It's Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq

[Doctor Manhattan]

linky, linky (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report.ap/index.html)

Now, since we all know Iraq didn't attack us, ever; and they weren't about to invade us. Why is Bush still in office? How can 50% of the country still want him in office? I don't get it. Explain it to me like I'm an six year old.

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.org/"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[Furtherman]

Explain it to me like I'm an six year old.


Because Bush is an idiot. Can you say that? i-d-i-o-t. Here are some other words: pawn, moron, and personal vendetta.

Now, don't forget oil. O-i-l.




<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

This message was edited by Furtherman on 10-6-04 @ 6:12 PM

[ADF]

http://www.allposters.com/IMAGES/ATA/24818BP.jpg

<center><a href="http://somesuch.org" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.somesuch.org/sigpics/heroine.gif"></a><i><br><br><b>Roses are red... Violets are blue... All of my base... Are belong to you.</i></b></center>

[Yerdaddy]

But Duelfer also supports Bush's argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear to inspectors that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, the report said.
Again they deliberately fail to mention that the UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and especially 1441 required ongoing and indefinite inspections and monitoring of Iraq for "WMD-related activites" in the event that sanctions were lifted. In other words, the inspections that were responsible for finding and destroying Saddam'w WMD would NEVER END unless we decided so.

So this continuance of scare tactics and denial are as hollow as the absolute claims that we would find WMD in the first place.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[GodsFavoriteMan]

I'm dumbfounded myself. I like Kerry, that's for sure, but I honestly can't think how any other candidate who has run in the last 20 years could possibly be worse than Bush. He's tenure has been one of abject failure.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>
"All I wanted was a Pepsi!"

[Doctor Manhattan]

Because Bush is an idiot. Can you say that? i-d-i-o-t. Here are some other words: pawn, moron, and personal vendetta.

Now, don't forget oil. O-i-l.

I asked why Bush still in office and how 50% of the country can still want him in office.

I Totally know why Bush attacked Iraq, why do people go along with it?

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.org/"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[GodsFavoriteMan]

Maybe they now have a fear of Middle Eastern people in general now. It's hard to unify people with hope and idealism. It's easy to unify people in terms of hatred and fear.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>
"All I wanted was a Pepsi!"

[FUNKMAN]

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/top.saddam.file.ap.jpg

"See i told you you fucking Bush"

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/closer100.gif">

[FMJeff]

I can't wait for Reefdweller to dismiss this as more liberal democratic bullshit...

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[high fly]

I've always kinda liked that argument the right-wingers still put forth at times that Saddam loaded up his vast underground WMD complexes on trailers and moved them, tunnels and all, to Syria, so that when the time came, he would have them close at hand.
Or something.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[JohnnyCash]

Has Bush commented on this report yet?

<img src=http://www.christpuncherrecords.com/sigs/cash_monster.jpg>
Thank you Freakshow.

[high fly]

He hasn't even gotten around to the 9/11 Commission report, has he?
If you'll recall, at the time he said he could not comment on it because he hadn't read it, but after he read it, he would comment then.

Still waiting.





" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[Mike Teacher]

I can't wait for Reefdweller to dismiss this as more liberal democratic bullshit...


Is this how the Mods keep the tone of the debate civil and adult?

Lead by example.

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/esig">

[FUNKMAN]

Has Bush commented on this report yet?


the standard answer will be "Kerry voted for the war". Bush will take no responsibility.

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/closer100.gif">

[silera]

It cost us 125 billion, 14000 casualties, and 1000 plus American lives to confirm what many said before we went to war.

4 more years.

<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-7-04 @ 11:14 AM

[high fly]

Has Bush commented on this report yet?


the standard answer will be "Kerry voted for the war". Bush will take no responsibility.



I think they'll also work in a "but Clinton," too.

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[silera]

Has Bush commented on this report yet?

Cheney: Weapons Report Justifies Iraq War (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_el_pr/cheney)

Or they'll just spin it.



<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Furtherman]

Cheney holds on to his ideas like baby hogs on their mother's teets, and they both stink.



<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[high fly]

I guess chain-chain-Cheney was concerned that what with this Fuel-for-Food corruption, that Saddam was going to turn a bunch of Chef Boy-Ar-Dee into nukes.



" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina (LHOOQ) for the sig!

[Recyclerz]

Quote from Silera's link

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

So in Bush/Cheney logic -
Country [X] has WMD = Go to war
Country [X] doesn't have WMD = Go to war

Solve for X.

In other comments during the speech to the cheering partisan crowd, Vice President Cheney asserted that "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and that "Ignorance is Strength" adding "particularly Republican electoral strength."

[Edit: The Emperor has even fewer clothes than usual, which is none.]

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
[b]There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 10-7-04 @ 2:27 PM

[A.J.]

Quote from Silera's link

Vice President Dick Cheney asserted on Thursday that a finding by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government produced no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 justifies rather than undermines President Bush's decision to go to war.

So in Bush/Cheney logic -
Country [X] has WMD = Go to war
Country [X] doesn't have WMD = Go to war

Solve for X.

In other comments during the speech to the cheering partisan crowd, Vice President Cheney asserted that "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," and that "Ignorance is Strength" adding "particularly Republican electoral strength."

[Edit: The Emperor has even fewer clothes than usual, which is none.]

<IMG SRC="http://www.hometown.aol.com/recyclerz/myhomepage/sigpic1.gif?mtbrand=AOL_US">
There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon he never lived 'round here.[b]

This message was edited by Recyclerz on 10-7-04 @ 2:27 PM

I believe the rationale here is the "genie is out of the bottle theory". Whether or not Saddam had WMD in his inventory, he had the knowledge and facilties to make them -- and that he might provide them to terrorist groups (or the highest bidder) was a critical threat to U.S./world security.

Yeah, I know there are those who would argue that North Korea is more likely to do this -- especially with missile technology.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

[b]Red Sox Nation

[silera]

I think the rationale is that no matter what, the Bush administration wanted to go to war with Iraq and will grasp at anything to justify the war.

It's stupid at this point to defend the war, because it was poorly executed and did not bear the fruits it intended to bear. In otherwords, most people were right to begin with to be suspect regarding the motives and reasons presented to justify preemptive action.

Weee, now we get to spend 5-10 years fixing it.

Just fucking pathetic.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[A.J.]

It's stupid at this point to defend the war, because it was poorly executed

The end game/post-war certainly was.

<img src=http://img40.photobucket.com/albums/v124/Canofsoup15/Sigs/AJinDC-Sig.jpg>

A Skidmark/canofsoup15 production.

Red Sox Nation

[Tazz]

How can 50% of the country still want him in office? I don't get it. Explain it to me like I'm an six year old.



From here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3320293.stm


In August 1988, during the Anfal campaign, Iraqi forces attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with bombs containing a mixture of mustard and nerve gases. An estimated 5,000 civilians, including women, children and babies, were killed in a single day.


And:

From here: http://massgraves.info/

And:

From here:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/20/sprj.irq.sultan.surrender/



Saddam had two of his sons-in-law executed after they defected.



That's only the start of the reasons that asshole had to go. Any other questions?

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

[IrishAlkey]

http://www.marcoberg.de/sonstiges/pic/Phan%20Thi%20Kim%20Phuc.jpg

<center>http://artemis.gamedaemons.net/alkey.gif</center>

[silera]

That's only the start of the reasons that asshole had to go. Any other questions?


Saddam was an asshole to Iraqi's.

Guess what, so were we.

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm)


U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.


Everything you said happened before the first war, except for his son in laws.

Really, what dad doesn't want to kill his son in laws?




<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-7-04 @ 3:23 PM

[GodsFavoriteMan]

I believe the rationale here is the "genie is out of the bottle theory". Whether or not Saddam had WMD in his inventory, he had the knowledge and facilties to make them -- and that he might provide them to terrorist groups (or the highest bidder) was a critical threat to U.S./world security.



Nope, that's not true, either.

WASHINGTON - Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs had deteriorated into only hopes and dreams by the time of the U.S.-led invasion last year, a decline wrought by the first Gulf War and years of international sanctions, the chief U.S. weapons hunter found.

And what ambitions Saddam harbored for such weapons were secondary to his goal of evading those sanctions, and he wanted them primarily not to attack the United States or to provide them to terrorists, but to oppose his older enemies, Iran and Israel.

According to the report Saddam had less capability during the time of attack for WMDs and Nuclear weapons than he had in 1991.

It was a big lie.



<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>
"All I wanted was a Pepsi!"

This message was edited by GodsFavoriteMan on 10-7-04 @ 3:46 PM

[Tazz]

According to the report Saddam had less capability during the time of attack for WMDs and Nuclear weapons than he had in 1991.


Then why didn't he just comply with the UN demands and grant unlimited access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go? He was still banning them from some places, AND he left some important stuff out of his weapons declaration.

<img src=http://tazz1376.homestead.com/files/homersig.gif>

[HBox]

Then why didn't he just comply with the UN demands and grant unlimited access to anywhere the inspectors wanted to go? He was still banning them from some places, AND he left some important stuff out of his weapons declaration.

I thought he did allow unlimited access right before the invasion, but even if he didn't, I do know one thing; it wasn't because he had anything.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[FollowThisLogic]

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest."

<b>"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."</b>

-John Kerry, 2002 & 2003

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I <font face="webdings" color=red size="+1">Y</font> my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

[HBox]

"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

I'm very interested in the ellipses.

http://www.myimgs.com/random/hbox/sig

[TheMojoPin]

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest."

<b>"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."</b>

-John Kerry, 2002 & 2003

Ah, so it's Kerry's fault he supported the case made by the president at the time, based on the efforts of the intelligence community...and then changed his mind, as over half the country did, when we saw firsthand that those reports initially seemed, and then actually became, false?

Gotcha.

Bush ultimately gambled on shitty intelligence and came up bust. My issue is with how poorly that contingency was planned for, if at all. I was fully prepared to see him "pull off" a post-war Iraq...but that doesn't seem too likely, at least not for a long, long, LONG time.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-8-04 @ 1:57 AM

[FMJeff]

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest."

<b>"If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."</b>

-John Kerry, 2002 & 2003

Ah, so it's Kerry's fault he supported the case made by the president at the time, based on the efforts of the intelligence community...and then changed his mind, as over half the country did, when we saw firsthand that those reports initially seemed, and then actually became, false?

Gotcha.

Bush ultimately gambled on shitty intelligence and came up bust. My issue is with how poorly that contingency was planned for, if at all. I was fully prepared to see him "pull off" a post-war Iraq...but that doesn't seem too likely, at least not for a long, long, LONG time.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 10-8-04 @ 1:57 AM

exactamundo...hit the nail on the head there mojo.

i now resume my shutting the fuck up ;)

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[silera]

Bush is wrong. To refute this, instead of address facts we will:

a) Point out that Kerry was wrong too.
b) Bring up Clinton.
c) Rearrange our position on Iraq and reasons for going there.
d) Ignore the reality of the situation on the ground.




<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

[Doctor Manhattan]

Bush is wrong.

What? That's crazy. He believes in Jesus.

<a href="http://www.whitehouse.org/"><img src="http://members.cox.net/nicksporsche/bushchen.jpg" border=0></a>

[FollowThisLogic]

Psst.

The point is that back then, with the same intelligence, Kerry's statements show that he was just as insistent on going into Iraq.

Just because he says now, that he wouldn't have gone in based on what we know now..... wow, big deal. If he was President, what would we have done then? His statements from the time make that answer pretty clear.

Hindsight is 20/20, and he's editing his position based on it.

The real question is this.... since we do know that he would have gone into Iraq at the same time using the same intel - he made that clear - what would he do once he found out that the intel was wrong, long after we were committed in Iraq? 100% pull-out? Make American families happy that their kids aren't there, but let Iraq rip itself apart by doing so? Or stay committed to getting it all back together?

If you don't want to THINK.... don't VOTE.

<center><img src="http://www.followthislogic.com/stuff/rf-screw.jpg" alt="Just say 'Screw all ya'll.' It'll work. Trust me.">
I <font face="webdings" color=red size="+1">Y</font> my Special Spiteful Title!
Sure, reply to a post with just a picture. You fuckers killed teh funney long ago.</center>

[GodsFavoriteMan]

As he has said several times, Kerry would have used force to allow the weapons inspectors back in. I think we did that once during the 90s. Not too terribly sure about that. It happened while I was in basic training. Some little military strike against Iraq. Whatever it was it ended as quickly as it began, and I wasn't even done with training when it was over.

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~stan_ferguson/GFMSIG_copy.jpg" width="300" height="107"></p>
"All I wanted was a Pepsi!"

[FUNKMAN]

George Bush had evidence to show their may be a terrorist attack using airplanes and did nothing. Then he presents what he and his administration perceives to be credible evidence about WMD to the Congress and the Senate and asks for their 'signoff' which he gets, plunges us into war and finds out there are no WMD's and wants to take no responsibility for it!


Have some accountability please! How the heck does he attempt to look like a hero for 9/11?

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/phoenix100.jpg">

[mdr55]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041012/capt.azsa10510122118.bush_azsa105.jpg
Read my LIPS! There are no WMDs in Iraq. But Iraq had the POTENTIAL to make WMD and give them to the terrorist in the future. So I decided to take them out before they can use them against the US.

This message was edited by mdr55 on 10-12-04 @ 7:52 PM

[Yerdaddy]

since we do know that he would have gone into Iraq at the same time using the same intel - he made that clear
Show the evidence that you are right and GodsFavoriteMan is wrong.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[TheMojoPin]

There may not have been WMD's...but there sure was lots of Al-Queda! Well, there is NOW...after the fact.

*Sigh*

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The Tawhid and Jihad movement of terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has declared itself a part of al-Qaida, according to a statement found Sunday on an Islamist Web site. (http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1107&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041017%2F1452148510.htm&photoid=20041011LON99)

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
1979 << I love my drug buddy... >> "You can tell some lies about the good times we've had, but I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[mdr55]

There may not have been WMD's...but there sure was lots of Al-Queda!

SEE there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda.


Go Bush Go!

Hafa Adai.

[Yerdaddy]

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/Saddam_alQaeda_041005-1.html" target="_blank">CIA Questions Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda - Bush Administration Claims That Zarqawi Sought Safe Haven in Iraq Put in Doubt</a>

A new CIA report delivered to Vice President Dick Cheney last week calls into question White House assertions of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, officials told ABC News.

On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented a case for war against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council, in part by stating, "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants."

Earlier this year, in a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the Rose Garden on June 15, President Bush said, "Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda."

And Cheney, while speaking at the D-Day Museum on July 1, said, "Later, senior al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi took sanctuary in Baghdad after coalition forces drove him out of Afghanistan."

But a senior U.S. official told ABC News that the CIA report, based on captured documents and interviews with former Iraqi officials, raises serious questions about such statements.

The official said there was, in fact, no clear-cut evidence that Saddam even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad, contrary to what Bush has claimed.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[FUNKMAN]

There may not have been WMD's...but there sure was lots of Al-Queda!


i think he meant Al-Roker

http://images.scrippsweb.com/FOOD/2003/01/29/al_roker_d.jpg

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/images/3dflagsdotcom_gfr_2fawl.gif">

This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 10-17-04 @ 10:24 PM

[Yerdaddy]

Oh, and W. Bush sent the soldiers into battle underequipped.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40321-2004Oct17?language=printer" target="_blank">General Reported Shortages In Iraq</a>

The top U.S. commander in Iraq complained to the Pentagon last winter that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened Army troops' ability to fight, according to an official document that has surfaced only now.

The lack of key spare parts for gear vital to combat operations, such as tanks and helicopters, was causing problems so severe, Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote in a letter to top Army officials, that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low."

Senior Army officials said that most of Sanchez's concerns have been addressed in recent months but that they continue to keep a close eye on the problems he identified. The situation is "substantially better" now, said Gary Motsek, deputy director of operations for the Army Materiel Command.

Sanchez, who was the senior commander on the ground in Iraq from the summer of 2003 until the summer of 2004, said in his letter that Army units in Iraq were "struggling just to maintain . . . relatively low readiness rates" on key combat systems, such as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars and Black Hawk helicopters.

He also said units were waiting an average of 40 days for critical spare parts, which he noted was almost three times the Army's average. In some Army supply depots in Iraq, 40 percent of critical parts were at "zero balance," meaning they were absent from depot shelves, he said.

He also protested in his letter, sent Dec. 4 to the number two officer in the Army, with copies to other senior officials, that his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor but that their delivery had been postponed twice in the month before he was writing. There were 131,000 U.S. troops in Iraq at the time.

In what appears to be a plea to top officials to spur the bureaucracy to respond more quickly, Sanchez concluded, "I cannot sustain readiness without Army-level intervention."

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-17-04 @ 10:32 PM

[mdr55]

Oh, and W. Bush sent the soldiers into battle underequipped.


What the HECK are you talking about?? We all watched the debate. It was Kerry's fault that the soldiers didn't have the proper equipment. Damn Liberals!!

Hafa Adai.

[Yerdaddy]

oddly enough I kinda like this devil's advocate character you've been doing. Keep it up.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=bonedaddy5">
Fuck it from behind.

[silera]

Psst.

The point is that back then, with the same intelligence, Kerry's statements show that he was just as insistent on going into Iraq.

John Kerry when placing his vote...

The vote that I will give to the president is for one reason and one reason only, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint conference with our allies.
I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days-to work with the United Nations Security Council ... and to 'act with our allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

Four days later...
What's happened is every single member of the United States Senate moved to take it to the U.N. with a willingness to enforce through the United Nations if that is the will of the international community. ... There is no justification whatsoever for sending Americans for the first time in American history as the belligerent, as the initiator of it, as a matter of first instance, without a showing of an imminent threat to our country.


Please cut with the attitude FTL, you're not the only one that reads around here.


<center>http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/silerass.jpg
<font size="3" color="red">AND WHAT?</font></center><font color="FBF2F7">

This message was edited by silera on 10-18-04 @ 9:21 AM

[Furtherman]

President Bush goes to an elementary school to talk about the war.

After his talk, he offers to answer questions. One little boy puts up his hand and the president asks him his name.

"I'm Billy, sir."

"And what's your question, Billy?"

"I have three questions, sir. Why did the US invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. Bush announces that they'll continue after recess.

When they return, Bush asks, "OK, where were we? Question time! Who has a question?"

Another little boy raises his hand. The president asks his name.

"I'm Steve, sir."

"And what's your question, Steve?"

"I have five questions, sir. Why did the US invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Why did the recess bell go off twenty minutes early? And what the heck happened to Billy?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------
How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb?

None. There's nothing wrong with that light bulb. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision and nothing has happened to change our minds. People who criticize this light bulb now, just because it doesn't work anymore, supported us when we first screwed it in, and when these flip-floppers insist on saying that it is burned out, they are merely giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness.

-- John Cleese


<IMG SRC="http://www.chaoticconcepts.com/randomizer/random.php?uid=7">
...with thanks to JustJon

[Qube]

U.S. Ends Fruitless Iraq Weapons Hunt

Jan 12, 2:07 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has quietly concluded without any evidence of the banned weapons that President Bush cited as justification for going to war, the White House said Wednesday

The Iraq Survey Group, made up of some 1,200 military and intelligence specialists and support staff, spent nearly two years searching military installations, factories and laboratories whose equipment and products might be converted quickly to making weapons.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said there no longer is an active search for weapons. "There may be a couple, a few people, that are focused on that" but that it has largely concluded, he said.

"If they have any reports of (weapons of mass destruction) obviously they'll continue to follow up on those reports," McClellan said. "A lot of their mission is focused elsewhere now."

Chief U.S. weapons hunter Charles Duelfer is to deliver his final report on the search next month. "It's not going to fundamentally alter the findings of his earlier report," McClellan said, referring to preliminary findings from last September. Duelfer reported then that Saddam Hussein not only had no weapons of mass destruction and had not made any since 1991, but that he had no capability of making any either. Bush unapologetically defended his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

At the State Department, spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday about 120 Iraqi scientists who had been working in weapons programs were being paid by the U.S. government to work in other fields.


Next fruitless event: the Iraqi election.