Saddam had WMDs

National Review Online ^ | June 9, 2003 | Stanley Kurtz

[JohnGalt]

"They were telling Clinton the same thing they were telling Bush. This appears to demonstrate integrity."

You were responding to this post: "That is a question for you to answer but it demonstrates that all is forgiven if you tow the company line (also see Louis Freeh and George Tenet.)"

If you wish to take it back and correct the record, fine, but don't accuse me of being a liar. That's just plain weak.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"They" were the intelligence agencies, not F. and T. You just elided into the personalities unprompted. Rather than pay attention to the point I was making you preferred to try and attack those two men.

There is nothing for me to take back. However, you can retract your statement that I said F and T had integrity any time you wish.

[JohnGalt]

I am begining to look around for some of the dupers. Check out one "Dr Richard Spertzel;" He testified before Congress (see link 1) wrote an article for National Review, amongst other activities I am sure.

Strange enough, look at the whos-who list at the think tank he works at Benador Associates.

http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/jiaa/jiaa030130_1_n.shtml

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-spertzel031303.asp

http://www.benadorassociates.com/speakers.php

[JohnGalt]

My mistake, I read your post to mean you thought Tenet and Freeh had integrity.

Fine, if you think the FBI and the CIA have integrity than we cannot possibly have the same meaning of the word.

[justshutupandtakeit]

You don't believe anyone in government(except perhaps some irrelevency of 200 yrs ago maybe) has integrity so I disagree with that.

[JohnGalt]

That is not an accurate description of a belief I hold-- when did I say that?

[jammer]

You obviously have no idea what beliefs I hold, so don't impute them to me. Three might be of interest to you, however:

1. I hope, pray really, that we find hard WMD evidence. I deem it tremendously important, not only for my country, but for my President;

2. I am scared that many, even of those who are very pro-invasion don't believe we will, as evidenced by the subject changing to mass graves, question begging about Al Queda, etc. The "rightness" of the action will not be sold on the basis of those issues;

3. I remember and state that the war was sold on the basis of a more or less proximal threat from Iraq from WMDs. No amount of subject switching will change that. You may call it "chronic complaining". I call it integrity.

As I have said in other places, I desperately hope we find them. I am taking much heat from acquaintances about it in trying to defend Bush to them. In the parlance of West Texas, it looks as if I'm left standing with nothing but my $$$$ in my hand, i.e., not much. I think Bush is honest. I think others may have sold him a bill of goods and he doesn't have much more in hand than I do. The other arguments I cannot in good conscience advance, lies by Wolfowitz (sp) notwithstanding.

Have your last snide comment, I'll take it, and drop it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

WMDs was only ONE of the reasons given for the War and was never the most important one. There are no such things as WMDs which are not nuclear bombs.

This is all contrived by Bush's enemies. We have found forbidden weapons, tons of radioactive materials, mobile labs, the Tigris was poisoned with mustard gas and cyanide.
Those who are hysterical with criticism should be required to tell you exactly what a WMD is. They won't be able to.

The most important reason for the war was to destroy the center of international terror which was connected with the WTC attacks 1 and 2. Iraq was not about to attack the US directly but through its surrogates and terrorist allies.

There is no reason to get upset by the lack of WMDs at this point. None were discovered after the first war for FOUR YEARS. We haven't even had four months.

Those in a lather about this will just claim they were planted when we do start to publicize their discovery. But that won't happen for another few months after we allow the rope to be strung out nice and long.

[Wolfstar]

In the hands of Mohammed Atta and his gang of (literal) cutthroat hijackers, four passenger airliners became weapons of mass destruction — or isn't 3,000 dead enough of a mass for you and those who share your viewpoint?!

[JohnGalt]

"There are no such things as WMDs which are not nuclear bombs. "

"There is no reason to get upset by the lack of WMDs at this point. None were discovered after the first war for FOUR YEARS."

I must have missed that story! Can you link me to the story when we discovered the Iraqi nuclear weapons in 1995?

</sarcasm>

You are tripping over your own propoganda.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Chemical/Biological weapons not nuclear. Rush was talking about it today. Iraq has never had nuclear weapons thus, it never had WMD. What do You call WMDs?

[jammer]

I know I said I wouldn't comment, so I will agree with you to this extent: WTC1 and OKC (you didn't mention the last post) are examples I wholeheartedly agree with.

[dpwiener]

In the hands of Mohammed Atta and his gang of (literal) cutthroat hijackers, four passenger airliners became weapons of mass destruction — or isn't 3,000 dead enough of a mass for you and those who share your viewpoint?!

Stanley Kurtz wants to expand the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" to include radiological bombs, and you want to expand it to include passenger airliners. But doing so dilutes and destroys the utility of the phrase.

Did the fact that Iraq under Saddam Hussein possessed passenger airliners justify the recent war? If you define passenger airliners as weapons of mass destruction, then virtually every country in the world possesses weapons of mass destruction. Does any country's possession of "passenger airliner WMDs" constitute sufficient justification for pre-emptive military action against that country?

[Stultis]

So, why won't you explain the meaning of this cartoon from your FreeRepublic profile page?

[PiP PiP Cherrio]

What's it to you, bro? It's a nice cartoon drawing. Very colorful and full of spiritual harmony.

[Stultis]

I could use some spiritual harmony, as it happens. So lay it on me. Thanks in advance.

[PiP PiP Cherrio]

Ne, use your brain to figure it out, senor.

[Stultis]

Help me out this far...

What is the burning object that the American Eagle is holding, that made him drop his arrows?

[JohnGalt]

WMDs, as a term, has been reduced to Orwellian political speak thus is no longer has meaning.

[mr.pink]

Thanks for the links...I'll read `em through at some point today.

I saw "Weakly Standardnista" Steven Hayes on HardBall last night and he was attemtping to pin the bad Intel on Powell...amazing.