You know Iraq is in trouble...

[DragonLogos]

Politics these days is a dead horse, the best you can do is moan and write and basically let people know what you think, with jails so full at the moment you just wonder what the powers that be can do, Solent Green perhaps?

You get the feeling that religion is fading out as a means of control, and so it is being replaced with fear. It would be nice to have religion overhauled, but at the moment the only thing we have got is fear, fear and surprise... LOL The part I don't like is you worry someone has blocked the exits, as Jeeves would say, the feeling of an impending Doom. " Why are we here, surely not to live in pain and fear " (John Lennon - Instant Karma)

Taking about John Lennon, it reminds me of time when I was playing ' Strawberry fields ' - A conservative religious type tells me (this is about three years ago BTW) " that song is all about drugs " - " no it's not " I replied, the explanation that was then given to me is that the Strawberry fields are the rings that are left behind by the needles used to inject drugs, and that they were forever because you were hooked forever. I then explained that ' Strawberry Field ' was in fact the name of the orphanage that John was sent to, and he thought it was somewhere he would spend the rest of his life in, but here is the best part, I thought I would check out the lyrics just in case (as John did with the Lucy thing) the first two lines are classic " Living is easy with eyes closed, mis-understanding all you see "

There are some real nutty stories out there, which are clearly made up and because they never get into the light of day, they are half baked. Like Saddam was killed by the Bunker bomb and then later he was alive, which was as it was said in revelations, blah blah - It was just something to string along the funndis and they believe that GWB is saving us from the Devil - Its nice to know what is really going on, because there are some people that are not dealing with a full deck of cards

If you look in the past, Pope Innocent III ordered the killing of the Cathers for heresy, when they came to a village where some Cathers lived, when asked how the army should proceed (ie what do they do about the people that are not Cathers) the reply was " Kill them all, God will know his own "

In America, soldiers were given orders to kill all Native American Indians, women and Children.... Why? Because someone thought that they were the cause of STDs - And therefore all of them had to be killed to rid this world of this terrible disease. This has now been proven to be incorrect because a study of the bodies found in Pompeii has shown that they had the clap way back then, but who knows for sure, we do know that the Native Americans had little resistance to the diseases that Europeans had built up a resistance to, as the Conquistadors noted, you only have to sneeze on these people to kill them, and yes millions died. Then lastly what was left were rounded up and put on Reservations, many more died as a result of poor sanitation.

One thing I do not recall is anyone saying that they were going to remove Saddam from power, as I recall the talk was that he had WMD and could / would use them, and if he did not disarm then they would. I do not remember any talk of removing him from power, and if anyone has a link to were either Bush or Blair said so (before the Invasion) then I would be interested. By design or error, removing Saddam from power has destabilised the region, a democracy has to be earned, it cannot be forced or given, the people need to be so fed up with what they had that they tear it apart, as what happened in South Africa

I think why the Trade Towers were attacked is because they represent in some peoples eyes they are the control centre of the capitalist system. A system that manipulates markets, like keeping the Gold price low or as we are seeing lately, the oil price high, people are buying futures higher (wet barrels = real oil - paper barrels = futures) a dead give away is that there is always an excuse, It goes something like this, buy your supply of oil now at a fixed price for the future, because.... there are problems in Iraq / Iran / Nigeria / off the Gulf coast, exactly the same thing happened with the Rand with currency speculators a few years ago, the giveaway is always the continual excuses, Mandela is sick, problems in Zimbabwe, Finance minister is leaving

Were ever did someone come up with the concept of a Holy war. The Devil made me do it, and in Gods name. Over half a million civilians dead, it is a terrible thing. The problem as Shakespeare wrote is not in the stars but with ourselves

Another problem and one that the mainstream media like to sidestep is that of the Dollar being the only world currency, and the free Lunch it gives the USA - Iraq traded Oil in Euros, Iran is setting out a market so that they can, and Russia is keen on the idea as well. It's time to wake up to the reality and realise that people are not going to keep the US Dollar as the world currency, they do not have any more room to put all these Dollars, the safes are stuffed full, they are littered all over the place - So instead of playing Middle-East-you-are-it ~ It would be far better if people sat down and said, hey trade in Euros but set limits as to how much can be traded, so the entire US economy does not go down the toilet, and that the US can set targets and goals for putting their dire financial state in order

Then there is common sense and spin. Common sense tells you that pollution is going to cause problems, you have millions of cars pumping out exhaust fumes, and chimney stacks pushing out black smoke. Spin tells you, hey things are not that bad, temperatures my have gone up a bit but it's not that bad. However, we then find out that the reason why Global warming is not so bad, is because of global dimming - and unless something radical is done to curb both global warming and dimming soon, we are in deep trouble. Same goes for DU (Depleted Uranium) common sense tells you it's not safe, but again we are told there is nothing to worry about, which is OK... because all those that think it is safe can store the stuff free of charge

But what happens when a so called conspiracy theory starts panning out, like the one I heard before the Afghanistan invasion, which said that one of the reasons for the invasion was to get the drug trade going again, and they were bang on the money, a few days ago Yahoo news reported that drug production in Afghanistan was (excuse the pun) at an all time high. Some strange facts start coming up, like how Briton a few centauries ago ticked of China by selling opium in China via Hong Kong that was grown in Afghanistan and shipped through India. Which unless you know the story sounds like taking coals to Newcastle, but what happened is that the Chinese Government was trying to sort out it's drug problem and Briton was growing the stuff in India and exporting it to China. Empires have been built on drug money (and the slave trade) which is pretty much the something in the long run

 

[Alan]

I wonder if this is really true? Perhaps an equally valid position would be "they didn't want to unseat their buddy, just kick him out of Kuwait."

I've said it a dozen times. What is it with the bush trolls: do they randomly make stuff up or do they just dream it to themselves? Anything to justify their sordid reality?
On August 6, 1990 the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 661 which imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq, providing for a full trade embargo, excluding medical supplies, food and other items of humanitarian necessity, these to be determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. After the end of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi sanctions were linked to removal of Weapons of mass destruction by Resolution 687.[1].

The United Nations economic sanctions were imposed at the urging of the U.S. to remove Saddam Hussein from power. President George H. W. Bush stated: "By making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people, [sanctions] would eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power"
Iraq sanctions

Self defense? Against what? Oh ya, the wmd that didn't exist that they were going to deliver by ICBM. Please. Where do you get this stuff from? Ya, the terrorists of 911 were Iraqi! Duh. But then again maybe they were actually Saudi? But lets not spoil a pretend reality.

America went into Afghanistan on the basis of 911. If we accept 911 then it was legit. But then again 911 could possibly be the biggest hoax of all (but then you guys like hoaxes.)

and others:

Where's any proof that she isn't. Anti-war blogger with good resources? Another dream world. The difference: trolls can't tell truth from lies even though both are easily verifiable. (In fact they prefer to make it up as they go along, much easier that way, they don't have to do any work; just lap it up.)

Um, what nukes would that be? Oooh ya, the Iranian nukes. Right. Must be in that big nuke factory they built outside Tehran. Ja, they are also going to fire an ICBM just like Iraq.

and for OT:

You have no idea of my circumstances therefore don't draw erroneous conclusions based on your assumptions. (Seems you do that a lot.)

If they had gone in you would have done your nut. Poor U.S, it's damned if they do, damned if they don't with your ilk.

Ratified by the U.N. Were there sanctions on Iraq during the Clinton years?

Who said anything about them being delived by ICBM .

So 9/11 was a huge hoax. Who was in on it. The CIA, "neocons", democrats, Brits, French and every other nation that say he's a terrorist?

Yeah Iran is just processing uranium for the fun of it . I forgot Iranians are such nice peace loving guys who respect people's "rights" and wouldn't harm a fly. All that "Wipe Isreal off the map" talk was just a joke. Their only problem is their sick sense of humour

 

[arf9999]

But it seems that neither "forget" nor "forgive" is in the Arabic vocabulary.

ummm, I thought Iraqis spoke Farsi. Why is it that people still consider Persians to be Arabs?

 

[Alan]

National security or oil?

If they wanted oil, then invading and destabilizing a country is not a very clever way of doing it. Also weren't they doing well enough under the "oil for food" program. Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia instead.

You guys just don't get it do you?

Exactly. Now let's think very hard: if america hadn't removed Saddam would this situation be true. No. And we all conveniently forget Iraq was a democracy, twisted that it was. Did the Iraq's ask america to invade? No. No doubt Saddam was a scourge but that scourge was installed by america and his barbarity could have been defeated in other ways besides full scale war and the illegal invasion of a country. As to right now: america's presence gives these forces a reason to come out of the woodwork and gives global forces a very direct easy target. America should leave now. Can the country be in any worse state than it is now? Perhaps it would fall into total civil war but there are other avenues available (nato or un troops) under mandate: of course we will just ignore these avenues and wring our hands about "what choice do we have," while ignoring any feasible alternate. And don't tell me multinational forces are in Iraq. Point is: they have no authority.

Ja, dictators are always good.

First: they didn't. And they don't. And even if they did they don't/didn't/haven't the technology to deliver an ICBM against america. So america invaded because the nukes they never had they would have used if they had them: (at some future time.) Can you see how flawed your logic is? Never mind that the country was on its knees, it was verified over and over again they didn't and the Iraqi's swore they never had them (or had any future intention to get them, not that they had the ability in the first place, ever, well certainly after the Israelis kicked their butt way back in ?? 1981.) A bit like Iran. But let's sort them out as well 'cause they could just get nukes that they would use at some future time perhaps (even though all evidence is contrary to this assumption?) World diplomacy in action according to the trolls.


Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Dumb and dumber. Which part of my posts are invisible to you? The bit about Condeliza saying No, not true. Or the bit about Iraq having nothing to do with 911? Or the bit about LIED to the world and the UN? Who's the blind one here that lives by mirages? (Let's not even mention the stupid word. (or comprehension)

Saddam would just be killing the Shia's and Kurds.

Bwahahahaha, oh Kilo you have sunk to new lows. Come on man pull yourself together.

Well the Kurds and Shia seemed happy enough when Saddam was overthrown. Had the U.N backed the invasion it would have been welcomed even more. But of course you can't expect that spineless, pacifist waste of
time to do anything decisive can you.

PRISM

What "illegal" invasion .? Also what other methods?

Oh boo hoo, The people who want to destroy the U.S, Irag and democracy are attacking us. Quick lets run away and hope they change their minds.

Um, yes

What they gonna do. Stand by and watch like Kosovo. Plus you wouldn't get the E.U countries in there. They are too fixated with their appeasment policies

Are you a gambling man? Cause if you wanna trust tyrants with nukes, then you are playing high stakes. You've been duped before so why trust that it won't happen again. Once they got them it's to late for all of us.

Kilo you're getting all hyped up again and it's making you

 

[Xarog]

OK, I'm not going to quote everything I'm responding to, so I presume that the rest of you will be able to figure out what issues I'm addressing.

First off, America acts in its self-interest. The humanitarian side of things is merely propaganda to get everyone to go along with what they want. They install new dictators as often as they liberate countries from old ones, it all depends on how friendly that dictator is.

The US was happy to put people like Pinochet into power. Using the CIA they helped Saddam to secure power in Iraq in the first place. As another question, why are they so silent about Libya these days? Could it be that the US and Libya have recently made a few trade deals?

Thus, what is good for America is not good for us too. In almost all cases, the regional powers fighting America are doing the exact same thing that America was doing back when it was fighting the war of independence, namely fighting off a foreign power that is interfering in their domestic affairs and trying to usurp their autonomy. The whole line that Muslims are hell-bent on taking over the world or killing all non-muslims is largely a line that they like to feed to you and me to get us to accept and tolerate the violence that they use against the Muslims. It's not that different from the way the apartheid govt. ruled over the whites with no small amount of propaganda about the swart gevaar.

We have never seen conclusive evidence regarding who was responsible for the WTC attacks. The BBC has reported that 11(iirc) of the supposed hijackers are still alive. In at least one case, the US was right about the supposed hijacker going to the states and learning how to fly planes... but after he got his degree he went to Saudi Arabia to work as a commercial pilot. The FBI has since admitted that there is no guarantee that the list of the hijackers is accurate. - Even bin Laden initially denied having any involvement in the attacks. The first 'tape' which was shown throughout the world in which he names the hijackers was most likely a hoax. It was only later, after he became a hunted man, that he claimed responsibility for the attacks. However, if a country accused me of doing something like that, and I was innocent, but I was also being hunted by the same country who wanted to kill me at any cost, and the people around me supported what happened, I would probably also claim responsibility simply to ensure my own survival by getting support of the people around me. The point I'm trying to make is that the US case for invading Afghanistan was lacking, and there wasn't and still isn't sufficient evidence to support the attack, just like with the WMD line they fed us regarding Iraq.

Now the PR machine is trying to drum up support for invading Iran. People have been mistranslating Ahamadinejad's speeches in order to make him sound like a rabid lunatic. For instance, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote actually translates to "Israel needs to dissappear from the page of time", and when taken in context with the rest of the speech, refers specifically to Israel as ruled by the Zionist regime (which is persecuting Palestinians - and if you don't agree with that, then it's enough that Amadinejad does ) rather than hatred against Jews themselves. There's at least one Jew serving in Iran as an MP, if I recall correctly.

The recent PR about the holocaust summit in Iran is also taken out of context - the summit was only started as a response to the cartoons in a Danish newspaper which depicted Mohammed. This was offensive to the Muslims, but the west claimed it was "Free speech". Iran then held the Holocaust summit because it's the West's sacred cow (questioning it is really really taboo, afterall). The west responded by claiming that Ahamadinejad's an anti-semite - So much for supporting free speech. The point was proven though; the West only cares about "free speech" when its sacred cows aren't the one's being attacked/defamed by the free speech.

 

[Cara]

If they wanted oil, then invading and destabilizing a country is not a very clever way of doing it. Also weren't they doing well enough under the "oil for food" program. Why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia instead.

If the country is destabilised the US can siphon off the oil without much interference because the locals are too busy fighting with each other to worry about all that oil leaving their shores with very little benefit to them.

The Saudis are already cooperating with the US whereas Iraqi oil was pretty much out of their hands, Saddam was not playing the game like he should. Plus the oil in Iraq is extremely valuable because it is close to the surface and of a good quality. Cuts down the costs significantly. I don't think the US wanted to trade food for oil and leave it in the control of the Iraqi's. Oil is such a valuable resource in our current economy that I think Bush felt it was too dangerous to leave in the hands of an 'axis of evil'

 

[Alan]

If the country is destabilised the US can siphon off the oil without much interference because the locals are too busy fighting with each other to worry about all that oil leaving their shores with very little benefit to them.

The Saudis are already cooperating with the US whereas Iraqi oil was pretty much out of their hands, Saddam was not playing the game like he should. Plus the oil in Iraq is extremely valuable because it is close to the surface and of a good quality. Cuts down the costs significantly. I don't think the US wanted to trade food for oil and leave it in the control of the Iraqi's. Oil is such a valuable resource in our current economy that I think Bush felt it was too dangerous to leave in the hands of an 'axis of evil'

Actually "siphoning oil" from a country is a complicated procedure. The U.S are getting attacked as well as the employees of companies, factories ect. All this makes for highly inefficient processing which costs time and money. It's no good having oil close to the surface if the pipeline keeps on getting bombed or workers geting murdered. He left the oil in the hands of the Saudi's while Iraq has their own government. Saddam was happy to give oil for the "back handers" he got out the "oil for food program".

 

[d0b33]

Saddam would just be killing the Shia's and Kurds.

Saddam never physically attacked or killed these peoples, His military did all the killings

 

[Nanfeishen]

Anybody who doesnt think about this conflict as all about the oil is blinded by the media hype of "terror".

The following map shows how in 2002, Iraq had negotiated contracts with the countries shown to develop its oil fields, guess which country is not present, and you can also see the countries opposed to the war, such as France and Russia, had invested interests in the area.
A major E.U. country with oil money, and an Oil richer Russia, (Russia has huge Oil and Gas reserves, but many of the fields are in very inhospitable areas, so the added Oil industry could have put Russia ahead of many Oil producing nations)would pose a huge economic threat to America, as far as trade, and global influence.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/20/photos/wire-iraq-map.jpg

Most of the early fighting that took place was to control the oil production areas, and especially in the south around Basra, secondly the British were sent to Basra specifically because they generally have always had good relations with that part of Iraq, and were better recieved. Plus that part of Iraq was also quite heavily suppressed during Saddams reign.
http://www.answers.com/topic/basra-governorate

There are also plans to possibly unit three of the southern provinces into a "oil-rich semi autonomous state"
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6943

There are huge deposits of oil around that region , and linking to Kuwait wouldnt pose a huge risk , plus Iraq's major ports are also situated there.
Maps showing oil fields in Iraq:
http://www.gregcroft.com/area3map.ivnu
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

 

[Xarog]

Regarding the oil issue :

Firstly, it's important to remember that Saddam was planning to sell oil in Euros instead of Dollars. This would have been disasterous to the American economy.

Secondly, Haliburton et. al. have made huge profits from this war. Perhaps not from the oil IN Iraq, but from the no-bid contracts they've gotten. Also, the oil price has gone through the roof. Since the cost of getting oil out of the ground has remained more or less constant (well ok, it would have increased slightly over 3 years), that means that their profit margins have also gone through the roof. Whether or not this was planned I don't know. I'm inclined to think that the Americans underestimated the resistance they'd receive after invading.

Edit :

I think why the Trade Towers were attacked is because they represent in some peoples eyes they are the control centre of the capitalist system. A system that manipulates markets, like keeping the Gold price low or as we are seeing lately, the oil price high, people are buying futures higher (wet barrels = real oil - paper barrels = futures) a dead give away is that there is always an excuse, It goes something like this, buy your supply of oil now at a fixed price for the future, because.... there are problems in Iraq / Iran / Nigeria / off the Gulf coast, exactly the same thing happened with the Rand with currency speculators a few years ago, the giveaway is always the continual excuses, Mandela is sick, problems in Zimbabwe, Finance minister is leaving

At least within America, the oil price is being kept artificially high not by shortage of oil supplies, but shortage of tradable oil. Basically, although there is enough oil to supply the country, there are millions of traders trying to get in on the oil market which is driving the prices up.

 

[jontyB]

Regarding the oil issue :

Firstly, it's important to remember that Saddam was planning to sell oil in Euros instead of Dollars. This would have been disasterous to the American economy.

Wasn't/isn't this Iran's plan?

 

[Xarog]

Wasn't/isn't this Iran's plan?

Indeed. Makes you wonder, hey?

 

[Alan]

Anybody who doesnt think about this conflict as all about the oil is blinded by the media hype of "terror".

The following map shows how in 2002, Iraq had negotiated contracts with the countries shown to develop its oil fields, guess which country is not present, and you can also see the countries opposed to the war, such as France and Russia, had invested interests in the area.
A major E.U. country with oil money, and an Oil richer Russia, (Russia has huge Oil and Gas reserves, but many of the fields are in very inhospitable areas, so the added Oil industry could have put Russia ahead of many Oil producing nations)would pose a huge economic threat to America, as far as trade, and global influence.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/20/photos/wire-iraq-map.jpg

Most of the early fighting that took place was to control the oil production areas, and especially in the south around Basra, secondly the British were sent to Basra specifically because they generally have always had good relations with that part of Iraq, and were better recieved. Plus that part of Iraq was also quite heavily suppressed during Saddams reign.
http://www.answers.com/topic/basra-governorate

There are also plans to possibly unit three of the southern provinces into a "oil-rich semi autonomous state"
http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=6943

There are huge deposits of oil around that region , and linking to Kuwait wouldnt pose a huge risk , plus Iraq's major ports are also situated there.
Maps showing oil fields in Iraq:
http://www.gregcroft.com/area3map.ivnu
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf

Which media might that be. The guys who post fake pictures of so called tortured Iraqis(Daily Mirror), rely on "local" sources for information who edit photos to over exaggerate damage done by western forces(Reuters), publish a false momo to negatively affect Duyba during an election(CBS) and lie about flushing Koran's down the toilet at Gitmo(Newsweek). You can go on and on. All done to undermine Dubya while fueling tension and violence. No wonder Dubya doesn't like the press they're useless allies or maybe he made one of his famous goofs while detailing his "great hoax" to them

Gee who would have thought that. You invade from the south and amazingly that's were the early fighting takes place. What would have happend if Saddam had set all those wells ablaze?

Regarding the oil issue :

Firstly, it's important to remember that Saddam was planning to sell oil in Euros instead of Dollars. This would have been disasterous to the American economy.

Secondly, Haliburton et. al. have made huge profits from this war. Perhaps not from the oil IN Iraq, but from the no-bid contracts they've gotten. Also, the oil price has gone through the roof. Since the cost of getting oil out of the ground has remained more or less constant (well ok, it would have increased slightly over 3 years), that means that their profit margins have also gone through the roof. Whether or not this was planned I don't know. I'm inclined to think that the Americans underestimated the resistance they'd receive after invading.

Edit :

At least within America, the oil price is being kept artificially high not by shortage of oil supplies, but shortage of tradable oil. Basically, although there is enough oil to supply the country, there are millions of traders trying to get in on the oil market which is driving the prices up.

Yeah right

For once we agree

 

[Xarog]

In the reuters case the photographer lost his job and they publicly apologised. I'm not sure about the other cases. However, just because there are one or two fakes or plants doesn't mean that all the stories are untrue.

Though I'm unsure why you've quoted me in the above post - could you clarify?

 

[Alan]

In the reuters case the photographer lost his job and they publicly apologised. I'm not sure about the other cases. However, just because there are one or two fakes or plants doesn't mean that all the stories are untrue.

Though I'm unsure why you've quoted me in the above post - could you clarify?

So everything is just peachy now. They have apologised(what else could they do really) and replaced him with(hopefully for their sake) a more competent propagandist. One or two! there's four right off the top of my head from major news organizations who all happen to have the same slant. It's dangerous having the "free press" behaving like what they proclaim to protect us from.

 

[Xarog]

So it is your opinion that the photographer was secretly acting with the consent of Reuters?

 

[Amerikanse]

ummm, I thought Iraqis spoke Farsi. Why is it that people still consider Persians to be Arabs?

According to me (and the CIA Factbook), Iraqis speak Arabic (and Kurdish, and presumably Urdu). Iranians speak Farsi (also known as Persian).

 

[DragonLogos]

just in case you might have forgot (say so what)


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

**** Cheney Speech to VFW National Convention August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush Speech to UN General Assembly September 12, 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."

Ari Fleischer Press Briefing December 2, 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer Press Briefing January 9, 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush State of the Union Address January 28, 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council February 5, 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George W. Bush Radio Address February 8, 2003

"If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct."

Colin Powell Interview with Radio France International February 28, 2003

"So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not."

Colin Powell Remarks to UN Security Council March 7, 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush Address to the Nation March 17, 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."

Ari Fleisher Press Briefing March 21, 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."

Gen. Tommy Franks Press Conference March 22, 2003

"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction."

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman Washington Post, p. A27 March 23, 2003

"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites."

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark Press Briefing March 22, 2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld ABC Interview March 30, 2003

"Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty."

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan Washington Post op-ed April 9, 2003

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found."

Ari Fleischer Press Briefing April 10, 2003

"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them."

George W. Bush NBC Interview April 24, 2003

"There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country."

Donald Rumsfeld Press Briefing April 25, 2003

"We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so."

George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 3, 2003

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."

Colin Powell Remarks to Reporters May 4, 2003

"We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country."

Donald Rumsfeld Fox News Interview May 4, 2003

"I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters May 6, 2003

"U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."

Condoleeza Rice Reuters Interview May 12, 2003

"I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden."

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne Press Briefing May 13, 2003

"Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps Interview with Reporters May 21, 2003

"Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff NBC Today Show interview May 26, 2003

"They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer."

Donald Rumsfeld Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations May 27, 2003

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."

Paul Wolfowitz Vanity Fair interview May 28, 2003

"It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there."

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force Press Interview May 30, 2003

"Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency Press Conference May 30, 2003

 

[Alan]

Would you mind quoting people who said Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003?

 

[kilo39]

Would you mind quoting people who said Saddam didn't have WMD in 2003?

Um how about the weapons inspectors? Or the Atomic Energy Commission?

How can anybody argue there is no WMD when the "falsely created intel" reports state otherwise?

When GB is telling everybody they are traitors?

When 'the authorities' are pretending to find bombs everywhere?

You've been had. We were had. We expected to be told the truth. They lied. And who is the biggest liar of all?