?

Was the president being serious?

That's it?!

That's what I got.
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

if you could give me a quick brief, i would appreciate it. i guess i must have missed the speech.

just the part about the WMD, i don't want to overload.

Text of the speech:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0122/p25s02-uspo.html 

"Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts - already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

So now it is about activities related to programs? And not the weapons themselves? That is desperate! And a deliberate misleading of the American people.

What a clown. I hope my fellow countrymen are not so dumb as to actually accept this stuff.

Hello Again mhpd,

if you do a search on here under my username you can find the link on the Kay report and what was found.. also what was left to be searched.. better yet I'll just post it..

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html 

Interesting thing is.. the size of Saddam's Iraq Ammo Dumps...

"Let me turn now to chemical weapons (CW). In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, ISG has had to contend with the almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons. For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordinance and to store it at the same ASPs that held conventional rounds, the size of the required search effort is enormous."

Small huh?? well you put the protective gear on "just in Case" head your ass into a facility with no Air movement and snoop around for a couple "MINUTES" because thats about how long you'll last before you'll need a drink or some Air... it turns 120 degrees in the shade by 10:00 AM in that country and thats in the Winter Months!!!!!!
but how come we can't find nothing???

Hog

oh and one more thing...

the Arguments in Washington are " From the Liberal Democrats and ****" well the WMD findings so far cannot count because they were not actually inside Warheads or weapons when they were discovered... give me a frickin Break!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you talk clowns LMAO!!!!! I seen some posts of some clowns...

Hog

Face it, usahog, you've been bent over in front of the president for a long time on the Iraq war (I'm guessing you've supported from the begining?), and now, deep down, you know it was a lie. Your quote don't say anything. Your quote says that the weapons cashes (sp?) are big. Yeah, we know that.

If there were wmds, Bush would be gloating about it daily. There aren't, so he has changed his phrasing, now talking about related program activites.

Anyone want to tell me what a 'related program activity' is? That's pretty darn broad. Technically, urinating would be a sex related program activity, after all I'm touching the dragon.

By the way, usahog, no profanity on these boards. Are you above the rules?

Little jdra-bin-laden-ski

?

I don't get it. I'm pretty new here. Explain?

Did anyone else see "The Daily Show" with John Stewart last night? He really tore apart the President's speech.

To prefice a funny point that Stewart said "dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment...?" If he (the President) had said that in the beggining we would never have gone to war...(pause) oh he's good.

First it was WMD, then it was liberation, now it's weapons of mass destruction-related blah blah blah. Fool me once...

Thom, I saw that. It was so funny. I died laughing. Funny, but true and pretty sad. I laughed, then I felt like it wasn't so funny. Know what I mean?

Did anyone ever figure out why President Clinton fully supported President George W Bush in regards to the war with Iraq even when the Democratic Party as a whole was trying to politicize the issue? He dealt with Iraq for eight years. Was there something he knew?

Hey Hog! have you ever noticed that the libs say they support the troops but not Bush, and when the guys who've BEEN there say it was long overdue, and that it needed to be done along time ago, they show their true colors. They don't supprot anything but their own agendas. At least we can say that we've put our butts where our beliefs are, and not sat at home and armchair quarterbacked the people who finally got enough sand to do what needed doing for ten years!

Wait just a minute. This is not about support for war or troops (if it be known I support both), this is about reasons for war and why we are there currently. The question is how many times can you have a willing disbelief of reality and accept new excuses for unfound reasons?

HockeyDad, maybe Clinton had bad information too.

Armchair qb? Huh? Just calling out Bush for his lies and deceptions. Callin' him out for how he is changing explanations. Doesn't fly.

re: what you said about 'those who have been there,' remember that soldiers do not make policy. They are there to fight, not make policy. They can think whatever they want, but they don't make policy. They enforce it. So get over it. I know many people there who feel the opposite. They think it is a waste of money and lives.

You got your friends, I got mine. It don't make a damn difference. They are soldiers, not policymakers.

Let's use the same logic that you all use with WMD.

We've had no terrorist attacks since 9/11, thus there are no terrorists. Wow, I feel so much better using that logic. I can sleep better at night knowing for a fact there will never be another terrorist attack ever again.

I believe the issue Hog was trying to say (and quickly ignored by others,) is that you cannot say there isn't WMD until all the stockpiles have been searched. Anyone see the post about the buried MIG in Iraq? They bury an entire jet airplane... and we're looking for a coffee can of chemicals? The FACT remains that Saddam never accounted for a huge stock of his chemical weapons. Let me put it this way so you can understand…

If I lend you $20, and you give me back $10 (that means there is still $10 unaccounted for…) I’m going to ASSUME you have the remaining $10. Saddam said he destroyed most of his weapon caches (correct spelling) but did NOT account for all of it. Where’s the remaining $10??? That VIOLATES the UN treaty and the same treaty says that the UN can use what ever force necessary to verify no weapons exist. We used to have a president that SAID the best thing to do was remove Saddam, now we have a president that DOES remove Saddam.

Thank you president Bush.

Didn't you see that Bush is no longer saying that wmds exist? Now it is 'related program activities.'

Besides, the wmd hunters have been withdrawn:

http://www.fairandbalanced.us/docs/StoryID1789.htm 

And you can find this story in many sources.

They aren't there. Sorry. You were lied to. It is time to accept that and call for accountability. I thought conservatives were for accountability?

WMD or not this was a necessary thing. Why can't you see that? Why is this(WMD) such an issue for you? Are you saying you want Saddam re-instated? Do you want continued terrorist activities on US soil? Do you think Bush just makes this **** up?

Pull your heads out of your collective ass and wake TF up!

WMD is a big deal because it was the reason given for going to war. If it was a fabrication, then we went to war under false rationale.

Is your head so far up your butt that you can't understand that? Or did you forget why we went to war in the first place? REmoving Sadaam from power is a reason made up after the fact.

Please explain the connection between Sadaam and terrorists. (THere is none).

I'm noticing something interesting. It seems that both sides of this issue, on this thread, are trying to tell each other "Look! Look! Can't you see?! It's right here in front of your face. It's so obvious." Yet both are seeing different things. But mine, of course, is right 😉