US soldier refuses to serve in â€˜illegal Iraq warâ€™

Amazed · #**171** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:09 PM

Wesley Clark, 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, discusses Saddam's WMD:

WESLEY CLARK: He does have weapons of mass destruction.

MILES O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely.

MILES O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

WESLEY CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate
During an interview on CNN
January 18, 2003

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003

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

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
September 23, 2002

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"[/color]"Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance -- not even today -- of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003 /COLOR]

"The nerve agent VX is one of the most toxic ever developed.

13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes."

Dr. Hans Blix, Chief UN Weapons Inspector
Addressing the UN Security Council
January 27, 2003

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

UN weapons inspectors were forced to leave Iraq in 1998:

CNN
November 5, 1998

U.N. Security Council votes to condemn Iraq

The United Nations Security Council late Thursday voted unanimously to condemn Iraq and to demand that Baghdad immediately resume cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. Baghdad has already said it will not comply.

The resolution called Iraq's decision last week to halt cooperation with the U.N. Special Commission a "flagrant violation" of the 1991 resolution on Iraqi disarmament. It is the 45th U.N. resolution involving Iraq since the country invaded Kuwait in 1990.

US Senators who voted YES to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

Allard, Wayne (R-CO)
Allen, George (R-VA)
Baucus, Max (D-MT)
Bayh, Evan (D-IN)
Bennett, Robert (R-UT)
Biden, Joseph (D-DE)
Bond, Christopher (R-MO)
Breaux, John (D-LA)
Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
Bunning, Jim (R-KY)
Burns, Conrad (R-MT)
Campbell, Ben (R-CO)
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA)
Carnahan, Jean (D-MO)
Carper, Thomas (D-DE)
Cleland, Max (D-GA)
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
Cochran, Thad (R-MS)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Craig, Larry (R-ID)
Crapo, Michael (R-ID)
Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
DeWine, Mike (R-OH)
Dodd, Christopher (D-CT)
Domenici, Pete (R-NM)
Dorgan, Byron (D-ND)
Edwards, John (D-NC)
Ensign, John (R-NV)
Enzi, Michael (R-WY)
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)
Fitzgerald, Peter (R-IL)
Frist, Bill (R-TN)
Gramm, Phil (R-TX)
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA)
Gregg, Judd (R-NH)
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE)
Harkin, Tom (D-IA)
Hatch, Orrin (R-UT)
Helms, Jesse (R-NC)
Hollings, Ernest (D-SC)
Hutchinson, Tim (R-AR)
Hutchison, Kay (R-TX)
Inhofe, James (R-OK)
Johnson, Tim (D-SD)
Kerry, John (D-MA)
Kohl, Herb (D-WI)
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA)
Lieberman, Joseph (D-CT)
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)
Lott, Trent (R-MS)
Lugar, Richard (R-IN)
McCain, John (R-AZ)
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY)
Miller, Zell (D-GA)
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)
Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
Nickles, Don (R-OK)
Reid, Harry (D-NV)
Roberts, Pat (R-KS)
Rockefeller, John (D-WV)
Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
Schumer, Charles (D-NY)
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Smith, Robert (R-NH)
Smith, Gordon (R-OR)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thomas, Craig (R-WY)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Thurmond, Strom (R-SC)
Torricelli, Robert (D-NJ)
Voinovich, George (R-OH)
Warner, John (R-VA)

Freedom Agenda - Quotes and Facts on Iraq

....and the massive intellect of Jet says :"Nuh-Uh".

noneof yourbusiness · #**172** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:10 PM

I dont carre who said so. Every Democrat was dead ass wrong too...Clark was also wrong.

Amazed · #**173** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

I dont carre who said so. Every Democrat was dead ass wrong too...Clark was also wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. The fact is, as I have proven again and again, Jet is a liar who simply disregards any "proof" he doesn't like. Truth is truth...it doesn't require "his" belief for it to remain so.

areyoushittin'me? · #**174** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

-If you believe that then you also need to blame a dozen other countries, john kerry and a slew of the democrat party because Bush invited many into the CIA and DOD's reviews of evidence gathered from multiple countries sources (including the UN). At one time everyone agreed based on the same information which was the result of some 14 or more UN resolutions to use military force.

The argument you use is indicative of someone that refuses to stay up to date and only spews the rhetoric the media reported yester year...

If someone did LIE blame it on the intelligence agencies from a dozen countries AND the informants that gave testimony to the UN! You're argument is repugnant and wrong.

Here's another blast from the past...

Quote:

Rice Defends Comments on Iraq Nuke Threat

WASHINGTON - National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended her characterization of Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities in the months before the Iraq invasion, even as a published report said government experts had cast doubt at the time.

In the run-up to the March 2003 war, Rice said in a television interview in 2002 that the Iraqi president was trying to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes to rebuild his nuclear weapons program. The tubes, she said, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."

On Sunday, Rice acknowledged she was aware of a debate within the U.S. intelligence community about whether the tubes were intended for nuclear weapons. "I knew that there was a dispute. I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute," Rice told ABC's "This Week."

<snip>

Ok...so what's the deal here...Condi knew there was a dispute going on yet came out and said the aluminum tubes were "ONLY SUITED FOR"...so what's the deal here...she's the leading Nuclear expert???

She is still spinning:

Quote:

A New York Times story Sunday quoted four CIA officials and a senior administration official as saying that Rice's staff had been told in 2001 that Energy Department experts believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets â€” and not nuclear weapons.

Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments.

So who's lying here???? Why hasn't someone been fired for not getting the word to her???
In another article:

Quote:

Rice: Iraqi nuclear plans unclear

'People are still debating this,' she says

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday it is still unclear whether Iraq attempted to procure tens of thousands of aluminum tubes for a nuclear weapons program or a conventional rocket program, despite conclusions by the Senate intelligence committee and U.N. investigators that the tubes could not be used in any nuclear program.

"As I understand it, people are still debating this," Rice said on ABC's "This Week" program. "And I'm sure they will continue to debate it."

As the Bush administration readied to attack Iraq, the tubes had formed a central part of its intelligence case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein posed a grave threat to the United States. In 2002, Rice had said that the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," adding that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

Throw out a little fear mongering???

Quote:

But, as reported by The Washington Post more than a year ago, the internal debate among intelligence analysts was intense, with the experts at the Department of Energy who specialize in uranium enrichment adamant that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear program. They argued that instead the tubes were intended for Iraqi rockets.

Administration officials at the time did not acknowledge that debate, though Rice acknowledged yesterday she was aware of it. "I knew that there was a dispute," she said. "I actually didn't really know the nature of the dispute."

But, she said, "a policymaker cannot afford to be on the wrong side, underestimating the ability of a tyrant like Saddam Hussein." She said she stood by "the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein and remove this threat to American security."

In July, a bipartisan report by the Senate intelligence committee, which reviewed all of the intelligence on the tubes, said that information available to intelligence analysts "indicated that these tubes were intended to be used for an Iraqi conventional rocket program and not a nuclear program." The report also said that assertions that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program were "not supported by the intelligence."

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security who has written extensively on the tubes, said that Rice "was grasping at straws" to suggest there was still a debate on the issue. He said there was little dispute within the intelligence community now, with the "overwhelming number of experts and the evidence" concluding the Energy Department analysis was correct.

"I think she is being disingenuous, and just departing from any effort to find the truth," Albright added.

So at what point do we accept that she is either incompetent being a National Security Advisor who is not following the debate on the intelligence or just a lying fucking bitch???

At what point does Dubya step in and say, "Hey Condi get your head out of your ass these people aren't that stupid", or does he just sit back and say, "Good job Condi these dumb mother fuckers are so stupid they will buy into it, just keep up with the Bushshit."

At what point should the American people step up and get rid of the sob because he is incompetent???...how about this November???

Obviously the fools kept the liars around for four more years.

noneof yourbusiness · #**175** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:18 PM

They were wrong. There was nothing found. There was one reproted use of Heavy artilery in 2003. One batterys worth of 122mm Thats all they ever found. That country was the last thing America has to worry about hurting them. Its just pathetic. theres about a 30Km range on Iraq Artilery. Not quite got the distance. Fully contained and totaly disingrated military. Nothing. 10 Tanks encounterd in one Fight. What a joke. This country woudnt have even been able to defend itslef against its neighbors. The iraqi Military was totaly decimated in 91 and never recovered. Huge pallets of Artilery shells were destroyed in 91.

They wont ever find anything its not there. Nothing was ever or could have ever been a threat to American forces in theater let alone abroad.

areyoushittin'me? · #**176** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:21 PM

More Fried Rice...

Quote:

Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:11 pm

Here's another one for you that I submitted over a year ago on a very active "Conservative Forum"...not one person responded:

Posted: Sep 29 2003, 09:26 AM

Yesterday morning, I was watching the interview, and found it interesting but when the following happened I started laughing and left the room, preferring not to waste my time further...so I came in and typed a response to someone instead, figuring to wait for the printed transcript.

excerpt:

Quote:

MR. RUSSERT: The costs of the war, administrationâ€™s top budget official, Mitch Daniels, the former director of the OMB, estimated that the â€œcost of a warâ€? would be â€œ$50 billion to $60 billion...he said...estimates of $100 billion to $200 billionâ€? by Lawrence Lindsey, the presidentâ€™s former chief economic adviser, â€œwere too high.â€?
Weâ€™ve already spent, when the additional $87 billion is allocated by Congress, some $150 billion to $160 billion. Why did the administration so dramatically underestimate the cost of this war?

DR. RICE: We did not have perfect foresight into what we were going to find in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that this deteriorated infrastructure, one that was completely covered and covered over by the gleaming pictures of Baghdad that made it look like a first-world city, what weâ€™re learning now is that, for instance, the entire country had maybe 55 percent of the electrical generating power that it needed, but what Saddam Hussein did was force all of that generating power into the Sunni areas and to simply starve the rest of the country. The country was probably 80 percent low on the ability to provide sanitation to the country.

I really find this amazing that after the wars, the sanctions, and all of our great "intellegence" regarding super secrets...this leader would have us believe that this administration was not aware that the infrastructure was messed up, the lights were out and the place stank...give me a freaking break

Chef · #**177** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:23 PM

Have any of you been to Iraq?

I have and if you think you can find something that has been barried to hide it from you you should go and find it for everyone.

That place changes every time the wind blows. If it was ment to be hidden, unless you know exactly where good luck on finding it.

areyoushittin'me? · #**178** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:24 PM

Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:14 pm

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new
leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the
new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading
China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the
name of the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I
thought he was in the Middle East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of
the new leader of China. Get me the Secretary
General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could
use a glass of milk.And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get
me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now
get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls,
too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China.
And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in
the Middle East?

Chef · #**179** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:27 PM

LOL that is funny

Amazed · #**180** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 06:27 PM

(smile) Russert...and all Libs only want to believe Intel when it suits them. Your "cites" have nothing to do with the fact that WORLD, including Blix said Saddam had them...Posting interviews given after the fact have no bearing on the actions taken prior. Hindsight is always better than foresight.