Ken is not a fan of reality.
He thinks Clinton is the best president we ever had.
He likes a man who can shit in his cereal and convince him its sugar.
Ken's ideal president is Jaques Chirac.
Keyser Soze Wrote:Quote:Bottom line, Saddam WAS complying
Quote:"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
.
Keyser please follow along, and I hope you can understand this.....
My quote "Saddam WAS complying" related to his complying with the Bush/UN demands prior to our invasion...
you refute this by posting a quote from someone who is speaking on what was happening back in 1998. I fail to see how that is relevant in the least.
and I am begging you, stop using the term WMD.... and discuss with detail the weapons in question.... Bush was selling fear hyping nuclear weapons that nobody else believed he had.
OK, try and keep up...
The UN passed resolution 1441.
Saddam had what we said was a final opportunity to disarm, and that he had to cooperate fully in every respect with the U.N. weapons inspectors.
Dr. Blix said in his report to the Security Council, he's not doing that. And therefore, what is important is that the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable.
<a href="http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza">An Iraqi scientist speaks about Saddam's Nuclear weapons.</a>
From Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002....
Quote: In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.
From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.
And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.
Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.
Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.
and again on October 7, 2002.....
Quote: Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril."
Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.
Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.
The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.
The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.
After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.
Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons.
The UN passed 1441,
I guess we enforce EVERY UN resolution?
Why didn't the UN feel that it needed to be inforced with invasion....
and you gave me quotes for EVERYONE, but Blix... why is that?
and you have skirted the issues of the Downing Street memo leaks.
Bottom line, answer this question for me Keyser,
Do you feel Iraq was an Imminent threat to the US?
Keyser Soze Wrote:Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons.
did He REFUTE the statements made by his administration?
Corrupt people know the importance of plausible deniability....
Bush might not have said it, and he can hide behind that fact,
but his people did......
No, I do not feel it was an imminent threat and i've already said several times if you were paying attention that I would have finished what we started in Afghanistan first.
Quote:On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
President Clinton didn't even bother making a case to the UN before invading Iraq. Bush made a far more aggressive diplomatic effort and worked with the UN to try and form a wide coalition. His father and Clinton went to war with far less diplomatic effort but this seems to be dismissed.
The downing street memos reveal their need to sell the war to the public, which is not all that shocking to me. What specifically are you pointing to in the downing street memo's that is some sort of smoking gun?
Ken'sPen Wrote:Keyser Soze Wrote:Bush never said Iraq had nuclear weapons.
did He REFUTE the statements made by his administration?
Corrupt people know the importance of plausible deniability....
Bush might not have said it, and he can hide behind that fact,
but his people did......
cite your sources.
OK,
suffice to say it's clear that for political reasons England went to war with us... but all our other traditional allies decided that Bush could not build his case for war.
Because Bush lacked a true coalition force, he cut corners on man power and equipment which put our men in jeopardy, and in fact has led to the mission being by most standards a failure.
I agree with everything you just said.
I think that the bush administration committed treason in the Plame affair.
I think someone should be held accountable and from what I can gather from reading the reports over the past few months it should be Libby, Karl Rove, Robert Novak and possibly Cheney.
So are you just turning this just a 'ken hates bush' thread now?
Add that to the growing list of wrong doing from those fuck faces. Didn't they also pay off reporters for favorable press too?
I think that bush has sold out the good of the nation to Corporate interests and cronie capitalism.
This has been done with the help of the Republican congress and Senate....
BUT...
Bush has appointed industry lobbyists to positions of oversight.
The industries themselves are now writing the laws that apply to them....
Big Oil, Phameceuticals, Credit Card Companies, are now writing favorable laws that enhance their profits at the expense of the public.
again, we are in agreement on all of these counts.
the 'bush sucks' thread is now in full force.
Mad Wrote:Add that to the growing list of wrong doing from those fuck faces. Didn't they also pay off reporters for favorable press too?
somehow a gay prostitute made it into the white house press corps and always seemed to lob softball questions that promoted various administration accomplisments.
Yup,
propoganda pieces were distributed to local news agencies as real news,
a male whore had unlimited access to the White House, and a press pass to "lob the softballs"
and Armstrong Williams and others were paid to shill for the Administrations programs....
all with Tax Payer money....
While these actions were deemed innappropriate and illegal and ordered to stop, Bush said no, and continued the practice.
Bush also recently signed some law for Insurace company's, saving them twenty-two billion. Too bad his pal Hank Greenberg, the former ousted CEO of the worlds largest Insurace company AIG has settled with AG Spitzer for 1.6 BILLION dollar fine. They admitted to no wrong doing (of course) and restated their previous jacked up eranings statements.
The real kicker is the fucks were making money and didn't need to cook the books. Fucking GREEDY COCKSUCKERS.
It's like I stepped into some kind of worm hole into an alternate universe. Ken and Keyser are ACTUALLY having an intellectual debate on politics? And a somewhat coherant and intellectual debate at that?
WHERE IS KEN AND KEYSER AND WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THEIR BODIES?
Did Bush lie in his recent claims of stopping a terrorist attack in Los Angeles?