but that's the kind of think I'm talking about. Do a google search for "WMDs Jordan", and I found a lot of interesting stuff (this website included). I'm not saying this is proof, but I'm sure it's better than nothing.

Gosh, cheez, use Google! :D

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 10:41 AM
> Gosh, cheez, use Google!

If I wasn't doing this at work, I might.

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 10:47 AM
Oh ok. So he just led us to war on intelligence that pretty much everyone else thought or knew was faulty. He's not a liar, he's just incompetent. That's fine with me! And what is pretty much guaranteed?

When you are given a piece of paper that says Iraq has WMDs and has 50 pages of evidence, why would he say Nah, theres no way...especially when theres so much evidence its almost a joke to say he doesn't. Of course he would believe them telling him there is for certain WMDs in Iraq. To go to war on this evidence isn't Bush's fault but the people who came up with false evidence. It is their job to make sure what they are telling the president is 100% correct.

sean
06-20-2005, 11:06 AM
The point behind the Downing Street memo is that the President was determined to go to war with Iraq BEFORE that evidence was given to him.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 11:13 AM
Besides, Bush has never had a problem ignoring evidence if it doesn't suit him (see the numerous environmental reports that have had conclusions twisted or outright changed).

edit: Also, I expect the President to look into something like that further before committing all these troops to it. Why were so few othe countries convinced that the evidence was good? Maybe we should have looked to them instead?

golfinguy4
06-20-2005, 11:33 AM
When you are given a piece of paper that says Iraq has WMDs and has 50 pages of evidence, why would he say Nah, theres no way...especially when theres so much evidence its almost a joke to say he doesn't. Of course he would believe them telling him there is for certain WMDs in Iraq. To go to war on this evidence isn't Bush's fault but the people who came up with false evidence. It is their job to make sure what they are telling the president is 100% correct.

Hate to burst your bubble, but 50 pages is almost nothing when it comes to making a decision of that magnitude.

sean
06-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Why were so few othe countries convinced that the evidence was good? Maybe we should have looked to them instead?

I'm remind of the quote, "The last time the French asked for more proof, it ended up marching into Paris under German flag". :D

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 11:48 AM
oh hey good rebuttal

sean
06-20-2005, 12:02 PM
And shouldn't you be working?

pianorain
06-20-2005, 12:06 PM
And shouldn't you be working?Shouldn't you be gone? ;)
Well we're having our floors redone with wood, and I'm not gonna have much access to the PC for a week, so this is probably my last post for a while (govt - you better not forget that letter!) - so here's my final two cents:

sean
06-20-2005, 12:10 PM
oh hey good rebuttal

Well it's a half day at work and I don't have to be there until 1, and as it turns out they're not going to tent-off the first floor until Wednesday.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 12:11 PM
And shouldn't you be working?
shhh

nvoigt
06-20-2005, 01:40 PM
In the weeks before the imminent invasion - hundreds of trucks were seen leaving for Jordan.


Obviously Bush doesn't know, because last thing I heard, Jordan is still a sovereign state :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 02:42 PM
Both of those sources are biased enough that they can be essentially dismissed out of hand, sean. The UN whining page complains about assignments of countries to Council posts, as well as complaining about a non-involvement of the UN in various things around the world. If I remember correctly, we didn't exactly jump at the chance to help those particular places, either. The second decides that Saddam really did have all those weapons based on some engines being found that could be used in rockets. This is very similar to the Bush claim about the stainless steel rods found earlier.

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 04:23 PM
Here is a google search that has a few more articles on WMD equipment being removed.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22equipment+removed+from+Iraq%22&btnG=Google+Search

When I said 50...I made that up. Each piece of evidence may have had that many pages attached to it, I'm just saying is there is a whole lot of evidence and things that point to WMDs. This is just like the OJ Trial, all of the evidence is there but people still claim he is innocent.

There is too much evidence and reason for me to think he didn't have WMDs, gassing his own people, nearby countries being given weapons they can't produce on their own, equipment being removed. He had the means to make them and the motive, and he also had the means to hide every shred of evidence.

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 04:59 PM
OK thanks I couldn't use google on my own. Show me a credible source out of that mess. I'm not going to do your research for you.

> When I said 50...I made that up.

Oh no ..........? :rolleyes:

> This is just like the OJ Trial, all of the evidence is there but people still claim he is innocent.

It's sure a good thing that we got rid of that whole "jury" thing and let Glirk Dient decide the fate of everyone.

> nearby countries being given weapons they can't produce on their own

Proof, please.

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 06:16 PM
I was going to give a list of sites showing that, but there were so many it was more efficient to post the google search. Well, here is your list.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2004/10/15/systematic_removal_seen_of_iraq_nuclear_equipment/
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2004-daily/15-10-2004/main/main8.htm
http://new-frontiers.org/newsarchives/display.aspx?n=494
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002063973_iraqnuke15.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041015/news_1n15nuclear.html

Chemical weapons in Jordan
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4771882/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1083014501.shtml

Here is an interesting article.
http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html

It talks about how Iraq used mustard gas, how Iraq developed the ability to create WMDs on its own and how well they hide it.

This article says that Iraq did not come up with sufficient evidence that it destoryed all of its WMD stockpile.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98042705_npo.html

Here is a pre invasion article that says Iraq has unaccounted stockpile and possibly the ability to quickly create WMDs
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/02/iraq.weapons/

Here is a good read to refute the downing street memo
http://allthingsconservative.typepad.com/all_things_conservative/2005/06/memoshmemo.html

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 07:10 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...lear_equipment/
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/oct2.../main/main8.htm
http://new-frontiers.org/newsarchiv...play.aspx?n=494
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...iraqnuke15.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/union...n15nuclear.htmlThat's the same AP article 5 times. Also, considering the theft occured after our invasion it's more a testament to our incompetence than anything else.
Chemical weapons in Jordan
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4771882/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast.../jordan.terror/
http://www.donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1083014501.shtmlNone of these have anything to do with Iraq, except tangentially. I don't think it's news to anyone that Jordan has terrorists in it.
This article says that Iraq did not come up with sufficient evidence that it destoryed all of its WMD stockpile.That article from 5 years before the invasion?
Here is a pre invasion article that says Iraq has unaccounted stockpile and possibly the ability to quickly create WMDsSo, that article was wrong. What's your point?
Here is a good read to refute the downing street memoWow, what an awesome source! Maybe I should start linking you to some DemocraticUnderground bloggers and we could have a real party!

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 07:14 PM
Wow govt...way to look at evidence and say your wrong I am right. WMDs aren't easy to make, where do you think the terrorists in jordan got them?

If you would actually read the refute it might help, but I have posted my evidence.

Zach L.
06-20-2005, 07:27 PM
Just a couple points:
1. All those links you posted in the first batch are essentially the same (in several cases, exactly the same, all from AP), so that is not multiple sources.
2. In regards to chemical weapons in Jordan...

Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!
3. You proceed to post old news. Yes, Iraq did make WMDs, (yes, we supported Iraq), but no, that does not mean that they had anything two years ago.
4. Hmm...

UNSCOM has
reported no firm evidence that Iraq still retains weapons or material,
but the Iraqi government has not provided adequate evidence to support
its claim all its CBW arsenal has been destroyed, nor has it accounted
for CBW production materials known to have been in its possession.
No proof either way.
5. Iraq was uncooperative, and may have had chemical/biological weapons. This is not news to anyone.
6. I tried reading through that, and perhaps he makes some good points, but everything was masked by pure emotion, so it was hard to tell, and I couldn't stomach too much.

So, you've demonstrated what everyone here already knew: there is very little 'proof' for either side of the argument, but there is very little evidence (beyond posturing) that Iraq did have WMDs.

And so, I leave you with this very relevant link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8288955/

Glirk Dient
06-20-2005, 07:40 PM
Sadam was later quoted saying "If you mother ..........ers don't give me some d*mn dorritos I swear I'll blow this mother ..........ing place up!!!"

Mmm, dorritos. I bet he had no WMDs...must have been stockpiles of dorritos.

sean
06-20-2005, 07:40 PM
Then he smiled, made what O’Shea interpreted as a “spanking” gesture, laughed and went back to washing his clothes in the sink.

You can't make this stuff up...

Govtcheez
06-20-2005, 08:10 PM
> where do you think the terrorists in jordan got them?

Definitely it's obviously from Iraq, since they are the only place in the whole entire world with them and Jordan sure as hell doesn't have the money to make any because I mean, who buys OIL?

> If you would actually read the refute it might help, but I have posted my evidence.

I scanned it, but it didn't provide much new information. If I posted information from the National Enquirer, would you take it seriously? No? OK.