COL Gene COL Gene

The Iraq Carnage Continues

The Iraq Carnage Continues



Six months after their last election a new government was put in place in Iraq less two KEY positions -Defense and Interior Ministers that do not have permenant appointments. Ten members walked out at the start of the session. The violence continues all over Iraq:

27 Killed in dozens of attacks
21 bodies found from death squads
People stoned a British vehicle that was bombed.

Bush tells us that the new government was needed to STOP this violence. Let's watch and see if the sectarian violence in Iraq ends now that a NEW Governmet is in place!




Iraqi Parliament Approves New Cabinet
May 20, 2006 6:16 AM EDT
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq's parliament approved a national unity government on Saturday, achieving a goal the U.S. hopes will reduce widespread violence so that U.S. forces can eventually go home. But as the legislators met, at least 27 people were killed and dozens wounded in a series of attacks.
Police also found the bodies of 21 Iraqis who apparently had been kidnapped and tortured by death squads that plague the capital and another area. The wounded included two British soldiers whose convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in the southern city of Basra, police said.
In a show of hands, the 275-member parliament approved each Cabinet minister proposed by incoming Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The new ministers then took their oaths of office in the nationally televised session in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
That completed a democratic process that began following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
In his first address, al-Maliki told parliament that he would make restoring stability and security the top priority of his new administration. He said he would "work fast" to improve and coordinate Iraqi forces so they can reduce attacks by insurgent groups and militias.
Al-Maliki said he would set "an objective timetable to transfer the full security mission to Iraqi forces, ending the mission of the multinational forces."
But his failure to fill the top two security posts illustrated the challenges ahead. Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he would be acting interior minister for now, and he made Salam Zikam al-Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, the temporary defense minister.
That angered some legislators, and before the Cabinet was approved by a show of hands, parliament turned down a motion by Sunni Arab leader Saleh al-Mutlaq to postpone the session.
Al-Mutlaq then walked out with about 10 other Sunni deputies.
The defense ministry oversees the army, while the interior ministry is responsible for police.
The United States hopes the new national unity government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds can calm the violence and pave the way for Washington to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.
"This is a historic day for Iraq and all its people," deputy parliament speaker Khalid al-Attiyah said at a nationally televised news conference as the legislators gathered.
"It is the first time that a full-term, democratically elected government has been formed in Iraq since the fall of the ousted regime. This government represents all Iraqis," said al-Attiyah, a bearded Shiite cleric wearing a white turban.
The legislative session began at about 1:30 p.m., two and a half hours later than planned as al-Maliki held last-minute meetings with other politicians, apparently to hammer out final agreements on some of the Cabinet portfolios.
U.S. and Iraqi forces didn't impose day time curfews or ban traffic in Baghdad and major cities, as they did during previous national elections and constitutional referendum. But security was heavy in the Green Zone and the capital's airspace was closed to commercial flights at Baghdad's international airport. The government and U.S. officials declined to say why.
About 100 stranded passengers and airport workers crowded around a television set in the departure lounge to watch the parliament session.
Meanwhile, violence continued in Iraq.
At 6:30 a.m. on Saturday, several hours before legislators began to arrive at the Green Zone, suspected insurgents set off a bomb hidden in a paper bag in a Shiite district of Baghdad, killing 19 people and wounding 58, police said. The blast occurred near a food stand in Sadr City where men gather to wait for jobs as day laborers, police Maj. Hashim al-Yaser said.
"It was a huge explosion," said Mohammed Hamid, who works in a bakery in the area. "We carried many of the injured to ambulances and helped remove the bodies."
Police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said 19 people were killed and 58 wounded. Many of the injured were rushed to nearby Imam Ali Hospital, where hallways were filled with doctors and nurses treating and bandaging the wounded.
Sadr City is the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who operates a powerful militia, one of many that exist in the capital outside the control of the government. Al-Maliki hopes to disband such militias and integrate them into the country's military and police forces as a way of reducing violence.
In the western border town of Qaim, a suicide car bomber killed at least five people and wounded 10 in an attack on a police station, the head of the local hospital said. Hamdi al-Alousi, the head of the Qaim hospital, did not have any details about the attack.
In the northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber reportedly trying to target a U.S. military convoy instead killed three Iraqi civilians. Police Brig. Abdul-Hamid al-Jibouri said the attack took place in Mosul's eastern neighborhood of Sukar.
Elsewhere, police found the bodies of 21 people who apparently had been kidnapped and tortured, six in Baghdad and 15 in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of the capital.
21,556 views 77 replies
Reply #26 Top
IslandDogI have no reason to either like or dislike the Iraqi People. All I have said is I do not support sending OUR Military to fight and die for Iraq. They kill each other in the name of the same religion without thought. That is NOT WORTH American lives or Tax dollars.

Your experts that said Saddam had WMD and was a threat were DEAD WRONG. So much for the quality of your experts.

At no time did you prove my data to be incorrect. The jobs data is very clear. We created 5 million jobs and to be even numbers wise we would have needed to have created 6.5 Million new jobs. The new jobs that are being created on the average pay 21% less then the jobs that were lost and have fewer benefits. Unemployment rate is 4.7% and it was 3.9% at the end of 2000. If you believe that is a good job performance you have a very different outlook then I have. A shortage of 1.5 Million jobs and jobs that pay much less with fewer benefits does not should good to me. Real wages are LOWER then in 2001 so what are you crowing about?



Reply #27 Top
Your experts that said Saddam had WMD and was a threat were DEAD WRONG. So much for the quality of your experts.


Actually they weren't col. Saddam still has WMD's that are unaccounted for by the U.N. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy told me Iraq was a threat. They wouldn't lie, would they?

At no time did you prove my data to be incorrect.


Yes I did col. You haven't presented the facts.


If you believe that is a good job performance you have a very different outlook then I have. A shortage of 1.5 Million jobs and jobs that pay much less with fewer benefits does not should good to me. Real wages are LOWER then in 2001 so what are you crowing about?


Col, the unemployment rate in this country is very low. It would be lower if people would stop relying on entitlements and get out there and work. Besides that, the job outlook is good. Only democrats want you to think otherwise.


We also said then that there's evidence on both sides of the good-jobs, bad-jobs debate, that there's no economic data detailed enough to settle the matter, and that economists disagree about whether job quality is improving or not. All that continues to be true.


Partisans all use the same data from the BLS, but arrive at opposite conclusions. The Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress issued a news release July 7, comparing occupations (such as managers) rather than industries (such as the restaurant business) The GOP economists found BLS data showing 71% of the job growth in the past year was among three higher-paid groups: managers, constructions trades and repair/maintenance occupations. Economist Bosworth said those figures are just as misleading as Kerry's, since no BLS figures can match each job lost against each new job.

Reply #28 Top
House and Senate GOP conferees finally agreed yesterday on extending the 15% tax rate on dividends and capital gains for two more years through 2010. This means you can expect lots of media and liberal rhetoric about "the deficit" and "the rich," but the real news is how well these lower rates have been soaking the rich to fill government coffers.

The latest evidence is Treasury's monthly budget report for May that tax receipts were up by $137 billion, or a remarkable 11.2%, for the first seven months of Fiscal 2006 through April. That's more than triple the inflation rate. And it comes on top of the $274 billion, or 14.6%, increase in federal revenues for all of Fiscal 2005, which ended last September 30.

These columns have been documenting this trend for the last couple of years, as well as the revenue tide flowing into state budget coffers. Overall state revenues climbed by 8% in 2004 and nearly 9% in 2005, according to the Census Bureau, and more and more states are piling up big surpluses. We've reported this news because politicians like to disguise these tax windfalls so they can spend it all with impunity and still plead poverty. Journalists contribute to this ruse by focusing their budget coverage on deficits, rather than on the spending and revenue trends that are the actual components of any budget.

The current revenue rush also refutes the prevailing Washington consensus that the federal deficit is the result of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, this revenue tsunami is the direct result of the expansion that took off in earnest at about the time the 2003 tax cuts passed. Lower tax rates have since had precisely the result that supporters predicted, though don't look for that story on page one any time...




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114722545735348501.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Reply #29 Top
What is taking place is more lower paying jobs are being created. If you think that is good fot this country, you and I disagree.



And you haven't proved that col. Just more talk about your non-selling book. If you think an unemployment rate of under %5 is bad, then you really are crazy.


There is NO WMD that in any war placed the United States in Danger. Your experts were full of SH*T. Saddam was NO militart threat and had NO capability to attack this country in March 2003. The Iraq


Col, the democrats said Iraq had WMD's and were a threat. They would never lie.

19 people with boxcutters weren't a threat either, but they pulled it off. Keep goign with your anti-American BS.
Reply #30 Top
I said the unemployment rate in 2000 was 3.9% which is correct. It is 4.7% today which is slightly higher. The quality of the jobs is also important. What is taking place is more lower paying jobs are being created. If you think that is good for this country, you and I disagree.

There is no disagreement that average weekly wages are DOWN. The study I sighted is very comprehensive and did document that the new jobs are paying LESS with FEWER BENEFITS>

There is NO WMD that in any war placed the United States in Danger. Your experts were full of SH*T. Saddam was NO military threat and had NO capability to attack this country in March 2003. The Iraq war was something Bush wanted to do and lied about WMD to get Congress to approve the war.
Reply #31 Top
What is taking place is more lower paying jobs are being created. If you think that is good fot this country, you and I disagree.



And you haven't proved that col. Just more talk about your non-selling book. If you think an unemployment rate of under %5 is bad, then you really are crazy.


There is NO WMD that in any war placed the United States in Danger. Your experts were full of SH*T. Saddam was NO militart threat and had NO capability to attack this country in March 2003. The Iraq


Col, the democrats said Iraq had WMD's and were a threat. They would never lie.

19 people with boxcutters weren't a threat either, but they pulled it off. Keep goign with your anti-American BS.
Reply #32 Top
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Published March 13, 2006


Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration's argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone.

In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.

The documents also speak of burying prohibited missiles, according to a government official familiar with the declassification process.

But it is not clear whether Baghdad did what the documents indicate, said the U.S. official, who asked not to be named.

"The factories are present," an Iraqi aide tells Saddam on one of the tapes, made by the dictator in the mid-1990s while U.N. weapons inspectors were searching for Baghdad's remaining stocks of weapons of mass destruction.

"The factories remain, in the mind they remain. Our spirit is with us, based solely on the time period," the aide says, according to the documents. "And [inspectors] take note of the time period, they can't account for our will."

The quote is from roughly 12 hours of taped conversations that unexpectedly landed in the lap of Bill Tierney, a former Army warrant officer and Arabic speaker who was translating for the FBI tapes unearthed in Iraq after the invasion.

Mr. Tierney made a copy, which he provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee in turn gave a copy to intelligence analysts who authenticated the voice as that of Saddam.

Mr. Tierney said that the quote from the Saddam aide, and scores of others, show Saddam was rebuilding his once-ample weapons stocks.

"The tapes show...

"The tapes show that Saddam rebuilt his program and successfully prevented the U.N. from finding out about it," he said.

There also exists a quote from the dictator himself, who ordered the tapings to keep a record of his inner-sanctum discussions, that Mr. Tierney thinks shows Saddam planned to use a proxy to attack the United States.

"Terrorism is coming ... with the Americans," Saddam said. "With the Americans, two years ago, not a long while ago, with the English I believe, there was a campaign ... with one of them, that in the future there would be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction."
Reply #33 Top
Many countries HAVE WMD and we do not attack them. For example North Korea, Syria and Iran. One fact you and Bush fail to acknowledge is that just because a country has dangerous weapons does not mean they will attack the United States. To do so would result in their immediate destruction and the loss of what is most important to ANY dictator his power source- The country he rules.

In the case of Iraq, we had intelligence that said Saddam had no active nuclear program and when Bush and Cheney said we could not risk waiting because we might see a mushroom cloud over one of our cities that was a LIE!!!!!!!!! Not only did we KNOW Saddam had no such weapons he had NO way to employ them and would NEVER have risked the consequences of attacking the United States or and other MAJOR power even if he has such weapons.

The UN Inspectors were back in Iraq and had we allowed them to continue their work we would have learned what we know today, Sadden did not have WMD. There was intelligence that said Saddam did not have the weapons Bush claimed he had but Bush kept that Intelligence Classified until AFTER he got Congress to allow the invasion. There was NO NEED to attack Saddam in March 2003 and Saddam was NO DANGER to this country. The Military assessment of his capability WAS KNOWN by our military BEFORE we invaded. That is clear from the two books generals Trainer and Zinni wrote!
Reply #34 Top
You say you are presenting the 'Truth' but yet you
1.) never admit you are EVER wrong.

I have to set that record straight. On one topic, regarding Bush being impeached for breaking the 4th Amendment (Re: NSA), after being called out at least five times, he admitted he was not a constitutional lawyer. It's as close to an "okay, I see your point" as I have ever gotten.

Many countries HAVE WMD and we do not attack them. For example North Korea, Syria and Iran. One fact you and Bush fail to acknowledge is that just because a country has dangerous weapons does not mean they will attack the United States.

First of all, COL, you recently blasted Bush for having a response to Iran's nuclear program. "World War III"

Now you're blasting him for being toothless and not attacking? Can't have it both ways, keep trying.

Besides, COL... these nations you rattle off merely lack the delivery systems to get a nuclear weapon to the US.

Iran is threatening Israel and we have a contingency plan.

North Korea's developing missiles that can hit Alaska or Hawaii, and we're engaging them in the six-party talks.

We've already threatened Syria, just after the Iraq invasion was "mission accomplished"!
Reply #35 Top
#19 by COL Gene
Monday, May 22, 2006


the real translation of what I thought I said.

First, my book documents that my head is huge! the facts come from, my size 17 cowboy hats, This study was a very comprehensive study done by mythbusters.Mayors and does document that the jobs created in 2004 and 2005 pay, on the average 21% than then same job created in 1917 by kaiser Wilhelm.It also documents the 54 states that have not recovered enough corn husks to make ethenol so I can drive my hummer nto the store.. This report also documents that my real birth name is FUELLA CRAPINBOWL.This study was NOT done for EITHER the GOP or the Democrats BUT ACTUALLY WAS DONE FOR THE GIRL SCOUTS i COMMANDED IN 1973 during desert storm.. It was done for the U S confabulation of freemasons during a rainstorm. please just ignore any facts I present because they are not real facts but the ramblings of my sick and twisted mind.
Reply #36 Top
Thanks for ignoring everything I posted col. One sided political hack for the democratic party. That is all your are.
Reply #37 Top
I said that IF we were to use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from moving forward with their nuclear program WE WOULD risk WWIII. I stand by that statement.

As to Bush and FISA, I said from day one that the ONLY agency who could judge if Bush broke the law with his warrant less wiretaps is the Supreme Court and I also stand by that statement.

My point was that IRAQ was NO THREAT to the United States in March 2003.

China and Russia have missiles that can hit the US. Other countries may have that capability as well. My point is that NO Dictator would risk their existence by attacking a major power much less the world's only Super Power even if they have WMD.

Island Dog

You are the one that ignores anything that does not fit your support for Bush. What I said is that EVEN IF Saddam had WMD, which does not appear to be true, he would NEVER have used it against the U S and he DID NOT have the military capability to attack the United States and therefore was not the danger Bush and Cheney claimed. IF WE had allowed the U N Weapons inspectors to complete their search, we would have learned that Saddam no longer had WMD. However, that would have taken the Bush argument to invade Iraq away. Thus Bush RUSHED to war when there was NO REASON for that war!!!!!!!!
Reply #38 Top
he DID NOT have the military capability to attack the United States and therefore was not the danger Bush and Cheney claimed.


19 foreigners who trained in Afghanistan had no military capability either, but they were able to attack us. Saddam supported terrorism. That is a fact.


IF WE had allowed the U N Weapons inspectors to complete their search, we would have learned that Saddam no longer had WMD. However, that would have taken the Bush argument to invade Iraq away. Thus Bush RUSHED to war when there was NO REASON for that war!!!!!!!!


Col, I have been posting translated documents from Saddam himself which shows the deception he was using against the inspectors, and the U.N. This is the perfect example of how YOU ignore the facts.

Democrats have been saying for years that Saddam was a threat and had WMD's. Were they lying back then col?


My point was that IRAQ was NO THREAT to the United States in March 2003.


So will you admit that the democrats were lying when they said Saddam was a threat, and that he had WMD's?
Reply #39 Top
No the Democrats and Republicans were only provided that portion of the Intel that Bush wanted them to see so they would believe that Saddam was a threat to the US and they would vote for war. The truth is that If ALL the information had been made available, there would not have been a war resolution passed and Bush would not have been able to attack Iraq.

As Gen Zinni said, he saw ALL the Intel pass his desk while serving as security consultant from 2000 until just before the invasion. He said he could not believe what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were telling Congress and the American People given what he saw. There was NO THREAT to this country from Saddam.
Reply #40 Top
No the Democrats and Republicans were only provided that portion of the Intel that Bush wanted them to see so they would believe that Saddam was a threat to the US and they would vote for war. The truth is that If ALL the information had been made available, there would not have been a war resolution passed and Bush would not have been able to attack Iraq.


You do understand there is no truth to that statement. The democrats saw the same intelligence as Bush. There was no deception, no lies. The democrats have been saying Saddam was a threat before Bush was elected. So were they lying then col?


As Gen Zinni said, he saw ALL the Intel pass his desk while serving as security consultant from 2000 until just before the invasion.


I am just amazed of how you pick and choose of what you believe. Zinni is a democratic hack just as you are. I see he was telling us Saddam had WMD's before Bush was elected. Typical democrat hypocrits.


Former CENTCOM Commander, Gen. Anthony Zinni - who has called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign because of Rumsfeld's alleged incompetence in running the Iraq war - admitted six years ago that he made the disastrous decision to have the USS Cole use the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling, where the ship was blown up by al-Qaida terrorists.

Worse still, at least one report indicates that Gen. Zinni may have played a role in an August 1998 leak that tipped off Osama bin Laden to an impending U.S. cruise missile attack - allowing the top terrorist to escape.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in October 2000, a week after the Cole attack, the then-recently retired Zinni said: "I pass that buck on to nobody."

The Rumsfeld critic explained that he personally signed off on berthing the Cole in Yemen even though "their coast is a sieve for terrorists."


Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein's WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.
Reply #41 Top
Stop believing every person that tries to sell a book.

Nevertheless, in February of 2000, long before President Bush assumed office, Zinni felt confident enough to provide a strikingly familiar threat assessment on Iraq to the Senate Armed Services Committee:

Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR) …

• Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, … Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. [Emphasis mine]

• The Iraqi regime’s high regard for WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.

• … extremists may turn to WMD in an effort to …overcome improved U.S. defenses against conventional attack. Detecting plans for a specific WMD attack is extremely difficult, making it likely such an event would occur without warning. [Emphasis mine]

• Extremists like Usama bin Laden …benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide. Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks. [Emphasis mine]

• Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.
Reply #42 Top
IslandDog

The Intel that did not support Bush was NOT SHARED with Congress prior to the invasion. Bush kept any Intel that said Saddam did not have WMD, especially nuclear, classified and that information WAS NOT known by Congress BEFORE they voted. Thus, they voted predicated on the PARTIAL Intelligence that was available to them and ONLY Intel that supported the idea that Iraq was a danger to this country.

At NO time did Bush claim we had to invade Iraq so we could allow the Iraqi people to form a democracy. That reason developed AFTER the WMD could not be found and the total Intel was available.

Zinni and Trainer are NOT HACKS. They came out with the FACTS about how this country was deceived by Bush and Cheney. The two CIA Chiefs said the very same thing and documented that Bush Cherry Picked the Intel that supported the war. There was NO WAR ON TERRORISM in Iraq at the time we invaded Iraq. We have made it possible for the terrorists to begin operating in Iraq as they are now reemerging in Afghanistan.

Bush and Cheney lied to us about the danger from Iraq pure and Simple. That is now clear that all the intelligence that WAS AVAILABLE to Bush at the time in now known. That is why Bush and Cheney were so angry at Wilson. He said the nuclear WMD capability of Saddam was not true!
Reply #43 Top
There is NO WMD that in any war placed the United States in Danger. Your experts were full of SH*T. Saddam was NO military threat and had NO capability to attack this country in March 2003. The Iraq war was something Bush wanted to do and lied about WMD to get Congress to approve the war.


I'm really sorry about this col....but once again you're FULL OF SH*T!
Argue with these quotes Direct from the democrats mouths! And please DO NOT try to say they are lying. These quotes came from snopes:


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.


"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!



Origins: All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them — several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."



Link

Please notice that bold-faced one were said BEFORE President Bush took office! Oh and here's some more:


VIENNA – The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure location outside Iraq, Western diplomats close to the agency say.



However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken the position that the uranium is Iraqi property and the agency "cannot give them permission to remove it," a diplomat said.


You have just been proven wrong col! Would you like some salt and pepper for your crow sandwhich?

Link
Reply #44 Top
The Intel that did not support Bush was NOT SHARED with Congress prior to the invasion. Bush kept any Intel that said Saddam did not have WMD, especially nuclear, classified and that information WAS NOT known by Congress BEFORE they voted. Thus, they voted predicated on the PARTIAL Intelligence that was available to them and ONLY Intel that supported the idea that Iraq was a danger to this country.


Pure BS col. They had the same intelligence as Bush.


Zinni and Trainer are NOT HACKS. They came out with the FACTS about how this country was deceived by Bush and Cheney. The two CIA Chiefs said the very same thing and documented that Bush Cherry Picked the Intel that supported the war. There was NO WAR ON TERRORISM in Iraq at the time we invaded Iraq. We have made it possible for the terrorists to begin operating in Iraq as they are now reemerging in Afghanistan.


Col, they are political hacks who try to sell books. What's the most popular to sell a book nowaday, bash Bush. The only difference between them and you is they actually sell them.

I notice you totally ignored as usual what I posted. It seems Zinni thought Iraq had major WMD programs and was a threat, but now he flips. Typical democrat hypocrits.


Bush and Cheney lied to us about the danger from Iraq pure and Simple. That is now clear that all the intelligence that WAS AVAILABLE to Bush at the time in now known. That is why Bush and Cheney were so angry at Wilson. He said the nuclear WMD capability of Saddam was not true!


Col, we have proved that Wilson was another political hack. Seems to be a theme with you I see. He was sent on a bogus mission and was discredited by the Senate. He proved nothing, and became a spokesperson for every liberal democrat out there.

The only lies being told are in your blogs.
Reply #45 Top
Let's analyze this.


s Gen Zinni said, he saw ALL the Intel pass his desk while serving as security consultant from 2000 until just before the invasion. He said he could not believe what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were telling Congress and the American People given what he saw. There was NO THREAT to this country from Saddam.


Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions


Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden.


Somebody is a hypocrit here col, and it's not us.
Reply #46 Top
Drmiler
None of that changes these facts that:

The assessment of Saddam's military capability in Late 2002 was that he could ONLY operate in the central area of Iraq. He was unable to operate in ANY other country and had NO capability to attack the United States with or without WMD. You do not seem to get it-- He had no Air Force, Navy, Missiles or Army that was capable of being ANY sort of threat to the United States.

The Intel at the time said that he had no active nuclear program and that his most likely WMD was limited to OLD ARTILLERY shells filled with gas. HOW the HELL would that have threatened this country? You are so full of bull shit just like Bush and Cheney. The facts are now clear, Saddam was NO THREAT to this country nor would ANY Rogue Dictator Attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such an attack. This WAR was because Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam NOT BECAUSE Saddam was ANY danger to the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #47 Top
And you totally ignore again what is posted. You CANNOT ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that democrats believed Saddam had WMD's. All you have done is make excuses for them and then claim you are not a democrat. What a load of BS.


The facts are now clear, Saddam was NO THREAT to this country nor would ANY Rogue Dictator Attack the world’s most powerful country because of the consequences of such an attack. This WAR was because Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam NOT BECAUSE Saddam was ANY danger to the United States!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You have not presented one fact yet col. All of this is your opinion and you have nothing to back it up with. Pathetic.
Reply #48 Top
The Americans are just unwilling to confront facts about Iraq. They unfortunately view those who take a contrary position with alarm. I recently had a taste of this syndrome on this weblog itself. The fact is that the lawless US administration has made a vibrant country into a graveyard and they say that they have brought Democracy to Iraq. The Coalition has only brought economic collapse, sectarian violence, Government sponsored Death Squads and yes, war crimes like Abu Gharaib and the recent violence against civilians that Rep John Murtha wants to investigate. Like an ostrich some burry their heads in sand and declare that facts are lies. It is just sorry state of affirs.
Reply #49 Top
Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.

According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.

Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.

On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.

The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more.

He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
Reply #50 Top
The Americans are just unwilling to confront facts about Iraq.


Bahu, you just as col, do not present facts. I have already proved you wrong in your last posting here. You are another anti-American hack. Why don't you go to Iraq and fight with the terrorists?