Replies

FACT: Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He used them...several times.

Of course. He was our ally. We gave him the anthrax cultures and aided his war against Iran.

FACT: The ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities required me to prove he had destroyed them all. FACT: He did not, in fact, prove he destroyed them all.

It's like asking to prove you've stopped beating your wife. And to operate pesticide facilities, you will always have the dual-use technology required for basic nerve gases.

The U.N., under whose auspices Bush wanted to invade, rejected that there was adequate evidence that Saddam possessed WMD. Since our invasion, we have found none despite some really loopy threads here at FR.

FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had preserved the knowledge base for rebuilding all WMD programs.

You can find much of that same info at any university library. It's not cutting-edge science.

FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had made known his intention to re-build his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted or as opportunity presented.

If sanctions were lifted, then it would be legal anyway. Of course, we would have vetoed any such attempt at the U.N.

I don’t give a damn what the media writes, or what any administration official states. I have these facts here, and even they have no right to their own facts.

Again, you dismiss entirely official fact-finding bodies, even those of the GOP or the administration. You have the right to a private truth. I'm not objecting a great deal since it's not unusual. I just think you ought to admit it.

You guys made me decide I need a new tagline. It's a quote from our president. You should like it since you seem to agree with the thought expressed.

[old tagline: "Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube"]

FACT: Saddam Hussein had WMDs. He used them...several times.

Of course. He was our ally. We gave him the anthrax cultures and aided his war against Iran.

He didn't use anthrax in his war against Iran to my knowledge. He used the Russian and French mustard gas, and with their help developed VX gas.

However...we have a fact that you do not dispute.

FACT: The ceasefire agreement that ended hostilities required me to prove he had destroyed them all. FACT: He did not, in fact, prove he destroyed them all.

It's like asking to prove you've stopped beating your wife. And to operate pesticide facilities, you will always have the dual-use technology required for basic nerve gases.

Actually it isn't like asking you to prove you've stopped beating your wife. It's more like asking you to show us you account book, the public one, and the private one.

Saddam could have openly and honestly complied. HE NEVER DID.

Yes, pesticide plants do have a dual-use, and Saddam used the sickening properties of concentrated pesticides on the battlefield instead of having actual nerve gas when the US invaded.

That was never an issue. The issue was compliance. That compliance was never given, with or without dual-use technologies.

So do we have a fact here?

Do we?

The U.N., under whose auspices Bush wanted to invade, rejected that there was adequate evidence that Saddam possessed WMD. Since our invasion, we have found none despite some really loopy threads here at FR.

So what.

FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had preserved the knowledge base for rebuilding all WMD programs.

You can find much of that same info at any university library. It's not cutting-edge science.

Irrelevant...and factually false. Some of the documentation was posted publicly. At least one of those documents possessed so much nuclear weapons technology that the liberals declared that George Bush was contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

That was definitely NOT available at any university library.

However, while you are attempting to dismiss the fact, you seem to have submitted to the fact.

FACT: When we invaded we did find documentation by which he had made known his intention to re-build his WMD programs after sanctions were lifted or as opportunity presented.

If sanctions were lifted, then it would be legal anyway. Of course, we would have vetoed any such attempt at the U.N.

The sanctions could only be lifted if Saddam had recanted such efforts. Clearly you have a problem with this fact. It is a fact. It is an indisputable fact. Deal with it.

I don’t give a damn what the media writes, or what any administration official states. I have these facts here, and even they have no right to their own facts.

Again, you dismiss entirely official fact-finding bodies, even those of the GOP or the administration. You have the right to a private truth. I'm not objecting a great deal since it's not unusual. I just think you ought to admit it.

They don't get to make up their own facts. Whether you or not you agree with the groupthink...whether or not you actually read them completely, there are some facts, and I've provided you a few that are undisputed. The ones I've provided are wholly adequate for the points made with which you disagree...without a factual basis.

Again, you dismiss entirely official fact-finding bodies, even those of the GOP or the administration.

Which fact-finding bodies are these? I actually used some of them, like the Duelfer Report from the Iraq Survey Group. Have you read any of it? As for why some of this stuff isn't trumpeted, it's something of a mystery and a source of frustration, but one very strong possibility is the risk of exposing sources and methods in some cases. Or maybe you work for the NY Times so you would like them exposed?

On the other hand, Bush has never come out and openly defended supply side economics either. But by your logic, that's proof that he never signed into law or even proposed any tax cuts.

The U.N., under whose auspices Bush wanted to invade, rejected that there was adequate evidence that Saddam possessed WMD.

Are you serious? You're touting the UN as a reliable source for anything?

The UN also rejected that they were involved in the Oil For Food Scandals. They, like France and Germany, had a financial stake in the status quo in Iraq. No amount of evidence would have convinced them. Kofi Annan, after endless cheat-and-retreats and the expulsion of UNSCOM weapons inspectors in the 90's, said of Saddam that "We can do business with this man." (Apparently he meant on a personal level involving his son and cronies.)

The UN also rejected the idea that Darfur technically qualifies as genocide and therefore refuse to do anything about it. They rejected the charges against them funneling aid intended for the NK people to Kim Jong Il. The UN apparently rejected the idea of sending peace-keeping troops into Africa that wouldn't rape underage girls. The UN includes on its Human Rights Commission countries that do not in any way, shape or form recognize human rights within their borders. While such tyrants sit on its Human Rights Commission, the UN rails constantly against America and Israel but not a peep is heard from them about Cuba or Syria or China or North Korea or Iran.

Shall I go on?

You have the right to a private truth.

Relativistic nihilistic nonsense. Facts don't care what anyone thinks of them.

I'm not objecting a great deal since it's not unusual. I just think you ought to admit it.

Objecting to what? Admit what?

If sanctions were lifted, then it would be legal anyway.

The UN resolutions and the terms of the '91 cease fire would still have been in place, so no it wouldn't be legal.

We gave him the anthrax cultures and aided his war against Iran.

We didn't give him VX or sarin or any of the other stuff. You can thank Germany for that. Over 50% of Saddam's military aid was from the USSR/Russia. 13% from France, and 5% from Germany. USA was less than 1%.

Your new tagline is a willful Harry Reid-esque distortion of what I and others have said. I will repeat for the last time that we definitely need to kill or capture OBL, I just vehemently dispute the notion that doing so will end the war. Apparently you think AQ will lay down arms if OBL is killed, but I don't. Can I make it any plainer?