Hawking the poltical spinners.
LIES, COWARD & FOOLS...
Published on September 28, 2004 By hitparade In Politics
The liberal-left is disgraceful. Daily perpetuating a patent falsehood about Saddam's WMD.

While it may be accurate to say that stock piles of WMD have not been found in Iraq; that is a far cry from saying Saddam did not posses such weapons, as the left disingenuously daily assert for political advantage. But at whose expense? Our soldiers ... all of us?

Take Saddam's chemical weapons stockpile. The United Nations, among others, physically observed, took photos, videos, and inventory of Saddam's chemical stock pile. A condition of the peace treaty was Saaddam's unconditional compliance in destroying all such weapons. For over a decade he brazenly defied the world on this score. But then again, why wouldn't he? He understood the true nature of U.N. backbone: SPINELESS.

Was the war not justified becasue we did not find any WMDs, or becasue Saddam did not have them? The burden is on the left to put up or shut up. Where are the WMDs? If Saddam unilaterally destroyed them, then he would have demonstrated so to the world. He would have been hailed by the left, who at that time were daily blasting away at the embargo (at Bush the baby killer, who snatches the milk from out of Iraqi children’s mouths), as a leopard capable of changing his spots. But he didn't demonstrate to the world that he had destroyed the weapons because he simply hid and scurried them out of country. C'mon fool me once shame on you. A slpa on the wrist. But fool me twice, well... You know. And sometimes once is enough! WHY do the liberal-left act like Saddam's unpaid henchman, spreading propaganda that is patently false. His lawyers in court will at least get paid for lying on his behalf. The left is paid in another way, I guess. A weak America, subject to more 911s. Bums!

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 28, 2004
The burden is on the left to put up or shut up

Why? Why is the burden of proof on the defence. Surely this runs counter to everything the US stands for. This sort of statement makes a farce of 'Innoncent till proven guilty'.

Yes Saddam had stock piles of WMD. Yes he was an evil man. Yes there were many good reasons to invade and remove him. But claims that he had WMD in 2003 before the invasion have now been shown to be false. Shown to be false by an army of 1400 inspectors paid by the US government to find these WMD. Now unless you personally have some new proof these inspectors didn't see or have access to then the case is over.

Paul.
on Sep 28, 2004
Wow! As Reagan would say "There you go again."

While it may be accurate to say that stock piles of WMD have not been found in Iraq; that is a far cry from saying Saddam did not posses such weapons


Of course this assertion is just you doing the exact thing that you bemoan the left doing but in service of the right. Therefore you are disgraceful too. Here's the fun with WMD in Iraq, it's a no win situation to debate for either side unless WMD are found!...if WMD are found = Bush admin is right. if WMD are NOT found = there is not proof that they aren't somewhere out there but there is also no proof that there are any there. I put that statement in bold because that is the current situation and it shows why neither side knows who is correct. Thus, until WMD are found, both sides will be politically opportunistic and make claims about WMD (as they have been). This is not a left/right issue! In a previous post, I reference where Dr. Rice says that there is no proof the WMD are moved to Syria and Powell (recently) said he doesn't think WMD will be found. This is on top of David Kay's previous assertions. See Teacher Creature's "The Greatest Threat...." Reply 66 for the references.

The United Nations, among others, physically observed, took photos, videos, and inventory of Saddam's chemical stock pile. A condition of the peace treaty was Saaddam's unconditional compliance in destroying all such weapons.


The pressure that the Bush admin put on Iraq with help from the UN allowed inspectors to return to Iraq to ensure that Saddam was complying with the resolutions. UNSCOM was doing their job and had found missiles that went beyond the accepted flight limits (albeit barely). They were destroying them. They had not found WMD but were still searching. They were frustrated that Bush was invading before they could finish their job. That was the UNSCOM situation leading up to the attack on Iraq. The videos, inventory, etc that you mention occurred before 1998. Many now believe that the scientists over-sold the strength of their inventories to Saddam to keep him happy. There were unanswered questions, but before UNSCOM could find the answers, Bush attacked.

The burden is on the left to put up or shut up.


Actually the burden is on the whole US. We are the ones who invaded on the premise of WMD remember. Our nation must "put up or shut up" about WMD because we are the country who used this excuse as a premise for attack. It was definitely not the left alone who said "Hey let's get those WMD in Iraq" That statement is just dumb.

He would have been hailed by the left, who at that time were daily blasting away at the embargo (at Bush the baby killer, who snatches the milk from out of Iraqi children’s mouths),


Please reference this, I don't remember anyone in Congress or the Clinton administration saying this. In fact, I would be inclined to believe that the left would be more in favor of sanctions than an unproven war.

If you take out inflammatory remarks, your post is very weak and full of misstatements, half truths, and no references to back up your claims. It adds nothing to the debate but emotional fury that blinds to the facts.
on Sep 28, 2004
A GUN HELD BY A BANK ROBBER IS IRREFUTABLY CAUGHT ON VIDEO TAPE. THE ROBBER SUBSEQUENTLY TOSSES THE SAID GUN WHEN FLEEING. THE POLICE CAN'T YET FIND THE GUN. DID THAT ROBBER HAVE A GUN DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AT ISSUE? SHOULD THAT ROBBER BE CHARGED WITH ARMED BANK ROBBERY OR A LESSER OFFENSE?

WHAT DID SADDAMM DO WITH HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS? WHERE IS THE PROOF HE DESTROYED THEM? THERE IS NONE.
SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE LIBERATION, SADDAMM SCURRIED HIS WMDS OUT OF COUNTRY. SOME ARE STILL THERE. YOU'LL SEE!

The "case closed" declaration... while politically expedient is one bit OF ADVICE I'm pleased not followed in connection with "RATHER-GATE." CHEERS AND A GOOD DAY TOO YOU!
I welcome evaluative as well as interpretative disagreement. Persoanl attacks are your prerogative . Cheers, fella!
on Sep 28, 2004
The liberal-left is disgraceful.


WHY do the liberal-left act like Saddam's unpaid henchman, spreading propaganda that is patently false.


His lawyers in court will at least get paid for lying on his behalf. The left is paid in another way,


...as the left disingenuously daily assert for political advantage. But at whose expense? Our soldiers ... all of us?


The burden is on the left to put up or shut up.


These aren't personal attacks on someone who believes in a progressive policy?
------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly:
Your reply 3 can be answered easily. Nobody said that Saddam didn't have WMD (he used them during the Reagan administaration on Kurds and Iranians). However, before 1998 the inspections team had dismantled most of the programs/inventory. There were still some declared material left when the inspectors were booted. The rest of the story (scientist overstating amounts etc) is mentioned in my last reply.

WHAT DID SADDAMM DO WITH HIS CHEMICAL WEAPONS? WHERE IS THE PROOF HE DESTROYED THEM? THERE IS NONE


Based on this statement I'm not sure you read my post so I'll quote it here:

if WMD are NOT found = there is not proof that they aren't somewhere out there but there is also no proof that there are any there. I put that statement in bold because that is the current situation and it shows why neither side knows who is correct.


SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE LIBERATION, SADDAMM SCURRIED HIS WMDS OUT OF COUNTRY. SOME ARE STILL THERE


Please go to reply 66 in the Teacher Creature post I mentioned previously....it's references quotes where Dr. Rice says she doesn't believe WMD were scurried out and where Powell says he doesn't think WMD will be found. There has been no-case closed declaration and hopefully WMD can be found to prove that our intelligence didn't totally fail on this. But at this point the direction trends to not finding WMD (based on testimony of Rice, Powell, Kay, Blix etc). I'm not saying there are or there aren't WMD in Iraq, I'm just pointing that the facts available right now point to there not being any.
on Sep 28, 2004
What factual dilution! There was "some material" left over before the inspectors were booted out. Wrong! There were stockpiles. Stockpiles unaccounted for too this day.

But there you go again, blaming Reagan. A mere mortal like the rest of us.

Susan K. Langer said: “The envisages of good and evil, which make man a moral agent, make him also a conscript, and a slave. His constant problem is to escape the tyrannies he has created.”

Hitler wrote: “All effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulations.”

The foregoing, a practice routinely employed by the left. All the left knows is how to trounce. Pound. Bush is lair, a baby killer, etc. But for the war, Saddam, the choir boy, and Osama, the wicked, would evilly be working, hand in hand, as one. That is the wicked truth. The consequences of which promised to make 911 look like a prelude of the horror ahead.
on Sep 28, 2004
One...blame Reagan? I just gave historical context of when the chem warfare occured (meaning it was ~20 years ago!!). The funniest part is that I am definitely not a Reagan hater and admired many of his qualities.

Two...as referenced in my first reply...

He would have been hailed by the left, who at that time were daily blasting away at the embargo (at Bush the baby killer, who snatches the milk from out of Iraqi children’s mouths),


Please reference this, I don't remember anyone in Congress or the Clinton administration saying this. In fact, I would be inclined to believe that the left would be more in favor of sanctions than an unproven war.


Here you repeat the lie about Bush the baby killer....but still no reference other than blind emotion...

Three....it has been often referenced that Osama and Saddam were not friends. Osama believed in a Muslim state government while Saddam had a secular government. In that same reply 66, I reference 9/11 Commission member Kean on a lack of ties between Al Queda and Iraq.

Four....the "some material" references a relativity. There were stockpiles. The UN inspectors after Gulf War I destroyed much of that. Therefore, there is some left. Is some less than or greater than stockpiles? Well both are relativistic since neither have a quantity associated so it doesn't have an answer. I could have said some stockpiles rather than some material but they are synonyms in this case referring to the same thing.

You refute and prove nothing and then blast anyone who disagrees (and backs it with references and facts) with personal attacks. Still, I say
If you take out inflammatory remarks, your post is very weak and full of misstatements, half truths, and no references to back up your claims. It adds nothing to the debate but emotional fury that blinds to the facts.

on Sep 28, 2004
SADDAM & OSAMA: THE BIG FALLACY... UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE NATURE OF YOUR FOE IS BY NO MEANS A SIMPLE TASK. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT STILL DOESN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND THE INNER WORKINGS AND BELIEF SYSTEM OF THE AMERICAN MAFIA. LOGIC BY ANALOGY.


The term Mafioso is a ten-century-old Sicilian code of conduct in which a man is expected to act honorably. He must be brave & loyal. If Victimized or dishonored, a Mafioso must not turn to the State, which itself is inherently suspect, for justice/vengeance. This code of silence, even when egregiously wronged, is called omerta. The recourse instead is for the individual wronged too redress the transgression, too fix the problem with his own hands. This is known as vendetta.

In the early ‘30s, the Italian-American Mafia was divided into two camps. An ethnic divide existed between Italians and Sicilians. This divide related back to a ten century old blood feud from the old country. A massive power struggle erupted called the Castallmarese war in which this ethnic divide was eradicated.

Joe Valchai, the first American Mafioso to break the code of Omerta, relayed a story. When in Sing Sing, he was informed that the ethnic divide no longer existed. That the subgroups, though divided into five families, would now act as one big happy family under the auspices of a commission. When Valachi, a Sicilian, heard about this new era of cooperation, he could hardly believe his ears. He though that he was being lied too. For good reason, prior to this new era of cooperation, the two factions were literary killing one another at will and on the spot.

The term Mafioso, interestingly, has its roots in t he Arabic: Loosely referring to “brother bandits”, who used caves as hideouts. JOHN KERRY calls the President of the United States a liar. What temerity to say that our president lied about a connection between Saddam, the secularist terrorist, and Osama, the religious terrorist. In his day, Joe Valachi held a similar belief about Sicilians an Italians. "No! Never cooperation", Joe insisted when informed of the new partnership.

When Saddam invited the psychopath terrorist, Al Zar ... whatever the hell his name is ... into Iraq, the cooperation openly was annointed. Before that, who knows. But I'm cynical; I say the so-called divide between Saddam and Osma had many a bridge. Maybe John Kerry, like Joe Valcahi, does not want to believe, but the reality is that the merging of the secular and religious terrorist was and is furiously a foot. The 911commsion attributed lack of prescience, lack of imagination, as one basis for America’s failure to protect our people. Mr. Kerry’s insistence that no sufficient connection existed between Saddam and Osma is hardly imaginative, hardly prescient. It’s ugly political opportunism at its lowest.

JOHN Kerry is simply shameless in what he would have us believe. Shameless.
on Sep 28, 2004
The question is what was the danger to America and are we safer. Read "Four More For George W?" for some answers. This book is receiving some great reader comments. Look at some on Amazon.com.
on Sep 28, 2004
Read "Four More For George W?" for some answers


Did you write this book? The only thing you are posting in any forum is "buy this book". You got to wonder if you are the author, or what percentage you get. or if you have any intellect to reason with people, or just spout a preprogrammed line.
on Sep 28, 2004
The real issue about the Bush National Guard Service
What does it mean today?

By COL Gene
Posted Sunday, September 26, 2004 on Bush Truth
Discussion: Politics

As usual, the political pondents, as well as the president avoid the real issue about the National Guard service of George W. Bush. The focus is on the CBS documents not the truth of the president's service and his truthfulness about that service today.

First is how Bush got into the Guard. He contends he got in through his own merits. That has been shown to be untrue. The former Speaker of the Texas House, Ben Barns has admitted a friend of the senior Bush asked him to get George W. into the guard. The president's former professor at Harvard, Yoshi Tsurumi, has come forward and told CNN that George W. admitted his father had a family friend get him into the Guard to avoid service in Vietnam. In adition, his flight aptitude test scores have been found and George W. scored in the bottom 25% and would never have been sent to flight school and given a direct commission without the help of Ben Barns. George W. was also placed ahead of 100 other young men that did not have the pull George W. had. Inspite of all this, President Bush doen not come clean as to how he got into the Guard and that is the real significance in 2004.

The same problem exists with the President's fulfillment of his responsibilities to the Guard. Although CBS used documents that were not authentic, the facts were TRUE. Lt. Bush failed to take a required physical and was grounded. The tax payers spent lot of money to train George W. to be a pilot and when he did not obey regulations and lost his ability to fly he DID NOT MEET HIS RESPONSIBILITY. He did not obey Air Force Regulations and it does not matter where he was attending drills. In addition, his commander's secretary stated that Geoerge W. Bush was ordered to take the required physical by LTC Killian. The pay records of Lt. Bush show for five months he did not attend the required monthly drills at ANY LOCATION. His Officer Efficiency Report confirms Lt. Bush did not attend drills. The policy at that time for members of the Guard and Reserve that did not attend drills was for the member to be put on active duty. George W. was allowed to miss drills with no penalty. Today George W. says he met his responsibilities and he received an Honorable Discharge. It is true he some how received an Honorable Discharge but he did not meet his obligations or obey the regulations when he did not get a physical and attend required drill.

If the members of the military today did the same things as Lt Bush, we would not have an effective military. There is nothing more important to a military organization than for the members to obey their orders. In 2004, our Commander -in-Chief is not telling the truth about how he got into the Guard of the fact he did not fulfill his obligations or obey the oath he took when he was commissioned!
on Sep 28, 2004
WMD... IRREFUTABLE PROOF...


The proof rests on you. You didn't link to any sources.

On Iraq's WMDs, I agree that it rests on us, entire USA, to prove it. Left and Right division got nothing on it.
on Sep 29, 2004
Tony Blair has stated yesterday,

"The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.
I acknowledge that and accept it."

How can you say there is irrefutable proof when the prime minister of the UK, a person who sold the war on WMD and whose trust and job is on the line admits that they never existed in 2003? Surely he knows more than you on this topic?

Paul.

on Sep 29, 2004
How can you say there is irrefutable proof when the prime minister of the UK, a person who sold the war on WMD and whose trust and job is on the line admits that they never existed in 2003?


Hmmm, i definantly remember reading an article about a "sudden" "migration" of trucks,etc...into syria before the US invaded,which was intiated by saddam...now why would saddam issue that...maybe because he transferred the weapons, i'm sure syria would be glad to hold'em for him, the syrians don't like us either....
on Sep 29, 2004
"The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. (BBC, 1/12/2004)

That quote from NSA Condi Rice comes after your assertion of trucks moving to Syria....
on Sep 29, 2004


Reply #14 By: rugbyshawn - 9/29/2004 9:46:34 PM
"The United States has no credible evidence that Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria early last year before the U.S.-led war that drove Saddam Hussein from power," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. (BBC, 1/12/2004)

That quote from NSA Condi Rice comes after your assertion of trucks moving to Syria....


what he said
2 Pages1 2