Ex-CIA officer alleges agency retaliated...

[Rosbjerg]

and perhaps WMD wasn't the sole purpose .. but it was used as a justification! and no weapons were found! and so was Iraq's involvment in the Al Quada network, which have never been proved either .. Even Colin Powell admitted this!

And US and her allies (Denmark included) went to war without a permisson from UN .. clear and simple .. it's illegal!

USA tried to pass a law which allowed an armed enforcement in Iraq before the war, but it failed ..

no UN law permits any nation (which is a member of UN) to declare war without the permission of the UN security counsil .. and such a permission was not given!

resolution 1441 clearly states that Iraq hasn't fulfilled it's promises and prohibited acces to key areas .. true .. but that is not a justification for war, but some politicians use this resolution as an argument .. as said before, a vote of approval is required, and such was not given!

So no matter how you wanna look at it this war was, and still is, illegal! and there's really not much more to say ..

maybe it was a good idea to remove him, but USA is not above the law, and should not be allowed to get away with this! (and neither should any of her allies)

[Product of the Cosmos]

ANyone who still says this war was valid:

What was the exit plan? lol.

 

What happens 'after' we check in on this non-existant threat?

 

The US, fed up with the limp-dicked United Nations bureaucracy, decided to take action to hold Iraq accountable. Some like-minded allies also joined in, don't forget...41 of them.

 

LOL! Like 37 of them are Islands or countries with no military that have deals with America and owe us something. One of the biggest contributors offered monkies to blow up landmines.... lol. Nice alliance... Not to mention many have opted the 'take us off the list' option. LMFAO! Like Jon Stewart pointed out, we go from 'USA the mighty', to 'take us off the list', telemarketer style. rofl

 

But I'm curious, are you saying that diplomatic solutions were exhausted, or even close to attempted carefully?

 

including a corrupt food for oil campaign.

 

lol. No suprise Halliburton was right in the thick of it...

 

The US has never gotten very much oil from Iraq, most of Iraq's oil went to EU and Asia.

 

lol.. Iraq has not been a large provider for US oil in the past. But that does not mean it has not been, or is not an asset now. Iraq has large oil reserves. If they are controled, or burned, they can be made large amounts of money off of. Just because oil from a country goes to like... China for example, doesn't mean it doesn't go through our hands or interests first.

 

Credible intelligence sources from the US, Europe and Asia all said it was highly likely that Saddam still had WMD, not just the CIA.

 

lol.. I'm not exactly sure you can call any 'intelligence' agency credible... I imagine close to, if not all, have interests to uphold and/or obtain.

 

 

And lmfao@Rosbjerg. Thats a good point. The US violated UN rules by invading Iraq. So both countries violated a UN rule.

 

Since we violated a UN rule would it be morally alright for like, North Korea to invade America? lol.. Since we probably would not grant the UN, or Kim Jong Ill access to our weapon secrets?! LOL. Seriously.. People need to put a spin on perspectives and try different ones out... How else to know them better...

 

 

Except they have been found[talking about WMD], as it has been pointed out to you.

 

Where??? When? lol...

[Rosbjerg]

not to mention that one of the strongest arguments is that Saddam was the biggest threat and opresser of his people ..

If that was really such a big concern, how come US have financed several dictators to power in South America?? and how come they are not doing anything to get rid of several dictators in Africa who are far worse on their people than Saddam ever was?

and threat? what threat? no weapons, and he was scared s***less to do anything, he knew that he would get invaded in a heartbeat by the entire force of the UN if he did anything close to invading another country or pose a real threat! no he was happy by just being in power .. so there has to be another reason!

 

but yes, it is good that he is now out of power .. but the situation has excalated and real terrorist are rallying more people to their cause than ever before .. this will hurt the western world far more than help it! so in the end another way would have been preferable!

 

And talking about threats, the Russian Mafia is believed to have several nuclear warheads in their possesions, and they are not really the biggest supporters of USA, and will probably sell any of them to the highest bidder, which could easily be a rich terrorist faction! (who are now recieving more money as stated above.. more support)

and South Korea isn't really your best friends either, and they have a proven active nuclear program! why not take an active (armed) role in disarming them? because they have real weapons of mass destruction, but USA don't wanna risk a war with a nation who can nuke them with real weapons ..

 

so I believe that US wanted a little more than the 'welfare' of the Iraqy people .. and to 'stabilize' the region .. perhaps it wasn't the oil, but that seems very likely! perhaps it was to weaken Europe? .. China was about to accept the Euro as their international currency, but since this war have started, and Bush is trying to get the Dollar back up, they are reconsidering .. seems US don't like a second superpower that can rival them!

[Grandpa]

I personally don't think the US should have invaded Iraq, but we're stuck there for the moment and have to deal with it. I thought Bush was making a huge mistake. However, it's been done. I can't go back in time and change it, and controlling the US governmet is out of my sphere of influence beyond one vote.

 

Rosbjerg is on the right path, and I agree with several statements you made there. The US, however, is not the only country to ever engage in puppet-dictatorship, and certainly won't be the last. Agree with it? No, but it happens, and the US is not the only perpetrator. Oil? That is another media inspired reason for the war. It just sounds convenient. But why the rush to save the oil wells? Because when the oil wells go boom, and the pipes are split, it affect far more than a few acres of bleached sand. Besides the immediate environmental concerns, there are the health risks associated with fumes and smoke, and those can stretch for hundreds of kilometers. Having extensive pollution response experience, I can tell you that securing those oil platforms was vital for far more than economic reasons. The ignorant few soldiers who complained about being assigned to oil well duty adding credence to the media hype were just typical, marginally educated US Army enlisted folks who at best know to "point that way and shoot". There is a perfectly good explaination for why rocket launchers have "Towards Enemy" steciled on the business end. And trust me, the officers aren't much brighter. How much intellect do you want a person to have when their job is to run at machine gun nests, et-al? They start questioning orders, and the whole machine stops working. I digress...

 

 

POTC

People who use "lol" to precede every statement don't have much intelligent to say. It makes it appear that you are either (a) a 12 year old girl talking about boy parts on AIM, or (b) have dug yourself so far into your own reality that when you realize how far into the twilight zone you've gone, you can only laugh about all the mindless and ignorant bung spewing from your hole.

 

Instead of reading what I wrote, you assumed what I wrote had some political agenda. I was merely stating the facts of the case. Everyone stating that WMD was THE sole reason for the invasion of Iraq (of which you are one POTC), is working from the leftist agenda and not from any semblance of reality.

 

OK. For your benefit, I voted for Bush this time around...why? Kerry is a bigger idiot and a puppet of that moron Ted Kennedy. The ultimate politician's politician. The last thing this county needs is Ted Kennedy running it, he's screwed up enough things just sitting in committee. Bush, as bad as it is, is still the lesser of 2 evils.

 

Now, if you'll excuse me POTC, I don't engage it battles of wits with unarmed opponents.

[Grandpa]

so I believe that US wanted a little more than the 'welfare' of the Iraqy people .. and to 'stabilize' the region .. perhaps it wasn't the oil, but that seems very likely! perhaps it was to weaken Europe? .. China was about to accept the Euro as their international currency, but since this war have started, and Bush is trying to get the Dollar back up, they are reconsidering .. seems US don't like a second superpower that can rival them!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This, however, is just crazy reasoning. China potentially accepting the Euro I'm sure had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. The EU, however grand an idea, is still in its infancy, and historically bound for disaster. The European countries have never gotten along for more than a few decades, and never all of them simultaneuosly. Hardly a threat as a superpower.

[EnderAndrew]

In May, a bomb with Sarin gas was used in Iraq. We also discovered missles with Sarin gas in them.

 

Did we find huge stockpiles? No. Did we expect to. I don't think so.

 

Clinton claims that he destroyed the larger stockpiles when he bombed Iraq with no real warning.

 

US Intelligence before the war said they believed large numbers of weapons were leaving the country because we gave them so much warning. We had pictures of large caravans leaving the country.

 

But none the less, we did find some missles with sarin gas none the less. In addition, we found training materials, training labs, empty containers, etc. for large stockpiles of WMD.

 

The containers show there were WMD in Iraq. The training materials show Iraq's instructions on how to use WMD on incomming troops.

 

And we're looking for what could be stored in a fridge in a large desert.

 

We found small elements, but enough to prove that WMD existed. Then again, Saddam used WMD on his own people and admitted it. Intel agencies from around the world all said they knew Iraq had WMD. We've also discovered weapons sold to the Iraqi government from France and Russia while the embargo was going on.

 

Yet, while people declare the war to be evil, an invasion, or a disregard of life, the same people seem to be forgetting the conditions in Iraq.

 

They forget the torture rooms, rape rooms, the policies of genocide, the use of WMD, the shutting off of water to major cities, the embargos to keep food out of cities, people being forced to flee and live in caves.

 

They forget 25 million people living in fear for their lives.

 

Apparently that counts for nothing.

 

Yes, I know that tens of thousands have died. Revolution is rarely peaceable and rarely easy.

 

Yet most countries have had revolution in their past, and look back upon it as a necessary, and positive moment in their history.

 

Some say that we are creating a puppet government for oil prices, but people forget that the PREVIOUS government was supposedly a puppet government we controlled.

 

I guess it wasn't so. How is it that so many of these countries that the US secrely controls acts in opposition to our agenda?

 

Perhaps the conspiracy theory of the US controlling the world is a conspiracy theory at best.

 

Last time I checked, the UN had over 75 resolutions demanding Iraq's compliance, they haven't declared the war to be illegal, and they legally recognized the sovereignty of the current administration, as well as the previous US occupation before the Iraqi government was formed.

 

The country that was most adamant about vetoing any resolution about going into Iraq had a strong financial motive and dirty hands. France knew we might find out they had been breaking international law, and was set to lose out on money that Saddam owed France.

 

The world is quick to accuse the US of questionable motives, and seems to care very little for the actual facts of the matter.

 

If "justice" is determined by a unanimous vote on a security council, then any one of the nations that holds a seat on said security council can redefine justice however they desire by holding the right to veto.

 

Actual right and wrong seem to matter little to so many people here.

 

And BTW, the 9/11 Commission said THERE WERE links between Iraq and Al Quaeda, just as many foreign intel agencies had said previously, and just like previous Democratic administrators had said in the US. The 9/11 Commission clarifiied that we have no specific proof that Saddam was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11.

 

That does not mean Saddam had no ties to Osama. There were several poorly worded headlines on the matter with a specific political bias.

[Rosbjerg]

the latter part was more a part of my personal conspiracy theory than actual facts .. the war has however affected the Euro, which will cause problems for everyone here.. and Bush isn't really helping the matter! which makes me supicious about his agenda .. a strong Europe would benefit US in the long run, but will limit it's 'voice' over lesser powerful nations .. maybe he doesn't want that .. and would rather have a strong militaristic US than a strong financial one ..

 

but about the cooperation part, that would've been true 60 years ago, but it's a new age and the European nations cannot afford not to put their overall differences aside (and they have) .. So I don't think the entire European Union will fall apart anytime soon! some members might resign, but overall I think any citizen and politician here clearly sees the benefits of working together .. and have since the early 50'es and 60'es ..

 

as I stated oil was probably not the main reason, but it does seem work in Americas favor to control it (or at least have more influence over it, with a US friendly goverment, besides Israel, in the area) .. and especially if the agenda is weakening Europe! again .. just personal conspiracy theories

 

 

- Rosbjerg

[EnderAndrew]

Sure it would be to our benefit to control oil, but that has been been consistent with Bush's agenda.

 

Bush has spent billions increasing research for fuel cell technology. Some say it's a myth, but I get my power here in Omaha, NE off a fuel cell power plant. No joke. (We also have nuclear plants in Nebraska).

 

He is giving financial refunds to people who buy hybrid cars, he has passed mandates that auto-manufacturers must produce hybrid cars if they want to sell in the US, and he has passed mandates requiring fuel cell cars from manufacturers in 10 years, or they pay stiff fines.

 

The government also off-sets the cost of production for hybrid cars.

 

Bush has said since day one he wants us to be off foreign oil, and has tried opening the Alaska pipeline, despite Congress's opposition.

 

Yet everyone swears he only want's Iraq's oil. I think he doesn't want to buy oil from anyone outside this country.

 

Hell, Alberta seems to have large surplusses of oil right up in friendly Canadia these days. Have we invaded them?

[Grandpa]

Good points, EW.

 

As for the Euro, I believe that, given the current world economy, the Euro is one of the stronger currencies, and far stronger than the dollar rigt now. It is also gaining momentum outside the EU, as you stated before, China was interested, Japan has already replaced some of their USD reserves wth Euro, and more countries are jumping on board. As I see it, the Euro is holding on quite well. Maybe I'm wrong? but that was from a BBC report I heard a couple of weeks ago on NPR radio.

 

When Greenspan kicks the bucket here in the next few years, the USD will collapse along with him, I believe. I hope not, that would suck for me, but I think it is almost inevitable given that when the guy sneezes the economy shifts two points up or down.

 

 

Rosbjerg, I will say this, we may not agree entirely, but at least we can see each other's side of the debate. Unlike a few fanatics (on both sides, mind you) on this board.

 

EnderWiggin...did you miss this stuff or what?

[EnderAndrew]

No, I just don't have much to add on the Euro debate. I largely agree with much of what has been said.

 

The Euro has been doing quite well since it's inception, somewhat surprisingly well considering it's roots in some shaky areas (for instance, I though the reunification of Germany would present several nasty economic ripples).

 

Who knows how the long, long term will look for the Euro.

 

I know the US dollar is losing serious ground, and that places like Japan and France are looking to dump major US currency.

 

I'm convinced that if the US and the international community enforced IP copyright laws, it would greatly help/benefit the US economy. As it is, we allow major markets like India and China to pirate all the US IP they want. We don't get a cent.

 

There is something wrong with half the world's population (between those two countries alone) deciding that stealing is acceptable in the global market, and no one says a damned thing.

 

When Soderberg was remaking Ocean's 11, he said the thieves were good-guys because they stole from a casino. In that, I think most people don't care that the US is being robbed because "we have the money to spare".

[Rosbjerg]

Let us recall that Bush officials claimed that Iraq definitely possessed chemical and biological weapons and was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. On December 5 however, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters:

[EnderAndrew]

I greatly respect your ability to debate on a topic with someone with whom you disagree.

 

But I have to say I really get frustrated when I see Bush compared to Hitler.

 

One of them killed nearly 30 million people. One of them preached hatred of other human beings. One of them practiced genocide.

 

The other preaches tolerance for all humans (who are straight).

 

Bush isn't perfect. I disagree with a lot of his views and politics. But I also feel like I know what his views are. He hasn't surprised me once. He's a strongly Conservative Republican. He's from Texas. He supports Conservative Christian ideals.

[Rosbjerg]

well it was a bit too hard .. granted! sorry ..

but my point was, Hitler started out as a man of the people too, and seemed like the perfect leader who could unite the German people in their greatest need..

so my argument was - looks can be deceiving .. that was the comparison!

not the fact that Bush = Hitler .. which I don't think!

I do believe that he has a some darker agenda .. but of course not mass genocide ..

 

- Rosbjerg

[Grandpa]

Isn't also a double standard to claim a double standard then expect a double standard? Why Iraq first? Why not? You have to start somewhere, don't you? That is, if you want to use that argument. If not, then we could simply throw back into the faces of the nay-sayers who say we should mind our own business. We're stuck in Iraq, now, so we have to finish there, but since popular opinion around the globe doesn't think we should be getting involved in other nation's afairs, maybe we should stay out. So, therefor, we shall not engage any other nations for fear of upsetting the world community.

 

Far worse, you say. What is far worse than being tortured, and being forced to stay awake for days under said torture, because your football team failed to win the world cup? What is worse thand having your eyelids cut off so you can watch the rape gang have its way with your female family members? Define "worse". Starving children? I'm sure that is horrible, but not worse than some of the nasty things Saddam and his associates inflicted upon their own friends and people.

 

The US military is only so big, and decisions are made as to where troops are dispatched. There are US troops in many places right now, but only the hot items get press time. Being a white majority outlet, the US media has little interest in the affairs of Africa, although we have troops in several African nations right now. Racist? Maybe, but being a free press, they can cover what they think will sell advertizing. We also have troops in South Korea, and have had since France ran away decades ago. Thanks, France! Maybe the US should stop cleaning up your messes for you?

 

What if?

 

What if the US retreated to within its own borders? What would happen? There needs to be a strong world power, it creates peace. Just look back in history. The time now belongs to the US. If the US pulled back, what kind of chaos would that create? What evil fascist would seek to rule the world? The US is far more benevolent than any world power in history, and it gives a lot for the honor of the place it holds. But, like any world power, it is not well received by those of other nations. Would Russia under Vladmir Putin be any more tolerable? I belive Russia is busy trying to keep its own peace at te moment. France? France has historically had a difficult time governing itself, much less others. England? Too much like America for most. Mexico? Denmark? Ukraine? United Arab Emrites? Botswana? Why can't we all just get along and play nice with each other? I wish I knew the answer, and I wish we could, but some people just don't want to.

[Grandpa]

well it was a bit too hard .. granted! sorry ..

but my point was, Hitler started out as a man of the people too, and seemed like the perfect leader who could unite the German people in their greatest need..

so my argument was - looks can be deceiving .. that was the comparison!

not the fact that Bush = Hitler .. which I don't think!

I do believe that he has a some darker agenda .. but of course not mass genocide ..

 

- Rosbjerg

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think what peaves Americans most about this analogy is that it is used so often by people who have no clue what they're saying. Uneducated middle-easterners have no clue, and use it because someone told them to. Europeans should have no excuse. It just is so extreme as to be insulting for no good reason other than the shock value. As an intelligent person, you (I say this collectively) should be able to come up with a better analogy to vent your opinion of the man. As EW pointed out, GW is nothing like Hitler at all.

 

Now, if you were to compare Bush to, say, Ulysses Grant, it would be more acceptable, though not accurate either.

[EnderAndrew]

Yes. We don't hear about the billions we dole out to other countries in aid.

 

Heck, the US government practicly despises Palestine, but we still give them money.

 

We don't hear about how the US steps into places like Liberia to save lives, and does so without firing a single gun.

 

The US should do more. We ignore places like Rwanda (don't ask me how or why, I can't figure it out).

 

I may disagree with ignoring SE Asia, but I understand tackling SE Asia means butting heads with China.

 

Bush can only be in power for 8 years. 4 of those are gone.

 

In case anyone missed it, Clinton attacked 4 countries without asking a soul. The world seemed to support the US going into Iraq right after 9/11. But Iraq wasn't responsible for 9/11. We treated Iraq as a seperate issue, and Bush gave diplomacy a shot, even though by waiting two years, popular support dwindled.

 

I don't agree with his policies, but I believe that Bush truly follows his beliefs in trying to do the best job he can do. Aside from his blatant discrimination of the gay community, I don't think his views are particularly harmful to the world.

 

I'd rather we had an honest Democrat, or someone interest in Congressional reform. I'd like to see a President more concerned with fixing domestic problems.

 

We can't be everywhere in the world at once, and we get judged for helping one country while not helping another.

 

But at least we are making a positive influence in some people's lives. At least we tried to make a difference.

 

And I'm not saying the US government is perfect. Our past is ugly. Our treatment of the Native Americans is deplorable. Hell, we uncovered proof the CIA sold crack in the ghettos to target minorities.

 

But not every American is evil. Not every American agenda is self-serving.

[Rosbjerg]

But my problem, and what I think most of Europes, is that America seems to take things in their own hands .. yes you are the biggest power! but to quote your own Stan Lee "with great power comes great responsibility" ..

It seems to me that America wants to play the Police of the world, but have no idea of the consequences you bring down on yourself by doing so .. 9/11 was a terrible event, but it will be nothing compared to what will happen if America is not more careful in their dealings with the rest of the world ..

If you alienate yourself too much (by using too much power), you will loose all support here and in the rest of the world .. and then you will face to many enemies to handle!

 

the reason why I and so many others thinks this was wrong .. is because the Coalition went against the UN .. EnderWiggin brings up a very good point however, "If "justice" is determined by a unanimous vote on a security council, then any one of the nations that holds a seat on said security council can redefine justice however they desire by holding the right to veto." which I must admit I don't have an answer for ..

But it would still be in Americas best interest to follow the guidelines of her allies and not mock them when things are not going the 'right way' ..

you are not that powerful .. yet .. and if you continue to blindly attack any you see fit, I fear the day you are!

 

edit:

and again .. sorry for the Hitler remark .. uncalled for .. now deleted!

 

and just to be clear .. of course I appriciate that America does something to help the world! and the fact that they have stepped in to help us in our time of need .. and others!

but when you are the nr 1 power, you get alot of attention and of course alot of focus on the bad things .. my wish is only that America is more careful in the future!

because all the sympathy you accumelated following the days and months of 9/11 are all but spend! and a strong anti-american feeling is growing all over the world .. and all your good intentions won't repair that unless you tread lightly!

[Grandpa]

I can't speak from the European perspective. I can't say what Europeans see and/or why they feel the way they do. No amount of explaining could make me understand. Likewise, a European cannot understand what/why/how and American thinks and why we feel the way we do. Each has their own perspective of the events taking place. All I can advise to Europeans is this, when you read or hear Americans running for the border or conversely wrapping themselves in the American flag, step back because you aren't getting the whole or necessarily the real picture. However, these are the most vocal of our citizenry (is that a word?), so they tend to be the voices heard by those from overseas.

[EnderAndrew]

Europe is comprised of many countries, each with different peoples, each full of individuals.

 

I'm not sure there is a strong European concensus, even though we keep hearing that Europe is anti-US. When Bush was reelected, leaders from France, Germany, Spain, England, etc. all called (and/or wrote) to Bush to congratulate him and say how much they support him.

 

Individuals in Europe support the United States. Many leaders have shown full support. I think the dissenters are more vocal, but I have but impressions from skewed media outlets.

 

The US is a divided country as well. 49% of us voted against Bush.

[Rosbjerg]

well I've spoken to enough Americans to know that you aren't all war-loving power-hungry maniacs!

I know how many Americans are concerned about the events, but many still seem unaware of the general sucpicion towards USA that is developing..

 

and I would say I know Europe .. I know alot of people spread out over this continent, and we usually talk about events, and they tell me how the general feeling is in their country .. and I know how the general feeling is in mine, from friends, websites, media, newpapers, politicians and polls .. just like you have a general idea of how people in America feels! or more locally to compare to Denmark .. how your state feels about something in general!

 

of course some people from Europe clearly supports the war .. otherwise Denmark and some other nations wouldn't have joined the Coalition! but it was around 20-30% here when we entered the war .. and that number has fallen greatly ever since!

 

and it worries me that Europe is developing this Anti-American feeling, and they really really are .. because we need you to help us in maintaining peace in ceartin areas, and I feel that you need us as your ally (I belive the world trust us more now than you, so therefore a strong bond would beneift us both very well)

we have more experience in dealing with other nations, and you have the will and 'power' to deal with them and not just speaking in military meassures here.. also political power and financial ..

 

and on a sidenote .. yes Europe consist of alot of different nations with different cultures and opinions .. but most people have a general feeling of being Europeans as well as their own nationality! of course some hate the notion of a European Union .. as well as some people from your states would rather have their state being independent!

[Grandpa]

Frustrating, isn't it?

[EnderAndrew]

What frustrates me is how the media blows up certain stories in the US and completely ignores other stories. I think if more Americans were better informed, they might care more about global affairs.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I used to read Media science at the University and what you mention is one of the key flaws of US media. The process of selecting what news to be covered is called "screening" and is very often used as quiet censorship.

 

The other major problem is the lack of major independant media and admitting that it is a problem.

[mkreku]

Except they have been found, as it has been pointed out to you.

 

And the war was started for a variety of reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Faced with a harshly critical new report, President George W. Bush conceded Thursday that Iraq did not have the stockpiles of banned weapons he had warned of before the invasion last year, but insisted that "we were right to take action" against Saddam Hussein."

 

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/16/...ain643989.shtml

 

"Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes."

 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/

 

"U.S. officials also said the report shows Saddam was much farther away from a nuclear weapons program in 2003 than he was between 1991 and 1993; there is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons."

 

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

 

There were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no link to Al Qaida, there was nothing but a bunch of propaganda and a personal vendetta from a war-mongering president. Hans Blix was right. President Bush was wrong.

 

Why is this so hard to grasp for some Bush fanboi's?

 

"Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points."

 

Source: http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Ele...w_10_21_04.html

 

Unless you, EnderWiggin, has actually found those WMD's personally in Iraq, I think you'll be having a hard time finding anyone but rabid Bush fanboi's who agree with you on this matter.

[Judge Hades]

Bush is a lying POS but the Americans love a lying POS. Americans can be so easily dupe its not even funny. Well, I have given up on Americans, the American government, and the whole political bullcrap. I wash my hands of it. There is nothing I can do within the system and I am not amibitious enough to do anything out of the system. Besides, Civilization only has 30 or so years left to it so why bother.