"Kerry supporters want to have it both ways: to savage the administration for failing to foresee September 11 while asking it to ignore intelligence warnings about the overwhelming probability that Saddam had chemical weapons and poisons, and that he was seeking to acquire a nuclear capability."
This Kerry supporter has been savaging the Bush administration since before September 11th. Now I get to say that the Bush administration not only failed to foresee the September 11th attacks, but they also failed to foresee that said "intelligence" was nothing but wishful thinking. A better administration would have better investigated the allegations.
"Kerry supporters want to have it both ways: to savage the administration for failing to foresee September 11 while asking it to ignore intelligence warnings about the overwhelming probability that Saddam had chemical weapons and poisons, and that he was seeking to acquire a nuclear capability."
n October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.
"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
"There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said.
"I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.
and "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." -George Bush
Reality:
A report issued by the IAEA in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were finally denied access to Iraq stated: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:37 pm Posts: 15767 Location: Vail, CO Gender: Male
VoiceOfReason wrote:
slightofjeff wrote:
An Amen passage:
"Kerry supporters want to have it both ways: to savage the administration for failing to foresee September 11 while asking it to ignore intelligence warnings about the overwhelming probability that Saddam had chemical weapons and poisons, and that he was seeking to acquire a nuclear capability."
n October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.
"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
"There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said.
"I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.
and "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." -George Bush
Reality: A report issued by the IAEA in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were finally denied access to Iraq stated: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."
i have no idea why this topic is still being dsicussed. its bene proven time and time again that they had no weapons, no capablities of weapons. absolutely nothing.
"Kerry supporters want to have it both ways: to savage the administration for failing to foresee September 11 while asking it to ignore intelligence warnings about the overwhelming probability that Saddam had chemical weapons and poisons, and that he was seeking to acquire a nuclear capability."
n October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.
"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
"There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said.
"I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.
and "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need." -George Bush
Reality: A report issued by the IAEA in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were finally denied access to Iraq stated: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."
i have no idea why this topic is still being dsicussed. its bene proven time and time again that they had no weapons, no capablities of weapons. absolutely nothing.
that isn't the point.
The point is, Kerry busts on Bush for not heeding pre-9/11 intelligence and doing something to stop it. And then for heeding the pre-Iraq War intelligence that turned out to be bogus.
And think about which sounds less plausible prior to 9/11 ... "Some terrorists are going to hijack four planes, fly them into buildings, and not only that, KNOCK DOWN the World Trade Center Towers." or "Saddam Hussein, who has used WMDs 10 times in recent memory, has WMDs."
You can't say, "Well, the administration should have immediately believed the 9.11 intelligence and taken action, but should have automatically knew the Iraq intelligence coming from every corner of the world was off."
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:56 am Posts: 386 Location: Chicago area
I think it's amazing that people would vote for bush,.. but then again people amaze me. I amazed myself when I voted for him in 2000, so I guess it's that easy for people to be mis-lead. Oh well, Kerry's not much better. Choose as you will, but just know, our options are not the best choices to properly represent the American people. We could definetly do better, but that's the world we live in. Keep on rocking in the free world.
Neither kerry nor bush should be in office.................
just remember.............all this support for kerry from the groups suchs as ACT..etc....... could have been used to support a third party candidate.........that may have been better suited for the job..............
for this government to work properly we need to put aside the two party system..................
_________________
Homer Simpson wrote:
I drink a whiskey drink I drink a chocolate drink and when i have to pee I use the kitchen sink
Neither kerry nor bush should be in office.................
just remember.............all this support for kerry from the groups suchs as ACT..etc....... could have been used to support a third party candidate.........that may have been better suited for the job..............
for this government to work properly we need to put aside the two party system..................
you are absolutely right...i love that episode of the simpsons when the aliens pose as dole and clinton and when this is found out the one alien says 'well this is only a 2 party system, you have to vote for 1 of us' and they do.
BUT I think the neo-con agenda of Cheney (the real presidient), Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush....is far too dangerous to allow stay in power.
Neither kerry nor bush should be in office.................
just remember.............all this support for kerry from the groups suchs as ACT..etc....... could have been used to support a third party candidate.........that may have been better suited for the job..............
for this government to work properly we need to put aside the two party system..................
you are absolutely right...i love that episode of the simpsons when the aliens pose as dole and clinton and when this is found out the one alien says 'well this is only a 2 party system, you have to vote for 1 of us' and they do.
BUT I think the neo-con agenda of Cheney (the real presidient), Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush....is far too dangerous to allow stay in power.
They don't have to..............but kerry doesn't need to be there either...............i don't think he'll hstick to his guns when under pressure from special interest groups..............
we need some one that will say to them...........I'm going to do what i think is right for the country and it's people............and if it makes you mad then fuck you..............
We do need to vote for a change but kerry doesn't have a back bone.........and george well.........he's just a dumb fuck............
_________________
Homer Simpson wrote:
I drink a whiskey drink I drink a chocolate drink and when i have to pee I use the kitchen sink
Neither kerry nor bush should be in office.................
just remember.............all this support for kerry from the groups suchs as ACT..etc....... could have been used to support a third party candidate.........that may have been better suited for the job..............
for this government to work properly we need to put aside the two party system..................
you are absolutely right...i love that episode of the simpsons when the aliens pose as dole and clinton and when this is found out the one alien says 'well this is only a 2 party system, you have to vote for 1 of us' and they do.
BUT I think the neo-con agenda of Cheney (the real presidient), Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush....is far too dangerous to allow stay in power.
They don't have to..............but kerry doesn't need to be there either...............i don't think he'll hstick to his guns when under pressure from special interest groups..............
we need some one that will say to them...........I'm going to do what i think is right for the country and it's people............and if it makes you mad then fuck you..............
We do need to vote for a change but kerry doesn't have a back bone.........and george well.........he's just a dumb fuck............
george is nothing more than a puppet for pnac and other related groups
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
a "Democrat" for Bush as well?!
