No WMD's?

[bolverk]

Yellow Cake Uranium is a component that can be used in WMD's. And guess where it was found?

[mrroqout]

I read this the other day.

Here come the ---Well Saddam ONLY intended to enrich it enough to use in a nuclear reactor.

Cause they ALL KNOW what his "intentions" were....c'mon Bolverk you KNOW this..

[saunterelle]

"Yellow Cake Uranium is a component that can be used in WMD's"


It CAN be used to make WMD's but it can also be used for many other purposes. The fact is that the Bush administration was wrong about WMD's which they have admitted many times. Your attempt to save face by digging for scraps is laughable. The fact is: Inspectors were there looking for WMDs. We pulled them out and went to war because we were SURE they were there. They weren't there. We became the laughing stock of the world. Thanks Bush.

[mrroqout]

Right on cue, EXACTLY as I predicted.

Saunterelle KNOWS what Saddams intent was........yeah no that's not laughable.

www.husseinandterror.com/

I'm SURE he had only the noblest of intentions...


www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html-Can't be true FOX said it.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."


www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520691/posts

Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin



Yep absolutely nothing to see here.

[saunterelle]

You're right mrroqout, it's not nice that he had those weapons but they weren't the ones we were looking for. Our basis for invading Iraq was that we had NO DOUBT he was hiding completed WMDs that were ready to launch. Remember? It was made to seem like an concern for our safety, fear-mongering at its finest.

It seems like bolverk is trying to argue that we did find WMDs. This is simply not the case. End of story.

[The New Guy]

this is damn near comical!

which WMD's were we looking for? do you suppose we were going to find some crates stenciled "WMD" on the side?

do you not know what nerve agent is? apparently not.

[saunterelle]

We were looking for the weapons Colin Powell explicitly outlined in his presentation to the UN as justification for unilaterally going to war.

[The Big Dog]

Jul 9, 2008 19:34:50 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

unilaterally going to war.

Mmmmmm sorry. That would be not correct.

Our missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq were launched with the advice and consent of the Congress, who had access to the exact same information as the administration. Nothing was done in a vacuum.

This continued bleating about Bush's "unilateralism" is complete eyewash.

[The New Guy]

Jul 9, 2008 19:34:50 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

We were looking for the weapons Colin Powell explicitly outlined in his presentation to the UN as justification for unilaterally going to war.

could you please specify those for me please?

[The New Guy]

unilaterally going to war.

lest we forget a little thing called UN Res 1441:

here are a few highlights from that resolution that you may want to consider:

*That Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops in 1991.

*"In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments....And al-Qaida terrorists escaped from Afghanistan are known to be in Iraq."

*Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological weapons, chemical weapons, and long-range missiles), all in violation of U.N. resolutions

*On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15 to 0 vote, which included Russia, China and France, and Arab countries, such as Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution

so much for your "unilateral" argument, eh?

gee, old georgie bush was so dumb that he even practically fooled the entire UN security council. wow, that's one dumb hick, huh santurelle?

[jgaffney]

Saunterelle sez....

Our basis for invading Iraq was that we had NO DOUBT he was hiding completed WMDs that were ready to launch. Remember? It was made to seem like an concern for our safety, fear-mongering at its finest.

Saunterelle, you can only claim that if you ignore the 10 years of history at the UN Security Council, passing resolution after resolution, demanding that Saddam disarm. Bush was still governor of Texas at that time. Who was lying to the UN?

Every one of those resolutions demanded that Saddam prove that he had disarmed. It was not up to UNSCOM to discover the weapons - Saddam was supposed to come clean, or face "dire consequences." I know I have posed this question to you before: Please give us your definition of "dire consequences."

In order to make your claim, you must also completely disregard six years of rhetoric from Clinton and the Democrats in Congress regarding Saddam and his WMDs. We have posted links to important quotes before - have you ever gone back and re-read what was accepted as common knowledge at the time?

Bush did not lie to us - he repeated many of the same claims that were prevalent since 1996. The difference was 9/11 - that changed everything. In a post-9/11 world, it was not enough to merely pass another threatening resolution or lob in some cruise missiles. Regime change in Iraq was approved by the Senate in 1998, while Bush was still governor in Texas. Who lied to the Senate?

If, in fact, Bush is such a snake as to lie outright to the American people about WMDs in Iraq, why didn't he just plant some when the search came up empty? He could have declared victory and come home. Instead, he admitted to the American people that our intelligence was faulty. Would a liar do that?

[Mink]

Jeez, with this frame of mind, the US may as well go after Russia and China.......start a world war because we know others have WMD's or weapons that could kill us......oooohhhhh!