Revisionism indeed

Post #105,579 by Silverlock 6/10/03 4:20:26 PM Reply	Revisionism indeed If I remember correctly, there was never any question about Iraq posessing WMDs before the war Aside from the fact that plenty of folks doubted that Iraq had WMDs in any significant amount, the point you so conveniently keep missing is that Iraq was marketed as an imminent threat to the US. It wasn't. Period. Bush lied, thousands died. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #105,664 by johnu 6/11/03 8:12:12 AM Reply	Re: Revisionism indeed Aside from the fact that plenty of folks doubted that Iraq had WMDs in any significant amount, Didn't Democrats join Republicans in authorizing Bush to take action against Iraq? Even Dick Gephardt still believes Iraq had the weapons and that we will find them: "But," he said, "there is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And I'm still convinced that we are going to find them." [link\|http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/\|http://edition.cnn.c...08/sprj.irq.main/] the point you so conveniently keep missing is that Iraq was marketed as an imminent threat to the US. We know that had WMDs (remember the gassing of Kurds and Iranians), we know they provided no evidence for their claim they destroyed them all (even though the evidence would have ended the sanctions and avoided the US throwing Sadaam out of power). We know they had a nuclear program and had the capability to produce a bomb in the next 3 to 5 years. We know they had plenty of nuclear materials to produce dirty bombs. Unless you believe Sadaam was really a good guy and would never use these weapons against us or slip them to terrorists who would, then he was an imminent threat to the US. Certainly not finding WMDs in Iraq would be a great way to justify an anti-war stance as well as provide ammo against Bush. I would argue there's a more important issue if we don't find them; that being who has them now and has anyone sliped one into the US. Regards, John
Post #105,671 by Silverlock 6/11/03 9:05:52 AM Reply	That won't cut it Quoting a member of the administration accused/proven of having lied to refute charges that the administration lied isn't going to work here bubba. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #105,673 by johnu 6/11/03 9:15:16 AM Reply	Re: That won't cut it Quoting a member of the administration... Dick Gephardt is a member of the adminstration? ...accused/proven of having lied to refute charges that the administration lied isn't going to work here bubba. Which member would that be? What did he lie about and what is the proof that he lied? Regards, John
Post #105,688 by Silverlock 6/11/03 10:49:54 AM Reply	Following your link WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday it was "nonsense" to label U.S. intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as bogus. How do you read the name Colin Powell as Dick Gephardt? The little miss innocent act won't cut it either. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's your choice. I certainly wouldn't want to intrude in your bliss. ----------------------------------------- [link\|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html\|?W] Where were you in 72?
Post #105,700 by johnu 6/11/03 11:35:38 AM Reply	Re: Following your link How do you read the name Colin Powell as Dick Gephardt? Under the section "Powell's 'killer argument'" near the bottom: A key Democrat, however -- House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri -- told CBS there would be an investigation, although he downplayed the significance. "We'll have an investigation in the Congress," said Gephardt, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. "We should. You should, after any war, review what happened, what the intelligence was and whether things were done right." "But," he said, "there is long, consistent, clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. And I'm still convinced that we are going to find them." The little miss innocent act won't cut it either. If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's your choice. I certainly wouldn't want to intrude in your bliss. Ok...I guess that would be a no to providing the proof... Rgards, John

Welcome to IWETHEY!