Who won the debate?

[Hasty8]

The Duelfer report said Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received secret oil vouchers, with Saddam personally approving the list of recipients. The voucher list was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business leaders, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said

Link

And people wonder why the French, German and Chinese were those strongest voice of opposition to our removing Saddam from power.

Here's one final tidbit of information. Kerry says that we should have waited yet listen to what the Duelfer report says:

So Kerry [and Godzilla} were saying that the sanctions were working yet the Duelfer report clearly shows that they were not and had in fact assisted in pulling Saddam's regime out of the red and into the black. Waiting a few more years could have proven disasterous as that time would have allowed Saddam to restart his WMD programs.

Key findings on the search for WMD in Iraq.(Requires Adobe Acrobat to view)

Download the free Adobe Reader here.

[cphilip]

Saddam had WMD's PRE-First Iraq war, AND NEVER SINCE, according to Pres. Bush's own weapons inspector.


According to Pres. Bush's own CIA, THERE WAS NO LINK BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAUEDA

His own people are telling him this.

The fact is the UN sanctions WERE WORKING!!!!!!!!!!!!! Peaceful negotiations were WORKING... he had no means to attain any of the WMD goals he may have had... you want to tell me he was the only guy that wants wmd's? I want one too does that make me a terrorist?? i don't think so... lol wanting WMD's and having them are completely different things.

Now onto my next point. whatever happened to "The buck stops here"??? who were we decieved by?? the intelligence community of PRES. BUSH..


He is responsible, as President of the United States for the people he trusts.... he had terrible judgement in who he had in the intellegence community.

He, as Pres., failed the people of the United States of America in this regard.

It's time for a change, and on Nov. 2nd, the people will have their say.

They were working but no one could VERIFY they were working because Saddam refused to comply. And hind site is always 20/20. Easy to now say. But if Bush was wrong then so was every single country at the UN that voted for further sanctions and final resolutions because they COULD NOT VERIFY if the weapons were destroyed. In fact to this day no one knows where they went. They were there. What did he do with the ones he had? He was supposed to verify thier destruction. And to this very day he has not nor has anyone else determined what happened to them.

The President will and is taking the hit for the misinformation that was widely believed before we could realy go in and verify what the current situation was. But had he not gone in we would not know anything even today. When you go in and discover you take what you find. And to date until we went in there... everyone chose to believe he had still these weapons. And he probably does still have them. Burried somewhere but old. And he was trying to get in postion to remake more. Thats from the latest investigations. It seems Saddam was the victim of his own Folly. Trying to fool the world into thinking he might still have capability and so it bit him in the arse.

Now again.. No one has said there is no connections between Al Queda and Saddam. No one. Your confused. Was there a close working relationship resently. Not that we can find. But that is not the same thing your spouting out. There were communications. THere used to be some internal cooperation. There is evidence it might have started to rekindle. But your flat out wrong. You know what your confusing. Your confusing the conclusion that there was no link between Al Quida and Saddam over the 911 hijackings. And probably just taking a leap of faith to apply it to everything else. Very convenient but not factual.

If you consider being misslead and purposely thwarted from finding out the clear truth with lying then your a bit addled. Fact is Saddam played a game and fooled everyone. Everyone at the UN.... Kerry and Edwards too! So did they lie? I don't think so. They were misslead. And so was everyone else. And the funny thing is, in the end, the person who thought he would gain by misleading and playing games in rightfully in jail.

[Hasty8]

phil, don't give him the concession that the sanctions were working as they clearly were not. According to the Duelfer report [see my post directly above yours] the only thing the sanctions did do was pave the way for the Oil For Food program which was manipulated by Saddam to totally shred the sanctions and give him the money he needed to, at the very least, maintain his pursuit for WMD's.

As far as I am concerned, this report only bolsters the argument to go to war. Saddam was a total threat that simply was not in our faces yet.

If you're driving down a two lane road and notice that a car is in your lane do you swerve as soon as possible or do you wait to the last second hoping the other driver will swerve first? It's been my experience, talking to those libs that I can, that they seem to take a stance of waiting for the last possible moment, choosing instead to hope for the best of humanity, whatever that is.

[Zygote]

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...

It's been known for quite a while that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran, which he turned around and used on the Kurds. I believe his biggest supplier was Germany, but our hands aren't clean in that matter.

[FactsOfLife]

It's been known for quite a while that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons to fight Iran, which he turned around and used on the Kurds. I believe his biggest supplier was Germany, but our hands aren't clean in that matter.

That was not my question.

[matt-o]

2) Saddam DID have weapons of Mass destruction. He used them. And sometimes on his own people. That is a fact. And he never was able to nor did he want to prove he got rid of them. As he was ordered to do. And clearly was seeking to restart making them again. This was clear in the report yesterday. He, it now seems, did not want to verify the lack of them because he feared Iran would take advantage of that. THis is what was reported yesterday as well. He decided to decieve the UN on this for his own purposes. He gambled and lost. He was counting on Russia, Germany and France to see that we would not go in there as he knew they had been aiding him on diverting Oil money from food program. So he did have them, every intelligence agency in the world thought he still probably had them and he deliberately wanted us to think is. No one lied. They were decieved. All of them. Bush and Kerry and everyone. All over the world.


3) there are both. Insurgents are made up of all sorts of groups. Religeous Militants that want power. Old regime members that want power and incoming Militants that are terrorists as well. Terrorists are people who use terrorist tactics of fear to extract thier control. It makes no matter what thier background was or is now... once you resort to terrorist tactics to influence a matter you are a Terrorist. Plain and simple. No argument. I think you missunderstand what a terrorist really is. These people are using terrorist tactics to try and obtain power. So they are all terrorists.

he had WMD's before the first gulf war, and not since, we already knew that, the inspectors never found any evidence nor was it ever reported to be used
and to me there is a difference between terroist and guerilla fighter, they are on their soil or allied soil, not ours they are fighing a defensive war, and they are fighting soldiers, not civilians, that is why i dont think the current fighters in iraq are terrorists, but guerilla fighters the words just have slightly different connotations and bush is heavily exploiting that

[PissedGodzilla]

You do realise that they guy who told him WMD's in Iraq was George Tenet right? Remember which administration he was held over from?

Oh yeah, that'd be Bill Clinton's...

Course that little detail doesn't matter right?

hold on a second here, The director of the CIA is an appointed position.... Dubya chose to keep him... a gross mistake.


IT was his choice.

Why do right wing whackos think that attacking Clinton is going to do anything... Hello!!!! wake up people, He's not running for president!!!

OF course, Right wingers want no responsibility put on George.

[PissedGodzilla]

Which argument are you going to now give up? That he never had WMD's or that he was supplied WMD's by the US?

Can't have it both ways kids...

I dare you to find anywhere were I said anything about wmd's supplied by the US... you won't find it... another irrelevant FoL question....

[PissedGodzilla]

phil, don't give him the concession that the sanctions were working as they clearly were not. According to the Duelfer report [see my post directly above yours] the only thing the sanctions did do was pave the way for the Oil For Food program which was manipulated by Saddam to totally shred the sanctions and give him the money he needed to, at the very least, maintain his pursuit for WMD's.

As far as I am concerned, this report only bolsters the argument to go to war. Saddam was a total threat that simply was not in our faces yet.

If you're driving down a two lane road and notice that a car is in your lane do you swerve as soon as possible or do you wait to the last second hoping the other driver will swerve first? It's been my experience, talking to those libs that I can, that they seem to take a stance of waiting for the last possible moment, choosing instead to hope for the best of humanity, whatever that is.

The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were decieved. and the President is responsible for his people.


and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.

[Hasty8]

he had WMD's before the first gulf war, and not since we already knew that, the inspectors never found any evidence nor was it ever reported to be used
and to me there is a difference between terroist and guerilla fighter, they are on their soil or allied soil, not ours they are fighing a defensive war, and they are fighting soldiers, not civilians, that is why i dont think the current fighters in iraq are terrorists, but guerilla fighters the words just have slightly different connotations and bush is heavily exploiting that

Matt, just so we are clear on this. Your "guerillas" are not fighting for a free IRaq, they are fighting for a muslim one.

[PissedGodzilla]

They were working but no one could VERIFY they were working because Saddam refused to comply. And hind site is always 20/20. Easy to now say. But if Bush was wrong then so was every single country at the UN that voted for further sanctions and final resolutions because they COULD NOT VERIFY if the weapons were destroyed. In fact to this day no one knows where they went. They were there. What did he do with the ones he had? He was supposed to verify thier destruction. And to this very day he has not nor has anyone else determined what happened to them.

The President will and is taking the hit for the misinformation that was widely believed before we could realy go in and verify what the current situation was. But had he not gone in we would not know anything even today. When you go in and discover you take what you find. And to date until we went in there... everyone chose to believe he had still these weapons. And he probably does still have them. Burried somewhere but old. And he was trying to get in postion to remake more. Thats from the latest investigations. It seems Saddam was the victim of his own Folly. Trying to fool the world into thinking he might still have capability and so it bit him in the arse.

Now again.. No one has said there is no connections between Al Queda and Saddam. No one. Your confused. Was there a close working relationship resently. Not that we can find. But that is not the same thing your spouting out. There were communications. THere used to be some internal cooperation. There is evidence it might have started to rekindle. But your flat out wrong. You know what your confusing. Your confusing the conclusion that there was no link between Al Quida and Saddam over the 911 hijackings. And probably just taking a leap of faith to apply it to everything else. Very convenient but not factual.

If you consider being misslead and purposely thwarted from finding out the clear truth with lying then your a bit addled. Fact is Saddam played a game and fooled everyone. Everyone at the UN.... Kerry and Edwards too! So did they lie? I don't think so. They were misslead. And so was everyone else. And the funny thing is, in the end, the person who thought he would gain by misleading and playing games in rightfully in jail.

The flaw in your argument as well is that the President didn't wait for inspectors to finish... he just assumed they would find the WMD's


Also, there is no argument from a sane person that it is better for Iraq in the long run for Saddam 5to be out. The important question is, why did we oust him, and was it for the right reasons. They answer is no it wasn't for the right reasons.

Our reason to go to war in Afghanistan was justified, Osama attacked us. we went into Iraq under the belief that he was supporting Osama and had WMD's ... neither one is true.

All this war did for us in the war against terrorism was hurt us. all of our brave soldiers should be in Afghanistan getting the guy who attacked us, not Saddam.

[Hasty8]

The only problem with your argument is that your reasons for going to war were not the reasons we were given... we were decieved. and the President is responsible for his people.


and your anology is a very poor one. It should be more like this... if your'e driving down a 2 lane road, and notice a car in your lane, do you swerve into the next lane as soon as possible, or wait until the van next to you with the innocent people gets out of the way, and act intelligent by doing everything you can to get that car in front of you out of the way. Doing it your way leaves the innocents dead without their having a chance t get out of the way. that is a more equal analogy.

First off, I care about myself first, innocents second.

Sorry if that's a tad cold for you but I'm not risking my life for someone I don't know.

Second, to sit there and say that Bush lied is total bullhockey.

Did he present wrong intelligence?

Yes, and he has admitted to such but he did not lie. He went on the best intelligence available at the time which at that time said that Saddam still had considerable WMD's.

Considering how he had not been cooperative in regards to the weapons inspectors it's not hard to understand how everyone could belive those claims.

Finally, Saddam was a threat. Perhaps not an "iimediate and direct" one but he was one nonetheless. Now, what sense does it make to let Saddam get to North Korea status before taking him out?

And yes, the President is responsible. So what are we supposed to do now that we are in there and have instituted a regime change which will eventually be for the better? Are we supposed to say "oops. Sorry, no weapons here so Saddam gets to take control again."

No, you stay the course.

Something Kerry seems wholly unable to do. Simply choosing breakfast must be a three hour long process with this guy.

[Hasty8]

hold on a second here, The director of the CIA is an appointed position.... Dubya chose to keep him... a gross mistake.


IT was his choice.

Why do right wing whackos think that attacking Clinton is going to do anything... Hello!!!! wake up people, He's not running for president!!!

OF course, Right wingers want no responsibility put on George.

Jesus, now you are just grabbing for excuses. Clinton and his cronies were in the office for eight years before the attacks while Bush was in office for one.

Clinton presided over several of the worst terrorist attacks against this nation on our own land and against our middle eastern presence yet essentially did nothing.

What I was trying to say is that if you suffer a bully without reprise you are bound to expect larger and more significant attacks.

I wholly put the blame of the attacks of 2001 on Clintons shoulders. He never took it to those who were responsible and ran when ever we lost a life.

[PissedGodzilla]

First off, I care about myself first, innocents second.

Sorry if that's a tad cold for you but I'm not risking my life for someone I don't know.

Second, to sit there and say that Bush lied is total bullhockey.

Did he present wrong intelligence?

Yes, and he has admitted to such but he did not lie. He went on the best intelligence available at the time which at that time said that Saddam still had considerable WMD's.

Considering how he had not been cooperative in regards to the weapons inspectors it's not hard to understand how everyone could belive those claims.

Finally, Saddam was a threat. Perhaps not an "iimediate and direct" one but he was one nonetheless. Now, what sense does it make to let Saddam get to North Korea status before taking him out?

And yes, the President is responsible. So what are we supposed to do now that we are in there and have instituted a regime change which will eventually be for the better? Are we supposed to say "oops. Sorry, no weapons here so Saddam gets to take control again."

No, you stay the course.

Something Kerry seems wholly unable to do. Simply choosing breakfast must be a three hour long process with this guy.

Well, this blows that entire argument away... Ready??


Where did I say Pres. Bush Lied?? I didn't. Boom you lose.

[PissedGodzilla]

Jesus, now you are just grabbing for excuses. Clinton and his cronies were in the office for eight years before the attacks while Bush was in office for one.

Clinton presided over several of the worst terrorist attacks against this nation on our own land and against our middle eastern presence yet essentially did nothing.

What I was trying to say is that if you suffer a bully without reprise you are bound to expect larger and more significant attacks.

I wholly put the blame of the attacks of 2001 on Clintons shoulders. He never took it to those who were responsible and ran when ever we lost a life.

yet another problem with your thinking is that Bill isn't running for President. blame him all you want for 9/11 I'm talking about the war in Iraq.

Bill Clinto this, Bill Clinton that... anything to get away from the ineffectiveness and Mistakes of Dubya