Bush Team. Jail. Now.

Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear 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, his report said.

This comes from guy, Duelfer, who's inspection team is also stating that there were none there.

He also found no evidence of trailers being used to develop biological weapons, Duelfer said, although he said he couldn't flatly declare that none existed

hmmmm, 4 weeks before an election and he says there was no evidence but I can't say undeniably none existed...

"What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD," Duelfer told Congress.

Again he states that there was a threat, so this next stement makes sense BUsh made a few days ago...

"There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks," Bush said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. "In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take."

The only one who belongs in jail is Saddam Hussien, and he is there now.

[edit on 7-10-2004 by esdad71]

Originally posted by Apoc
The question is after 9/11 and with all the other evidence pointing to terrorist ties and ambitions of Saddam are you going to mortgage your security on what corrupt or derailed...

And how is it better to believe (corrupted) extension of corporations government?

of course they're not finding WMD's in Iraq...

we all know that they (Iraq) moved them into Syria.... go look there !

Originally posted by spacedoubt
WMD
Thats one thing that hsn't been proven correct yet.
What else? anything?

Saddam/Al qeada connection. Thats been proven incorrect? by who?

Are you saying that The current administration gave NO OTHER REASONS?
To go to war.[end quote]







Well for one, the Saddam/Al qeada connection was proven incorrect by.............who was it again...................oh yeah, the 911 commission, AND Donaly Rumsfeld himself. Our current government had more of an Al queda connection than ANYone.

The current administration needs to apologize for being wrong, enough of this saving face in the name of national pride BS. Once that happens, when we can ADMIT WE F@%ked up, can we get on the good side of the rest of the world and start repairing the damage.


[edit on 7-10-2004 by LogansRun]

[edit on 7-10-2004 by LogansRun]

Talibansuu: This must be by far the most mediocre thread I have read on ATS. Wait maybe we should drag every president that came before that got involved in a war in another country...notably Vietnam. But wait anything to demonize Bush.

When congress granted bush the authority to use force against iraq it pretty much gave him a blank check . There was no requirement that wmd had to be found. So for most people to support that resolution at the time and now turn around and condemn what came as a direct consequence from it seems to me hypocritical and dishonest to say the least. It was pretty clear at the time what was going to happen if that resolution was passed and if people were sleeping I don�t think bush is the one to be blamed.

Originally posted by LogansRun

Originally posted by spacedoubt
WMD
Thats one thing that hsn't been proven correct yet.
What else? anything?

Saddam/Al qeada connection. Thats been proven incorrect? by who?

Are you saying that The current administration gave NO OTHER REASONS?
To go to war.[end quote]

Well for one, the Saddam/Al qeada connection was proven incorrect by.............who was it again...................oh yeah, the 911 commission, AND Donaly Rumsfeld himself. Our current government had more of an Al queda connection than ANYone.




[edit on 7-10-2004 by LogansRun]

[edit on 7-10-2004 by LogansRun]

The Connection between Al Qaedam/Saddam, and attacks against the US is what everyone is talking about. That could be true..Thats not what I am saying. I'm saying there was an underlying connection, after all Zarqawi sure felt at home there, in Iraq, didn't he? Saddam WAS a supporter of terrorism. He made a big deal about paying off Palestinian Suicide bomber families..

About Rumsfeld, saying there was no connection..Find the Quote where he is saying that...I believe it's recent quote, from yesterday, you are referring to. Don't forget to supply the question he was answering, when he said what you claim..

And the UN...I believe they had OTHER interests, especially at the higher levels..Food for OIL, equals cash for pockets..Why would the UN want to
end all that, by ending the Iraqi food for oil program?

Also, we reserved the right to go in at ANY time..For ANY violation..For 8 years, the Clinton Administration, lobbed missles into Iraq..For show mostly.
NEVER was permission asked of ANYONE to do so..Why? Terms and conditons of the cease fire.

Uh, true, Bush&Co had more connections with Al Q and Taliban than Iraq. Bush&Co had meetings with Taliban and Al Q people up till August 2001. Why? Bush&Co buddies were planning on putting a pipeline in, making billions for the Taliban/Al Q. But then the companies pulled out, 2 weeks later 9/11. Saddam? Osama hated Saddam, Saddam was to liberal for Osama.

What I love is that Bush won Afganistan with Clintons army. The republicans say Clinton gutted the military. But lets look at the facts. During the Reagan Bush era, 840 new tanks, 399 tactical aircraft, and 40 naval ships. Clinton? 0 new tanks, 34 new aircraft, and only 6 ships. But wait, during the Reagan Bush era there was something called THE COLD WAR going on. We were worried Russia would send armies into Europe. But when Clinton was in power, no Cold War, no fear of Russian invasion, so no need for more weapons. Of course, 0 new tanks, 58 aircraft, and only 5 new ships have been brought in under the Bush/Cheney era. So looks like they are gutting the military to. Of course, they are fighting wars, unlike Clinton. But hell, lets use republican logic! Under Lincoln 188,718 horses were brought into military use. Reagan only brought in 3, looks like Reagan was gutting the military using republican logic. Also, a bomb during the Reagan era cost more then one during the Clinton era, so the 200 billion used to pay for bombs under Reagan only needed to be 120 billion under Clinton for the stuff was cheaper. But using republican logic Clinton gutted the military.

Oh well, when republican Paul Wolfowitz was asked about how Bush did with Clintons army he had one response. "# you!"

Originally posted by taibunsuu
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20041006/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons_041006182357

The US Iraq Survey Group has concluded that Iraq had nothing, zilch, no weapons, no plans, and no way to make WMDs.

Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Tenet, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle... They need to be charged and tried. They screwed up the casus belli and invaded a country because they 'misread intelligence.'

Well, we all know what excuses are like. Everyone has one and they all stink.

10,000 US casualties. 15,000 Iraqi civilians toast. $200 Billion US dollars down the drain. An entire country in ruin. US diplomacy in tatters.

A cop can't make a mistake when they use deadly force. Neither can the national leaders.

Bush Team. Jail. Now.

Who would we even talk to regarding this matter? I mean we just cant get on the phone, make a call, and have police knocking on the front door of the whitehouse

Bush said in October 2002 that "Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more."


Bush also said at the time, "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."


And Clinton almost gets impeached out of office for lying about an extra-marital bj?

???

James the Lesser,

Good comments i agree with everything you said and have come to believe the Taliban were not pleased with their slice of the pie in Aug/01 hence the reprocautions of 9/11.

The Bush administration should be brought into justice for dealing/negotiating with a criminal terrorist regime. If the deal was accomplished wouldnt that be supporting terrorism or the axis of evil in the worst possible way?

A big fat finnancial check?

Michael Moore would be proud HATE BUSH AT ANY COST!!!!!

liberal weanies. canada. now.

liberal weanies. canada. now.

HAHA

Saddam Hussein had the CAPABILITY to produce the weapons. At one point Saddam HAD the weapons. He didn't use them all. Saddam had them hidden or sold. Other then the international threat Saddam posed he was a pretty cheary fella. He loved forcing dads to watch the rapes of their daughters. Chopping up daddy and sending the parts to the dead mans wife was always good fun. Sometimes Saddam would be extra nice and actually let a person die quickly with a bullet but usually he tried to keep the gaurds happy by killing his political prisoners slowly. Saddam Hussein..... what a sad day it will be when that wonderful man is gone from this world.

It is already too late at thousands US troops died and tens of thousands crippled. That is price to pay for not getting to the bottom of truth on 9/11.

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and proclaimed the tiny nation as a part of Iraq.

Immediately, there was a build up of troops, the largest deployment of American troops since the Vietnam era.

A coalition was formed, including a number of Middle Eastern nations and the objective of this coalition was to liberate Kuwait from the Iraqi invasion.

The offensive was launched on January 15th of the following year and by the end of February, Iraq was ousted from Kuwait and UN sanctions was imposed on Saddams regime.

During the next 12 years though, there was much talk about why didn't Bush One go on in and take out Saddam while we were over there.

This was not the objective of Gulf War I. We followed what we were suppose to do and it was over with, for the time being.

Since the first Gulf War, everyone that is against this Gulf War, would make comments such as "We should have taken Saddam when we had the chance."

Now that it's done, the same who was in favor of it 12 years ago, is totally against it today,

I'm just wondering, what gives?

Originally posted by Intelearthling
Since the first Gulf War, everyone that is against this Gulf War, would make comments such as "We should have taken Saddam when we had the chance."

Now that it's done, the same who was in favor of it 12 years ago, is totally against it today,

Oh, so that was the actual reason for the invasion of Iraq? To finish 'daddys' job? Well strike me dead, I must have completely misunderstood the reasons presented by the Bush Administration prior the the attack...

I swear, the bush admin could have saved themselves so much bullsh*it if they came out and said, "look, Iraq is going no-where so we plan to get rid of saddam and build a utopian empire run by US corperations that will feed our economies for years to come" (some scumbags would have supported this) but they chose to lie to us instead, and chose to use the most horrible event in Americas existence to justify it, thus creating the mistrust and ethical dilemma we are all in (the entire freaking world, no-one can trust each other anymore, its so dangerous its not funny, its like the entire world is back to square one reguarding forign relations)

Originally posted by verfed

HAHA
Saddam Hussein had the CAPABILITY to produce the weapons. At one point Saddam HAD the weapons. He didn't use them all. Saddam had them hidden or sold.

I hate bringing back old threads but I couldnt rest until I responded to this. First off there are a lot of leaders in many countries that have the capability to produce weapons. And we obviously are one of them, but that is beyond the point. We went after Saddam and his beloved Iraq because it served the agenda of many.

First off, Israel. Israel, israel, israel...If I say too much, im anti-semitic. I'm in between a rock and hard place. Let me put this swiftly and gently, the invasion of iraq served the israeli government (as well as our own since they are so symbioitically connected) greatly. Politically and economically.

Second, Bush is attempting to finish what his dad couldnt. Simple.

Iraq is like the kid that everyone picked on when they were in school. The country is an easy target. We KNOW that they are full of empty threats. And we know that with more work and effort we could mold them into a nice facet of American society.

[edit on 11/16/2004 by Simulacra]

Soon.

Lifers.

Including the rats deserting the sinking ship.