Iraq had WMD before US Invasion

[Kyi Yo]

Someone should give this guy a clue.

Thompson: Iraq had WMDs before U.S. invaded
By THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

October 1, 2007

Newton, Ia. — Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said today he was certain former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the 4.5 years since the war began.

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

The question of whether Saddam had banned chemical and biological weapons, and plans to acquire nuclear weapons, has been the subject of intense debate in light of inspectors' failure to find such evidence since the war began.

Thompson made the statement while explaining why he felt the war was justified, despite the Bush administration's chief justification for the invasion turning out not to be verifiable.

"In my estimation, his intent never did change," Thompson said. "And by today, he clearly would have had that (weapons program) rejuvenated."

Thompson, who arrived in Iowa on Saturday, had events planned today in Marshalltown and Cedar Falls. Thompson plans to campaign Tuesday in Fort Dodge, Clinton and Coralville before wrapping up Wednesday in Dubuque. It is Thompson's second trip to Iowa since entering the race last month.

Thompson was traveling with his wife, Jeri, and country music star John Rich, the second half of the act Big and Rich.

Thompson also defended his proposed alternative constitutional amendment aimed at strengthening states' ability to block same-sex marriage. Many social conservatives have said they prefer a simple constitutional ban.

Thompson backs a two-part proposal to block judges from considering gay-marriage court decisions from other states, and bar judicial enactment of same-sex marriage in states where the legislature has not passed laws allowing it.

"It preserves the principles of federalism which is a good, sound conservative thing to preserve," he told reporters after the Newton event. "You've got to be awfully, awfully reticent to go in and do more than is absolutely necessary with a constitutional amendment."

[Scorpion]

Iraq did have WMDs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

[BoogyMan]

Hi Kyi Yo,

Do the folks in the lost below need to get a clue as well?

"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."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 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 Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam 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 process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

[Elrathin]

Boogy, just curious, where are all those STOCKPILES of WMD that he was supposed to have had then?

[ViolaLee]

Boogy, between 1998 when they all said that, and 2003 when Bush invaded with shock and awe, the UN inspectors destroyed all the weapons.

See Hans Blick and Scott Ritter.

[Drocket]

Do the folks in the lost below need to get a clue as well?

No, because they were absolutely correct. There's absolutely no doubt but that Saddam wanted to acquire WMDs. There's also absolutely no doubt (except among the stupid) that he DID NOT acquire WMDs. Mostly because of actions Clinton took during the 90's that the Republicans opposed.

Keep on pretending that decade-old quotes about Saddam wanting WMDs proves that he had, them, though.

[April15]

My view is that Saddam had WMD's from Reagan but by the time of the us invasion he had nothing left. All the noise about nukes was a cover for his lack of any substantial arsenal. He was a fraud trying to stay in power.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, just curious, where are all those STOCKPILES of WMD that he was supposed to have had then?


I don't know El, I am simply looking for consistency and finding none. I am seeing those on the left who helped build the fervor being given a pass and those on the right who did so being vilified. The hypocrisy is maddening.[hr]
Boogy, between 1998 when they all said that, and 2003 when Bush invaded with shock and awe, the UN inspectors destroyed all the weapons.

See Hans Blick and Scott Ritter.


Put your cards on the table and lets see what you have Viola?

[Elrathin]

I don't know El, I am simply looking for consistency and finding none. I am seeing those on the left who helped build the fervor being given a pass and those on the right who did so being vilified. The hypocrisy is maddening.


Again there is a difference in saying he was a threat, and acting on that assumption. There was a serious uncertainty that IMO was played by this administration and they were hoping to find them, but they didn't have the solid info so they hyped it up.

I don't think he had them. There is no denying he wanted them, but I don't think he had the stockpiles that this administration said they were SURE he had.

[BoogyMan]

Do the folks in the lost below need to get a clue as well?

No, because they were absolutely correct. There's absolutely no doubt but that Saddam wanted to acquire WMDs. There's also absolutely no doubt (except among the stupid) that he DID NOT acquire WMDs. Mostly because of actions Clinton took during the 90's that the Republicans opposed.

Keep on pretending that decade-old quotes about Saddam wanting WMDs proves that he had, them, though.


I think you miss my point Drocket. The left continues daily its drumbeat of how Bush brainwashed their people into thinking that there were WMDs in Iraq. The reason I post those quotes, and do so frequently, is to bring to mind the fact that those individuals were saying quite definitively that Saddam had WMDs before Bush came into office.

[ViolaLee]

Boogy, between 1998 when they all said that, and 2003 when Bush invaded with shock and awe, the UN inspectors destroyed all the weapons.

See Hans Blick and Scott Ritter.


Put your cards on the table and lets see what you have Viola?


Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say
Blix, ElBaradei: U.S. ignored evidence against WMDs
Monday, March 22, 2004 Posted: 1:34 AM EST (0634 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The United Nations' top two weapons experts said Sunday that the invasion of Iraq a year ago was not justified by the evidence in hand at the time.

"I think it's clear that in March, when the invasion took place, the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart," Hans Blix, who oversaw the agency's investigation into whether Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer."

Blix described the evidence Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 as "shaky," and said he related his opinion to U.S. officials, including national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

"I think they chose to ignore us," Blix said.http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
Posted 3/2/2004 1:33 AM
U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm

[BoogyMan]

So your condemnation covers those whose quotes I have posted as well if we are to believe Ritter and Blix Viola?

[Elrathin]

So your condemnation covers those whose quotes I have posted as well if we are to believe Ritter and Blix Viola?


Intelligence goes first to the military, then to the commander in chief. From there, who knows what information they got when voting on the war. Some that voted said they didn't get everything, the administration says they did. No offense, but that is a he said she said moment if there was any.

I will say this and go on record, if they did see everything, then those that voted to go to war were just as responsible for getting us in the mess.

However, I am more concerned about what to do with this mess now rather than who really started it at this point. When its over, then we can play "fry the bacon" if its determined the war was cooked.

[Pogo]

So your condemnation covers those whose quotes I have posted as well if we are to believe Ritter and Blix Viola?

There's an important distinction which you appear to be missing: namely, the Bush administration made their claims in support of a war that would not have otherwise been fought. There's a difference between saber-rattling and launching a war -- a big difference.

And I should add that the Bush admin knew that the Intel had been skewed to suit their agenda.[hr]
Iraq did have WMDs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/etc/arsenal.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=1616996

Knowing that Iraq had WMD in the past doesn't substantiate the claim that it had them in the present.

[BoogyMan]

So your condemnation covers those whose quotes I have posted as well if we are to believe Ritter and Blix Viola?

There's an important distinction which you appear to be missing: namely, the Bush administration made their claims in support of a war that would not have otherwise been fought. There's a difference between saber-rattling and launching a war -- a big difference.

And I should add that the Bush admin knew that the Intel had been skewed to suit their agenda.

You have made that claim before pogo, unsuccessfully.

The saber rattling had a hand in creating the environment of belief that Saddam was building those programs.

The whole point of all of this debate being that Thompson has said that he believes that they were there pre-war just as did many on the right AND left sides of the isle.

[Pogo]

So your condemnation covers those whose quotes I have posted as well if we are to believe Ritter and Blix Viola?

There's an important distinction which you appear to be missing: namely, the Bush administration made their claims in support of a war that would not have otherwise been fought. There's a difference between saber-rattling and launching a war -- a big difference.

And I should add that the Bush admin knew that the Intel had been skewed to suit their agenda.

You have made that claim before pogo, unsuccessfully.

The saber rattling had a hand in creating the environment of belief that Saddam was building those programs.

The whole point of all of this debate being that Thompson has said that he believes that they were there pre-war just as did many on the right AND left sides of the isle.

You sure about that? I seem to recall that you bowed out of the discussion.

Furthermore, what does belief have to do with considering possibilities and assigning probabilities?

[BoogyMan]

You sure about that? I seem to recall that you bowed out of the discussion.

Furthermore, what does belief have to do with considering possibilities and assigning probabilities?


I don't think so, but you can believe what you will.

You don't speak your view as a belief in this regard Pogo, you speak it as fact.

I will restate the premise I am operating on. The whole point of all of this debate being that Thompson has said that he believes that they were there pre-war just as did many on the right AND left sides of the isle.

[Drocket]

I think you miss my point Drocket. The left continues daily its drumbeat of how Bush brainwashed their people into thinking that there were WMDs in Iraq. The reason I post those quotes, and do so frequently, is to bring to mind the fact that those individuals were saying quite definitively that Saddam had WMDs before Bush came into office.

Actually, no. The quotes you provided show that Saddam WANTED WMDs, and that he may be a threat if he acquired them. They don't say he had them. There's a difference, one that you seem to be deliberately obscuring.

[Pogo]

You sure about that? I seem to recall that you bowed out of the discussion.

Furthermore, what does belief have to do with considering possibilities and assigning probabilities?


I don't think so, but you can believe what you will.

You don't speak your view as a belief in this regard Pogo, you speak it as fact.

I will restate the premise I am operating on. The whole point of all of this debate being that Thompson has said that he believes that they were there pre-war just as did many on the right AND left sides of the isle.


It's a fact that the administration did not know for certain that Iraq still had WMD and it's also a fact that the administration claimed to know that Iraq still had WMD; therefore, the administration lied.

What am I missing, Boogy?

Re Thompson, he's showing his own dishonesty by failing to acknowledge that the administration engaged in deception.

[BoogyMan]

It's a fact that the administration did not know for certain that Iraq still had WMD and it's also a fact that the administration claimed to know that Iraq still had WMD; therefore, the administratin lied.

What am I missing, Boogy?

Re Thompson, he's showing his own dishonesty by failing to acknowledge that the administration engaged in deception.


A deception unproven my friend.

I remember your line of argumentation now. Thinking back you claimed that acting on intelligence equated to a lie because they acted only on the intelligence, am I remembering correctly?

Thompson is not being deceptive, he is stating what he believes to be the case.

[Drocket]

Thompson is not being deceptive, he is stating what he believes to be the case.

Lying or stupid - neither one is a good quality in a presidential candidate.

[Pogo]

It's a fact that the administration did not know for certain that Iraq still had WMD and it's also a fact that the administration claimed to know that Iraq still had WMD; therefore, the administratin lied.

What am I missing, Boogy?

Re Thompson, he's showing his own dishonesty by failing to acknowledge that the administration engaged in deception.


A deception unproven my friend.

I remember your line of argumentation now. Thinking back you claimed that acting on intelligence equated to a lie because they acted only on the intelligence, am I remembering correctly?

Thompson is not being deceptive, he is stating what he believes to be the case.


My line of argument was/is that it's impossible to *know* something on the basis of Intelligence and that therefore, anyone who claims to know something on that basis is a liar.

Where's the flaw in my logic, Boogy?

[BoogyMan]

My line of argument was/is that it's impossible to *know* something on the basis of Intelligence and that therefore, anyone who claims to know something on that basis is a liar.

Where's the flaw in my logic, Boogy?


We have no choice but to make a call on our intelligence Pogo, to claim that acting on that intelligence makes someone a liar condemns just about everyone who has ever served. I just cannot agree with such a claim.

Fred Thompson speaking his belief makes him a liar based on this theory?

[Pogo]

My line of argument was/is that it's impossible to *know* something on the basis of Intelligence and that therefore, anyone who claims to know something on that basis is a liar.

Where's the flaw in my logic, Boogy?


We have no choice but to make a call on our intelligence Pogo, to claim that acting on that intelligence makes someone a liar condemns just about everyone who has ever served. I just cannot agree with such a claim.

Fred Thompson speaking his belief makes him a liar based on this theory?

Acting upon Intelligence is not what I'm addressing: what I'm addressing is the intentional mischaracterization of Intelligence so as to give the appearance of certainty.

Intelligence is about possibilities and probabilities, not certainties.

[Elrathin]

We have no choice but to make a call on our intelligence Pogo, to claim that acting on that intelligence makes someone a liar condemns just about everyone who has ever served. I just cannot agree with such a claim.

Fred Thompson speaking his belief makes him a liar based on this theory?


I'm just curious Boogy, if another country would to "take action" against the U.S. because it felt they had intelligence proving so, would you be as forgiving of faulty intelligence?

[Kyi Yo]

Boogy,

Before the first war in Iraq, the Gulf War, it was CERTAIN and well documented that HE HAD stockpiles of chemical weapons and had a very well established biological warfare unit going. He was working on acquiring nuclear (not nucular), weapons. Bush v1.0 used military might, in a strategic way to go in and destroy large stockpiles of WMD. He was forced to destroy what was left, dismantle the production capabilities, all which was verified by the UN inspectors.

After the Gulf War, Saddam was effectively crippled fiscally. The embargo worked and he couldn't get the weaponry and equipment he needed to be able to amass and produce any WMD. That was verified by the UN, who had several US nuclear inspectors on their teams. Clinton used diplomacy, the UN and the world's censure to curb Saddam.

Bush v. 00 knew there was no WMD, but used General Colin Powell to sell the lie to the world. Up until he spoke, I was adamant that there was no reason to go to war because there was no evidence of WMD. I wavered and I too was hoodwinked by General Powell. I believed in the man, not the data. I believed in his integrity and think he pretty much destroyed his credibility by taking the stance he took. A shame, he was probably the only Republican I would have considered voting for president.

I am not Republican, nor Democrat. I vote for who will do the least harm. Both parties are crooked and I vote for who will be least likely to sell us out to big business and who will actually do something for the middle class and poor of this nation. I thought Clinton was a tool and Kerry was inept. I protested against Gore at his campaign headquarters in DC.

I don't believe any of them. I worked in DC for too long. I've seen the seedy side of politics and know what kind of nasty deals go down in those classy bars up on the hill. I spent three weeks out of every month there. My bosses, Tribal Leaders, at one time wanted me to live there and I refused. The only way I could survive the sleeze that is Washington politics is by being able to come home once in a while.

This just happens to be a time where the Republicans are a particularly nasty bunch with no morals and no heart. So, at this point in time, the only hope I have is in the Dems and that is failing fast with this "do nothing" bunch. As my grampa would say, "They need to grow a pair".

There was no WMD when Bush v. 00 went to war. There was no nuclear capability in Iraq when Bush v. 00 went to war. There was no al Qaeda when Bush v. 00 went to war in Iraq. Saddam never did and never would allow such a group to operate within HIS borders. There were no ties to 9/11 and Saddam. The terrorists were in Afghanistan. Most were Egyptian born and raised. And the leaders had ties, very close ties to the many guests and business partners of Bush v. 00 and Bush v. 1.0.

If you wished to discuss the past, that's another thread. What we are discussing is the present and the future. I suggest you start a thread in the history section about the presence of WMD in Iraq BEFORE the Gulf war. It's pretty well documented there was WMD there at that time. We could also discuss how our tax dollars were being used to train and fund the current batch of terrorists in Afghanistan when they were fighting Russia.

There was no evidence of WMD before the current war, nor is there any evidence of WMD in Iran. But of course that won't stop Bush v. 00.

[lily]

My line of argument was/is that it's impossible to *know* something on the basis of Intelligence and that therefore, anyone who claims to know something on that basis is a liar.

Where's the flaw in my logic, Boogy?


Which will pretty mcuh leave anything the intelligence reports have to say for a long time after unbelievable.

That is Bush's legacy.[hr]Newton, Ia. — Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson said today he was certain former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a point of contention in the 4.5 years since the war began.

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

Oh, plese let this be his campaing slogan......please.....please.....please!

[BoogyMan]

Boogy,

Before the first war in Iraq, the Gulf War, it was CERTAIN and well documented that HE HAD stockpiles of chemical weapons and had a very well established biological warfare unit going. He was working on acquiring nuclear (not nucular), weapons. Bush v1.0 used military might, in a strategic way to go in and destroy large stockpiles of WMD. He was forced to destroy what was left, dismantle the production capabilities, all which was verified by the UN inspectors.

After the Gulf War, Saddam was effectively crippled fiscally. The embargo worked and he couldn't get the weaponry and equipment he needed to be able to amass and produce any WMD. That was verified by the UN, who had several US nuclear inspectors on their teams. Clinton used diplomacy, the UN and the world's censure to curb Saddam.

Bush v. 00 knew there was no WMD, but used General Colin Powell to sell the lie to the world. Up until he spoke, I was adamant that there was no reason to go to war because there was no evidence of WMD. I wavered and I too was hoodwinked by General Powell. I believed in the man, not the data. I believed in his integrity and think he pretty much destroyed his credibility by taking the stance he took. A shame, he was probably the only Republican I would have considered voting for president.

I am not Republican, nor Democrat. I vote for who will do the least harm. Both parties are crooked and I vote for who will be least likely to sell us out to big business and who will actually do something for the middle class and poor of this nation. I thought Clinton was a tool and Kerry was inept. I protested against Gore at his campaign headquarters in DC.

I don't believe any of them. I worked in DC for too long. I've seen the seedy side of politics and know what kind of nasty deals go down in those classy bars up on the hill. I spent three weeks out of every month there. My bosses, Tribal Leaders, at one time wanted me to live there and I refused. The only way I could survive the sleeze that is Washington politics is by being able to come home once in a while.

This just happens to be a time where the Republicans are a particularly nasty bunch with no morals and no heart. So, at this point in time, the only hope I have is in the Dems and that is failing fast with this "do nothing" bunch. As my grampa would say, "They need to grow a pair".

There was no WMD when Bush v. 00 went to war. There was no nuclear capability in Iraq when Bush v. 00 went to war. There was no al Qaeda when Bush v. 00 went to war in Iraq. Saddam never did and never would allow such a group to operate within HIS borders. There were no ties to 9/11 and Saddam. The terrorists were in Afghanistan. Most were Egyptian born and raised. And the leaders had ties, very close ties to the many guests and business partners of Bush v. 00 and Bush v. 1.0.

If you wished to discuss the past, that's another thread. What we are discussing is the present and the future. I suggest you start a thread in the history section about the presence of WMD in Iraq BEFORE the Gulf war. It's pretty well documented there was WMD there at that time. We could also discuss how our tax dollars were being used to train and fund the current batch of terrorists in Afghanistan when they were fighting Russia.

There was no evidence of WMD before the current war, nor is there any evidence of WMD in Iran. But of course that won't stop Bush v. 00.


Kyi Yo, I appreciate your thoughts and the civil nature of your retort. I also agree that both sides of Washington are a cesspool, however I cannot agree that the country went in under the cloud of a lie.

I am not aware of us attacking Iran, however, I see much rhetoric in the major media that such an attack is imminent. I don't see it happening unless something is initiated by Iran.

[Pogo]

My line of argument was/is that it's impossible to *know* something on the basis of Intelligence and that therefore, anyone who claims to know something on that basis is a liar.

Where's the flaw in my logic, Boogy?


Which will pretty mcuh leave anything the intelligence reports have to say for a long time after unbelievable.

That is Bush's legacy.

Yup, the boy who cried wolf.

[lily]

Kyi Yo, I appreciate your thoughts and the civil nature of your retort. I also agree that both sides of Washington are a cesspool, however I cannot agree that the country went in under the cloud of a lie.

I am not aware of us attacking Iran, however, I see much rhetoric in the major media that such an attack is imminent. I don't see it happening unless something is initiated by Iran.


Yes it was a very well thought out post, boogy......so I don't understand why you are changing the subject to Iran because of one sentence?

[ViolaLee]

Fred Thompson thinks Iraq had WMD in 2003 even though none has been found in the almost 5 years we've been there.

Where does he think it is?

And yes, great post Kyi Yo, and I agree with your wish for his campaign motto Lily.

He's another liar or idiot, and like Drocket said, either way = not good to lead our country. We've had enough of that now, we need someone smart and honest. I wish it could be Barack, but it looks like it might be Hillary. If it's Hillary, I think it will be a good thing for foreign policy to have Bill back in the game.

He got Russia's nukes secured and he stopped NK from developing them. Of course Bush came along and screwed up both of those things. But maybe Bill can get it all back together for the safety of the world.

The last thing we need is another war.

[preservanation]

I think I'm going to formally announce here that I support Thomson for the GOP nomination.

[Pogo]

...I wish it could be Barack, but it looks like it might be Hillary. If it's Hillary, I think it will be a good thing for foreign policy to have Bill back in the game.

He got Russia's nukes secured and he stopped NK from developing them. Of course Bush came along and screwed up both of those things. But maybe Bill can get it all back together for the safety of the world.

The last thing we need is another war.

Yeah, dear old Bill, who blocked the UN from stopping the Rwandan genocide. That's the ticket, all right. :sick:

[BoogyMan]

Fred Thompson thinks Iraq had WMD in 2003 even though none has been found in the almost 5 years we've been there.

Where does he think it is?

And yes, great post Kyi Yo, and I agree with your wish for his campaign motto Lily.

He's another liar or idiot, and like Drocket said, either way = not good to lead our country. We've had enough of that now, we need someone smart and honest. I wish it could be Barack, but it looks like it might be Hillary. If it's Hillary, I think it will be a good thing for foreign policy to have Bill back in the game.

He got Russia's nukes secured and he stopped NK from developing them. Of course Bush came along and screwed up both of those things. But maybe Bill can get it all back together for the safety of the world.

The last thing we need is another war.


Interesting observations Viola. I don't think that Thompson is a liar nor is he an idiot. You are basing your commentary on the following, right?

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

[Pogo]

Interesting observations Viola. I don't think that Thompson is a liar nor is he an idiot. You are basing your commentary on the following, right?

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.

A duplicitous statement because he conflates past and present, when the real issue is that the Bush administration claimed to know that he still had WMD when it was impossible for them to know such a thing.

[lily]

Yeah, dear old Bill, who blocked the UN from stopping the Rwandan genocide. That's the ticket, all right. :sick:


I'm really not sure how relevant this is. It is horrific, but in the grand scheme of things, with terrorists and countries that want to war?

I think Bill would make an excellet spokesman. He knows the art of diplomacy.

[BoogyMan]

Interesting observations Viola. I don't think that Thompson is a liar nor is he an idiot. You are basing your commentary on the following, right?

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.


A duplicitous statement because he conflates past and present, when the real issue is that the Bush administration claimed to know that he still had WMD when it was impossible for them to know such a thing.


I don't see how it can be duplicitous, good word btw :), when Saddam did earlier have WMD just as was asserted and that he still had the ambition, just as was asserted.

[Pogo]

Yeah, dear old Bill, who blocked the UN from stopping the Rwandan genocide. That's the ticket, all right. :sick:


I'm really not sure how relevant this is. It is horrific, but in the grand scheme of things, with terrorists and countries that want to war?

I think Bill would make an excellet spokesman. He knows the art of diplomacy.

The man's a pig who's not very far removed from that Packwood character. Sure, he's an excellent glad-hander but if he's the best that we can do then there really isn't much hope for us.[hr]


Interesting observations Viola. I don't think that Thompson is a liar nor is he an idiot. You are basing your commentary on the following, right?

"We can't forget the fact that although at a particular point in time we never found any WMD down there, he clearly had had WMD. He clearly had had the beginnings of a nuclear program," the former Tennessee senator told an audience of about 60 at a Newton cafe.


A duplicitous statement because he conflates past and present, when the real issue is that the Bush administration claimed to know that he still had WMD when it was impossible for them to know such a thing.


I don't see how it can be duplicitous, good word btw :), when Saddam did earlier have WMD just as was asserted and that he still had the ambition, just as was asserted.


Because what was asserted was that he was *known* to *still* have them, not that he might still have some or probably still had some, but that he was known to still have some.

Cheers

[lily]

I don't see how it can be duplicitous, good word btw :), when Saddam did earlier have WMD just as was asserted and that he still had the ambition, just as was asserted.


........he didn't have them when we invaded. We have proof of that....but I like pogo's response better.[hr][quote=Pogo]

The man's a pig who's not very far removed from that Packwood character. Sure, he's an excellent glad-hander but if he's the best that we can do then there really isn't much hope for us

The man got a blow job, from a consenting adult, then lied to protect his family from embarrassment. All this was found out, while investigating him for Whitewater.

Say what you want about the man, he does have charisma and a silver tounge. Who could you see as a good will ambassador.......and come to think of it........if it wasn't for the ill will we have created around the world.........we wouldn't need one.

[Pogo]

The man got a blow job, from a consenting adult, then lied to protect his family from embarrassment. All this was found out, while investigating him for Whitewater.

Say what you want about the man, he does have charisma and a silver tounge. Who could you see as a good will ambassador.......and come to think of it........if it wasn't for the ill will we have created around the world.........we wouldn't need one.

Eighteen years old, IMO, is a kid, and if she'd been my daughter I would have wanted to wring his neck.

No self-restraint, incredibly poor judgement plus phony indignation equals extremely poor leader, unless one's destination happens to be the nether regions. :blah:


Cheers :)

[lily]

Eighteen years old, IMO, is a kid, and if she'd been my daughter I would have wanted to wring his neck.

She was of legal age and not living under her parent's roof....sounds like an adult to me.

No self-restraint, incredibly poor judgement plus phony indignation equals extremely poor leader, unless one's destination happens to be the nether regions. :blah:

Poor judgement, I suppose..........but pogo.......he kept us out of war. I've said it before and I'll say it again.........if that's what it would have taken to keep us out of this war.........I'd given Bush a blow job myself.

[Pogo]

Poor judgement, I suppose..........but pogo.......he kept us out of war. I've said it before and I'll say it again.........if that's what it would have taken to keep us out of this war.........I'd given Bush a blow job myself.

But if the Democrats really stood for something positive, the Republicans wouldn't have the presidency, IMO. The only thing other than himself that Bill stuck his neck out for was globalization, and that's not much of a legacy.

GATT/NAFTA + blue dress = big loser, IMO, but yeah, if he'd gotten us into a quagmire like Jr. has then he'd have been even worse.


Cheers

[PatrickHenry]

Eighteen years old, IMO, is a kid, and if she'd been my daughter I would have wanted to wring his neck. Monica was 23-24 at the time of fellating WJC. Still pretty young but..Hmm maybe it would have been fun to give her a spankin'

No self-restraint, incredibly poor judgement plus phony indignation equals extremely poor leader, unless one's destination happens to be the nether regions. :blah:


The Clintons and the Bushes are friends and cohorts, despite the partisan rhetoric. Both globalist elitists. Both proponents of government tyranny over citizens and non-citizens alike. Both sexual whores...just that Bush likes men...

[lily]

But if the Democrats really stood for something positive, the Republicans wouldn't have the presidency, IMO. The only thing other than himself that Bill stuck his neck out for was globalization, and that's not much of a legacy.

Ah yes.......and we've come full tilt boogy again..........

(jopilin......not the poster);)

[Pogo]

No self-restraint, incredibly poor judgement plus phony indignation equals extremely poor leader, unless one's destination happens to be the nether regions. :blah:


The Clintons and the Bushes are friends and cohorts, despite the partisan rhetoric. Both globalist elitists. Both proponents of government tyranny over citizens and non-citizens alike. Both sexual whores...just that Bush likes men...

Yup, socialism for the rich, everyone else can scratch and claw around on the floor for crumbs.

Question is, how long before the debt well runs dry and the shite really hits the fan?

[PatrickHenry]

Yup, socialism for the rich, everyone else can scratch and claw around on the floor for crumbs.

Question is, how long before the debt well runs dry and the shite really hits the fan?
My friend, that is an important question that I wish I had the answer to.

I have no doubt that it slouches toward us.

This issue is what to do?

[Pogo]

Yup, socialism for the rich, everyone else can scratch and claw around on the floor for crumbs.

Question is, how long before the debt well runs dry and the shite really hits the fan?
My friend, that is an important question that I wish I had the answer to.

I have no doubt that it slouches toward us.

This issue is what to do?


Grow food. :(

[tony mitra]

This issue is what to do?


I'd say, buy gold. Have you seen where the price of an ounce of gold is heading?

That, and tighten your belt, stop wasting money of useless fads, and concentrate of riding the recession out. Wise people from around whole world are are talking about it.

And about Monica Lewinsky, I wonder what she is doing these days!

[ViolaLee]

Sell my stocks?