They are living in a parallel universe (from Alternet website)
"Do the supporters of President Bush really know their man or the policies of his administration?
Three out of 4 self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them. According to a new survey published Thursday, the same number also believes that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein provided “substantial support” to al Qaeda.
But here is the truly astonishing part: as many or more Bush supporters hold those beliefs today than they did several months ago. In other words, more people believe the claims today –- after the publication of a series of well-publicized official government reports that debunked both notions.
These are among the most striking findings of a survey conducted in mid-October by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm…"
“But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam’s WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.” David Kay, former head Iraq Survey Group
The fact is that although there have been none found in Iraq there are still question to be answered about what went to Syria. If WMD did go or knowledge and program material went to Syria then we need to find out what went there, where it is and who is in control of it.
I don’t think that you can conclude 100% that because we don’t know where they are that there were not WMD and or WMD programs pre war.
I don’t think it is necessary. IF they have them there is no Saddam to return them to and my bet is that we have let them know that we think they have them and if they should show up or be used the reaction will be swift from us. The Syrians should be fearful of us but at the same time we have other threats that are more improtant.
I think I’m the only one in this thread who has actually been in that country and fought against Iraqis and their military. It’s a damn big region, guys. He could’ve had 'em and gotten rid of them, and he could also have shipped 'em to his Ba’athist confederates in Syria, much as he shipped his air forces out to Iran at the start of the air war in '91.
When I last was there, back in May '03 surveying the shot-to-shit Baghdad Int’l Airport (and it was us who shot it to shit, I must confess) I was constantly surprised at how much territority there was in which to hide stuff.
Really, a bio/chem warfare capability can be hidden in a panel van and buried as easily as a mafioso buries one of his victims.
Not capability. End-products. Capability for mustard, sarin, bz, tabun and others takes much machinery and constituents. Most of the above degrade over time.
Bio warfare agents like anthrax, which is a spore, or clostridium botulinum (another spore which produces a nuerotoxin as a waste product), thrush, smallpox etc. are easily concealable and transportable.
BK I have read that a “small” amount of chem / bio weapons could easily be hidden in something as small as a public storage unit or garage and that a small stockpile like that could kill thousands of people?
I think most people think that if he had them there must be warehouses full of them and we should be tripping over them. I leave my question on the table from other threads that no one ever has answered to my satisfaction. Why did US and British forces find so many Iraqi Chem Bio suits left behind. What were the preparing for, and don’t try to tell me they thought we would use them as a prememtive tactic.
pointless tit for tat exercise - i’d end up saying something about bush being a flip flopper (ie i’m not into nation builing) but hell i now got myself a nation - you might reply to the effect that we were attacked and had to go in - and we are back to where we started - then i’d say your propostion is premised on a lie - and then you’d probably blame clinton for not dealing with the gathering threat - so no
how about the “there will be no casualties” angle
.
But this latest guy is dangerous (and seemingly stupid as well). Extract from Ron Suskind article:
"Lantos went on to describe for the president how the Swedish Army might be an ideal candidate to anchor a small peacekeeping force on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Sweden has a well-trained force of about 25,000. The president looked at him appraisingly, several people in the room recall.
‘‘I don’t know why you’re talking about Sweden,’’ Bush said. ‘‘They’re the neutral one. They don’t have an army.’’
Lantos paused, a little shocked, and offered a gentlemanly reply: ‘‘Mr. President, you may have thought that I said Switzerland. They’re the ones that are historically neutral, without an army.’’ Then Lantos mentioned, in a gracious aside, that the Swiss do have a tough national guard to protect the country in the event of invasion.
Bush held to his view. ‘‘No, no, it’s Sweden that has no army.’’
The room went silent, until someone changed the subject."
Kerry will not make even an acceptable commander in chief. It’s true that he was a junior officer (0-2) in the U.S. Navy, and it’s also true that his strategic thinking and abilities still reflect an outlook from his J.O. days
This guy is dangerous for the country in the war on terror. He’s going to get more Americans hurt in more parts of the world. I find him dangerously naive about the uses for American power and the people who seek to attack us. Just the fact that he VOTED AGAINST the 1991 Gulf War, in the face of support for the war by his great and good friends in France and Germany, who put troops into the field against Saddam’s military, tells me that there will be NO circumstance in which he’ll fight for the defense of our nation. I don’t trust him, because I’ve seen empty shirts like him before, who seem utterly incapable of formulating either a coherent national strategy or a day-to-day tactical plan for winning this war. And we are at war, make no mistake about it.
Many of you, who haven’t suffered even the slightest bit of discomfort because of 9/11, other than a little bit more expensive gas, look to narrow self-interest and the empty, unfulfillable promises that this guy makes in order to get elected. If this guy get in, it’s going to go bad for us, sadly.
Leftists like to disparage the current president’s so-called intelligence deficit, when in fact he outscored Kerry on even the rudimentary SATs that both took back in the 60s. This is a common failing of the left, who somehow equate the shallow urbanity and technical speech delivery that Kerry makes, for some great and deep intellectual prowess. Sometimes it seems as if the Left has bought into Alexander Hamilton’s desire for rule in this country by an “enlightened elite”. And that’s the truly scary issue, to me.
P.T. Barnum said it: “There’s a sucker born every minute”.
I am saying that there are a few questions left on the table that no one seems to be addressing for some reason, yet there are many people (again from more than just the US ) who say that it is extremely clear that there were large convoys going to Syria and I don’t personally believe they were moving Saddam for his relocation.
Until someone can account for what was being moved, where it went and again, why there were chem bio suits left everywhere when the Iraqis left then I want some answers. I just think it is a rock that shouldn’t be left unturned and right now no one in the admin will even acknowledge there is a rock.
It is bordering on civil war and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
Remember when the Republicans told Clinton that you can’t force democracy on people? That it has to come from the inside?
Another 1 or 2 Islamic theocracies in the middle east will evolve.
There were things that could have been done to stop it. We shouldnt have totally dismantled the police force and the army just because they were Baathists. We totally obliterated all infrastructure. We should have worked with the system that was set up and changed it over time. That would have given the public some sense of order and services. We wouldnt have to train a new army and police force at that point. We wouldnt have to be garbage collecters etc…
On the other hand, Nation building is working in Afganistan. The Afganis are accepting Democracy and fighting for it.
I dont care about the Iraquis. It was their job to do something about Hussein. We were attacked. We should be concentrating our efforts on the man responsible for attacking us. He is still free. I want his head on a platter. Iraq is a distraction from that pursuit. There are plenty of horrible dictators out there doing exactly the same thing Hussein did. They are free too. We should not be the world police.
We chose to take him out for various reasons but him being a brutal dictator wasn’t high on the list. But that is all we have left to feel good about now so you cling to it.
If you are going to use most of our military resources to take out Saddam, then you can’t also make the claim that you are doing everything you can to fight terror. Its a crock of shit.
