Rove: We Wouldn't Have Invaded Iraq If We Knew The Truth About WMD's

[Willie99]

now we drift off into some theoretical analysis of thought, I guess those there facts weren't helping your cause much.

everything you said about me was wrong, but it does apply to your unhealthy hatred of President Bush.


stocks, if you care to debate any specific fact I put on the table, let me know

I'm sorry the UN resolutions were what I said they were, and that Bush's haters are changing the facts today, not me

 

[punter]

Cold ass fact is that at days preceding the bombing of Iraq they were complying with the inspectors. You keep bringing up the problems with them complying before and yes they did not comply and were bad bad boys.

Now after 7 years 4500 dead GI's a war that will ending up costing 1 trillion, A prudent man would ask themselves why did we not wait until the inspectors were done? Why did we have to force an end to the inspections?

 

[Mistermj]

Willie and Mistermj what is the deal with the 2 of you.

I'm not really sure how to put this but 2 of you are so one sided in favor of the republicans you believe or support anything they do and say. And anything the dems do or say is always wrong.

Seriuosly if you believe that your government thought there really were WMD's and they were a direct threat to America then that would mean your republican government was completely inept and stupid.

And that dont say much for the so called greatest country in the world does it.

How come every other county that dont listen to the UN is'nt getting attacked. Bush and the boys wanted a war with Iraq so bad they were willing to do and say anything to get it and they did.

WTF do you NOT understand?

AGain....here is Blix in his own words with a link if you don't believe me. Quit being a liar or a moron...it's one or the other.

Here is what Blix had to say after 3 months of 1441:

Friday February 14, 2003

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html

IF SADDAM would cooperate...straight from Blix himself.

Thats it! Nothing else to say....you lose on this matter.

Done...over.

Now spin it and cry if you want to.

 

[Willie99]

Cold ass fact is that at days preceding the bombing of Iraq they were complying with the inspectors. You keep bringing up the problems with them complying before and yes they did not comply and were bad bad boys.

now is the time for you to provide a link

 

[punter]

I'm killing you with FACTS BOY...now don't cry about it like one of Funks little girls.

Sorry, but even Hans Blix disagrees with you.

According to the wording of UNSC 1441, compliance was to be IMMEDIATE. No more games. Not in 3 months..or 4 months...or 12 more years,but IMMEDIATE.

"Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect"
<A href="http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm" target=_blank>http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Here is what Blix had to say after 3 months of 1441:

Friday February 14, 2003

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html

1991? hey we are talking about the inspections in 2001. Check his comments about those inspections. Not you MJ, I ment anyone who has a short memory and wants to know the truth.

 

[punter]

now is the time for you to provide a link

I already told you where to look. Not that you are interested in the truth.

 

[Mistermj]

1991? hey we are talking about the inspections in 2001. Check his comments about those inspections. Not you MJ, I ment anyone who has a short memory and wants to know the truth.

No wonder you can't make a coherent argument.

It clearly states this is Blix comments from the 2003 inspections...leading up to the invasion.

Can you read? Who is the liar here?

Here is what Blix had to say after 3 months of 1441:

Friday February 14, 2003

If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament - under resolution 687 (1991) - could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if "immediate, active and unconditional cooperation" with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,895882,00.html

 

[Willie99]

I already told you where to look. Not that you are interested in the truth.

I gotta go searching for something I don't think exists to prove your argument that I think is wrong?

:think2: what do I google? something the left is lying about? too many hits

edit copy, edit paste

not that hard

 

[punter]

MJ, you have cherry picked the statement. Anyone who wants to know just look it up.

 

[punter]

I gotta go searching for something I don't think exists to prove your argument that I think is wrong?

:think2: what do I google? something the left is lying about? too many hits

edit copy, edit paste

not that hard

Its pretty lengthy and you wouldn't read it anyway.

 

[Willie99]

Its pretty lengthy and you wouldn't read it anyway.

give me a quote, any quote

or a link

something

 

[Mistermj]

MJ, you have cherry picked the statement. Anyone who wants to know just look it up.

I've had enough of your lies...back it up buddy.

You can't...this is where you call me a liar...and slink away with your tail between your legs.

Back it up...quit depending on others for your dirty work.

Or...go off in shame...again.

 

[Stocks]

Ya lets all listen to the UN something formed so the top countrys can controll the rest of the world.

Bush and the boys got 99% of the intel from 1 guy who was telling them what they wanted to hear and getting paid nicely for it.

I would bet my life that the CIA and any of those other groups knew what Iraq had and did not have.

 

[Willie99]

Ya lets all listen to the UN something formed so the top countrys can controll the rest of the world.

Bush and the boys got 99% of the intel from 1 guy who was telling them what they wanted to hear and getting paid nicely for it.

I would bet my life that the CIA and any of those other groups knew what Iraq had and did not have.

do you have a link for your accusations?

 

[punter]

give me a quote, any quote

or a link

something

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/29/iraq.comment


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EED7153AF932A35754C0A9659C8B63

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

Want more there are lots of them but you 2 knew that but to you they are like Obama's BC not good enough. You are a pair of liars.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

It goes back to the Carter doctrine:

"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

1991, sure enough we had a war because...our interests were threatened. This has nothing to do with some bloody weapons inspection. Open your eyes. It has nothing to do with political party's and it has everything to do with THE fuel that drives the entire world and the control and consumption of it. You guys can sit here and debate all this bullshit you want but the ends are clear. Oil was and still is the name of the game and the pertodollar is a byproduct of this.

 

[Stocks]

do you have a link for your accusations?

CNN did a story on it and a BBC documentry about the Iraq war said the same thing.

 

[Stocks]

It goes back to the Carter doctrine:

"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

1991, sure enough we had a war because...our interests were threatened. This has nothing to do with some bloody weapons inspection. Open your eyes. It has nothing to do with political party's and it has everything to do with THE fuel that drives the entire world and the control and consumption of it. You guys can sit here and debate all this bullshit you want but the ends are clear. Oil was and still is the name of the game and the pertodollar is a byproduct of this.

I agree 100%

I'm just saying they used WMD's and other things as a way to get public support for the war.

 

[Willie99]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/29/iraq.comment


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400EED7153AF932A35754C0A9659C8B63

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusnewsiraq.asp?NewsID=354&sID=6

Want more there are lots of them but you 2 knew that but to you they are like Obama's BC not good enough. You are a pair of liars.

the first two links provide nothing to support your position

in the other two, Blix does mention that inspectors were finally allowed to return after a four year absence, and he concludes Iraq's cooperation was improving. However, he also points out there were still some restrictions, some shortcomings, some less than forthright answers and some game of cat and mouse.

After 11 plus years of this rouse, I don't know why this should lead one to conclude Saddam was going to change. He was scarred, and he made some concessions to buy time, a game he played for a decade. There were still limitations.

Most importantly, Blix never concluded Iraq did not have WMD, only that they did not find any in their searches to date. Giving the ongoing game of cat and mouse, why on earth would anyone believe Saddam?

Blix, days prior to the war, did say Saddam could avoid serious consequences if he removed all obstacles. Obviosly, Saddam was still playing games.

One can debate whether or not it was worth going to war, especially with hindsight, one cannot debate what was believed to be accurate intelligence leading up to the war. That is what this discussion is about.

 

[Willie99]

CNN did a story on it and a BBC documentry about the Iraq war said the same thing.

that's your link? You say CNN & the BBC did a story on how 99% of intel came from one guy?

I call bullshit