The Unauthorized Randy “Duke” Cunningham Page

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

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

"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 | Source

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

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. 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 | Source

"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 always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"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 | Source

"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."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

so we know it was "faulty intelligence", now what, Einstein?

AZ2

But there's MORE. Even the UN was involved in the <> "Lies" that BUSH now gets full blame.

Iraq' stockpile according to the United Nations:

Anthrax: 4400 Gallons according to the last UN inspection...how much more SINCE that was allowed???

Aflatoxin...70-200 milligrams is lethal, delivered easily be areosol. 670 Gallons, according to UN

Botulinum Toxin...the most poisonous substance in the world. 5 MICROgrams is lethal. 5066 gallons unaccounted for according to the UN.

Ricin....1 milligram delivered by aerosol can kill within 2 days. In 1998 UN said IRAQ had 2.7 gallons.

VX gas Nerve agent so potent that one 15-milligram drop will ill within minutes. UN believes IRAQ to have 200 tons of VX "precursor".

So, LB, ahem, what's your point?

Most often, it's nice of the writer to let the reader in on what your point is, no matter how myopic and self-centered it is. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

Since you didn't, are we to figure it out for ourselves? Again, since you didn't, I'll take a stab at it:

In the face of mounting criticism to the Bush administration's failed policies about its handling of Iraq, the reasons for going to Iraq, etc., from all corners of government (no doubt emboldened from the resounding results of the recent midterm elections) you choose to list that, yes, many from the other side of the isle are also to blame for the failed policies and failed actions?

The reasons for you going to considerable effort at rounding up these quotes, some almost a decade old, are what? Again, since no commentary has been given, I'll take another stab at it: Your side lost the bulk of the last mid-term election, and by listing these quotes that you can some how retroactively disavow at least some responsibility of your (I assume) political party? Say it ain't so LB, please tell THAT's not it.

—
My point in asking you these questions? Stay with me on this LB, because it gets a little complicated: It's all a bunch of &•#@ing hootie. Go cry in your beer somewhere else.

Haven't we all been witness to enough partisan hate and misplaced anger? Not only on these pages, but virtually everywhere one chooses to look? Clearly you don't think so.

Here is the unpalatable fact that I know it's just so difficult for you and your buddies to get your heads around: All those other people you list didn't invade a sovereign (like it or not, it’s a fact) country. All of those you list didn't make the crap up as they went. No, Georgie and Dickie and the rest did that. Refute that, why don't you? How about starting there and working backwards on the problem? No, that's just not your style, is it. Like most of your kind, it's not about how wrong you were, it's about how everyone else was almost as wrong as you were, and are.

Again, tell me THAT's not the case.

So, LB, ahem, what's your point?

Most often, it's nice of the writer to let the reader in on what your point is, no matter how myopic and self-centered it is. It makes it so much more interesting for the reader.

Since you didn't, are we to figure it out for ourselves? Again, since you didn't, I'll take a stab at it:

In the face of mounting criticism to the Bush administration's failed policies about its handling of Iraq, the reasons for going to Iraq, etc., from all corners of government (no doubt emboldened from the resounding results of the recent midterm elections) you choose to list that, yes, many from the other side of the isle are also to blame for the failed policies and failed actions?

The reasons for you going to considerable effort at rounding up these quotes, some almost a decade old, are what? Again, since no commentary has been given, I'll take another stab at it: Your side lost the bulk of the last mid-term election, and by listing these quotes that you can some how retroactively disavow at least some responsibility of your (I assume) political party? Say it ain't so LB, please tell THAT's not it.

—
My point in asking you these questions? Stay with me on this LB, because it gets a little complicated: It's all a bunch of &•#@ing hootie. Go cry in your beer somewhere else.

Haven't we all been witness to enough partisan hate and misplaced anger? Not only on these pages, but virtually everywhere one chooses to look? Clearly you don't think so.

Here is the unpalatable fact that I know it's just so difficult for you and your buddies to get your heads around: All those other people you list didn't invade a sovereign (like it or not, it’s a fact) country. All of those you list didn't make the crap up as they went. No, Georgie and Dickie and the rest did that. Refute that, why don't you? How about starting there and working backwards on the problem? No, that's just not your style, is it. Like most of your kind, it's not about how wrong you were, it's about how everyone else was almost as wrong as you were, and are.

Again, tell me THAT's not the case.

ANYONE BUT BUSH, COME ON, SAY IT WITH ME! ANYONE BUT BUSH.

<>

Not the case •I• am trying to make. The case •I• am trying to make is that many prominent DEMS admitted to Saddam having WMD, and did so publicly. Saddam, if he really got rid o;f them COULD have let the UN inspectlors know that and let them see for themselves rather than tossing them out as he did.

Unless one is DEAD, they should know from recent HISTORY that Saddam used WMD's to kill some 500,000 Kurds, and another 500,000 Iranians.

So the CASE is....BUSH was NOT ALONE in believing that Saddam was an extremely dangerous and ruthless murderer....ALL those prominent Democrats quoted....and I didn't go to "considerable effort to round up those quotes." The all came up in the first few links by googling "Democrats WMD".

If BUSH lied, then so did the DEMS. And do not forgot, it was the SAME BELIEF by those DEMS who gave BUSH their approval to invade Iraq.

Go figure.

<>>

EIGHT are four years old....but WAIT...there's MORE

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” -Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) September 4, 2002

“If we wait for the [Iraq] danger to become clear, it could be too late.” -Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del) September 4, 2002

“Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.” -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) February 5, 2003

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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), January 23. 2003

Gee...Just over THREE years ago...about the time we invaded IRAQ with the blessings of those DEMS.

Now that THEY have succeeded in their deceit of the American Public by putting all the BLAME on GW, it is time for them to PUT UP or SHUT UP. Thruought the campaigns and elections, not ONE of them came up with any sort of solution to the mess over there.

Time will tell if THEY succeed in doing what GW tried to do...or if they simply cut and run.

More good stuff for yun's.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

See and HEAR for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

And then the entire bunches of links...over ONE MILLION of them.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Democrats+and+WMD

Author: AZ2 (206.202.72.—-)
Date: 12-05-06 07:27

ANYONE BUT BUSH, COME ON, SAY IT WITH ME! ANYONE BUT BUSH.

I will give you my personal guarantee that BUSH will NOT be re-elected.

<>

Wayyy over your head. The Point and the CASE is what I made in my response to Copley News...and that is the media has FAILED to report ALL the news, and culls what it wants.

And the reason for THIS thread is to show folks what the media is now LEAVING OUT while blaming BUSH for everything.

The problem is the left wingers can't accept the fact that Flip Flop Kerry actually made those comments right along with Hillary, Bill, and a bunch of other Left wing liberals.

Speak the TRUTH and You'll be RIGHT....Ignore the FACTS and you'll be LEFT.

LB, so suck Bush off, it's what you really want, anyway. Go!

<>

Good one LB! How the heck do you write the gold you write. Solid gold stuff, man. Nicely done.

Don't tell me: You're a bumper sticker writer on the side?

And please, the media is not reporting the "good" news in Iraq? Yeah, it's a big corporate conspiracy that all the media outlets are in on. They meet every two weeks to update their game plan to defraud the American people of the all the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

Don't you think that if their was sufficient good news that at least Fox News would be reporting it? Please.

I could discredit and argue (successfully) your references one by one and supply many of my own to support my views. But it would change nothing (in your mind) so there is no point. There is no changing your mind in this regard. Just like many in the current administration.

It seems that you have chosen a stance that fits in with your personal beliefs.
You rely on hyperbole, embellishment and political rhetoric to support your views.
Clearly you want a fight. You are just reverting to type. When in doubt, attack.

I don't feel that you are stupid LB, nor (I hope) are you unable to grasp objective reality.

I do not defend all those others you list that said whatever. Truth be told, I didn't read them all because, quite frankly, it's a tiresome antic that you employ.

The difference LB, is that Bush and Company acted on information that they knew to be false...and like you, went about trying to construct reality in such a way to support their subjective beliefs. That's the difference. Bush and Company were in the driver's seat when this cluster fu•k happened. And it just didn't happen, it was urged along, pressed, poked and prodded onward.

They knew what they were doing. The knew it was all bull$hit.

The sooner we (and that means all of us LB, not just the ones that are on the "right") acknowledge all the mistakes and work on fixing them, the better. Let us all call it for what it is.

—

By the way, since, you know, this is a forum for and about Puke Cunningham, why do you feel the need to put this type of $hit on these pages? What does it have to do with Puke? Is it because you know that it will generate at least some response, thus validating your antagonistic tendencies? On this, I won't ask if this is true. I know it is. You are a dime a dozen LB. Get used to it.

And one last thing LB, just because you spell things in ALL CAPS, it does not mean that THOSE things ARE true. But, IF you WANT to LOOK like A fool, KEEP doing IT.

<<
By the way, since, you know, this is a forum for and about Puke Cunningham, why do you feel the need to put this type of $hit on these pages? What does it have to do with Puke? >>

Well, I'm not going to explain that three more times. If you don't get the connection, then I am sorry for you.

And you can wallow in denial all you want about the Dems quotes, but they are out there and they said it. But like most left wingers, the minute the Repubs get into trouble, the liberals run and hide from what they previously had said and even PROMOTED.

You don't like what I post??? Well then DON'T READ THEM.

Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put a label on it. Take sides.

Once again... MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I bet for a price Halliburton would bring peace in Iraq.

For a price, Saddam would have straightened out his act, and we would have never had to have gone it there.

LB....I admire you. You stay in there and keep on swinging.

Again, stay with me on this:

Say, for example, that a group of Republicans and a group of Democrats were eating dinner at an all-you-can-eat type place.

And just say that everyone got sick from eating the food.

Now, do you think that those people are to blame for eating the bad food? Of course not. It would be silly to blame them.

A person would have to say, correctly, that we should blame the cooks making the food, right? Well, in most cases, yes. But say, for the sake of argument, that the cooks followed every procedure to ensure that the food was safe.

What if there was evidence that some of the cooks tainted the food, say, by adding something to the food or adding too much of something, making sure everyone got sick?

—

Who do you suppose has the power to sign off on the final drafts of intelligence reports? Who do you suppose appoints those people who have the power to sign of on final drafts of those intelligence reports? You see where I am going?

I am saying that everyone was pretty much duped by manufactured, embellished and faulty intelligence that was ultimately the product of the Bush administration.

In the weeks and months during the lead up to this Iraq war, it was virtually a non-stop reel of WMD's, mushroom clouds, etc. All referenced by "solid" intelligence.

Who supplied that intelligence? See above.

Since you like to research media accounts, go check it out. There is ample evidence that this is exactly what happened.

And, by the way, most of your quotes by Democrats that you list talk about chemical and biological weapons. Those weapons, while ghastly in their own right and extremely dangerous, pale by comparison to the public's perception of nuclear weapons. Rightly or wrongly, that is the popular perception. The use of nuclear weapons are, and always have been, the biggest fear that this nation has. Our fellow citizens, bless their hearts, have trouble grasping the effects of chemical and biological weapons. Not many have trouble grasping the effects of a nuclear weapon.

How many times did you hear the words "mushroom cloud" and "smoking ruin" in the lead up to this Iraq war?

You can see what I am getting at, right LB? The Bush administration, knowing all this, chose (yes, chose) this manufactured threat ahead of all others. Knowing that, after hearing it, they would have the rapt attention and support of the citizens of this country.

As most of us know, this country's citizens look to the government for safety above almost all else. They understand that the government will lie about a lot of things, but most have trouble believing (even now) that they would lie about something as grave as this. And that is precisely why it worked so well.

—
Even if you, and everyone else who reads this, doesn't agree with me (and a lot of other people) on this, you must, if you are an objective thinker, must at least acknowledge the strong possibility that this is what happened.
—
Sure, I get that all of this is in the past and we are where we are now and we have to deal with it. But understanding how we got to this point is important to figuring out how we get out of it.

Like I said, I don't expect to change your mind about anything LB. You will think what you want to be true, regardless. But you can't deny the power and the evidence of my argument, no matter how badly you want to.

This whole thing is big $hit sandwich, and we all are going to have to take a bite. It’s no longer about your petty wants and wishes and rants as to who is RIGHT and who is LEFT.

<>

One of my several collateral duties when I first joined the VF was NBC warfare office and had been to school on Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical warfare. The least of our worries is chemical. the N if it comes in the form of coordinated dirty bombs being set off is just awful. the B is the most fearful of them all. And again, the UNITED NATIONS...NOT BUSH, not Republicans said this:

Iraq' stockpile according to the United Nations:

Anthrax: 4400 Gallons according to the last UN inspection...how much more SINCE that was allowed???

Aflatoxin...70-200 milligrams is lethal, delivered easily be areosol. 670 Gallons, according to UN

Botulinum Toxin...the most poisonous substance in the world. 5 MICROgrams is lethal. 5066 gallons unaccounted for according to the UN.

Ricin....1 milligram delivered by aerosol can kill within 2 days. In 1998 UN said IRAQ had 2.7 gallons.

VX gas Nerve agent so potent that one 15-milligram drop will ill within minutes. UN believes IRAQ to have 200 tons of VX "precursor".

So......Where did it all go????

Lest we not forget who also resided in the white house for 8 years and is now in the Senate and said this:

"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 | Source

So, I'm not letting GW off the hook, but I'm not letting you left-wingers and the media give him ALL the BLAME after so many quotes from the now apparent BACK STABBING DEmocrats who won't own up to their own comments, and who as part of Clintons Admin, congressional intelligence committees, etc., used their positions to gain the knowledge they had to express those opinions.

Get it now????

Yeah, LB. I got it. Politicians sometimes lie. Hardly a news flash.

I got it two of your posts ago.

And I wouldn't have believed you would use UN stats to buttress you position.

And I'm sure we are all impressed with your resume', thank you.

And thank you for asking; where DID it all go?

My point:
With such certainty Bush and others declared that, for a fact, the WMD's (and take your pick what kind) existed in Iraq, and that we knew where to find them...I can think of no better question to be asking: Where, then, did they go?

I get it that both sides got it wrong. I haven't disputed that. What both sides did not do is hype the $hit out of it and, then, start a war.

Yeah, I know, both sides voted for it. But they (BOTH sides) based their decisions on intelligence that was largely constructed by this administration after 9/11, not eight or ten years ago. How many National Security Estimates do you think were generated around that time? Wouldn't one base their decisions on current data rather than old data? Do you get that?

Since you haven't addressed a single point I've made, while I have with your points, I don't expect you to now.

Go ahead and rant all you want, it doesn't change who was in the driver's seat and why we are where we are now. Same old tired song, LB.

<>

Yeppers, I'm sure you and you ilk believe that GW was covertly involved in brain-washing these folks who were wandering mindless around DC.

"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 | Source

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"[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.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"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 | Source

"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 | Source

Yes yes, LB, again with the quotes?

You chose what things I say to comment on and ignore the rest. Typical of you, if I do say so.
—
You no doubt noted that all of the most recent quotes you post are all from 1998, save for one, which is from 1999. Eight year old quotes. Fine. Not the most recent but fine.

Okay. And all don't mention specifically nuclear weapons. They just mention WMD's. A broad, general term including chemical and bio agents, as well as nuclear.

And we all know that Saddam had used those types of weapons in the past, on the Kurds.

Fine. So all of those quotes are correct. None are technically inaccurate.

So. What's your point?

It's a pretty good assumption that if Saddam had used WMD's (chemical) in the past, on the Kurds, that he still had some of them, wouldn't you say?

So, I ask you: What did G-Dub and others mean when he said "mushroom cloud" and "smoking ruin"? I asked you that before and so far....silence.

But fine, go on posting quotes that are almost a decade old. I addressed this in my last post but you don't have room in your head for anything else other than you mindless hate. At this point, it's laughable, the antics you employ. Please continue...

<>>

What "mindless hate?" It is you who is spewing the hatred. I, OTOH, do, and will continue to point out that it is the liberals and Democrats who have over the course of a decade suggested that we should do something about Saddam and all those WMD's in Iraq...the last quotes being repeats from the original on top....BECAUSE....YOU, fellow liberal, have suggested all the LIES about WMD came from BUSH.....so I merely pointed out, hopefully for the simple-minded to understand, that those earlier quotes were ...

Now R-E-A-D this carefully.


BEFORE BUSH'S TIME.

Imagine that.

And since you keep bringing up the "mushroom cloud" and "smoking ruin"....where ARE those actual quotes and from which context?

Or like all Liberals, just listen to one BUSH HATER and follow lock-step down the road to further destroying this country.

WHERE ARE THE QUOTES?????

<<>>

Well, since you won't post anything to support the quotes, I'll post what Bush ACTUALLY SAID on October 7, 2002.

"...Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons."

GET IT...CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGIAL WEAPONS!!!!!


"It is seeking nuclear weapons."

GET IT....SEEKING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. SEEKING. but (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

" It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception, and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability — even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons. "

GET IT...POISONS, DISEASES, GASSES, and ATOMIC WEAPONS.


"Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action — and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone — because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. "

GET IT..ALREADY USED CHEMICAL WEAPONS to kill thousands of people. (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

"This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents."

GET IT.....30,000 LITERS OF ANTHRAX and other DEADLY BIOLOGICAL AGENTS". (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

"The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions. "

GET IT......MASSIVE STOCKPILE OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS. (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)


We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas."

GET IT...THOUSANDS OF TONS OF CHEMICAL AGENTS....MUSTARD GAS, SARIN NERVE GAS and VX NERVE GAS. (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons. "

GET IT....CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGIAL WEAPONS. (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

"Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. "


GET IT....CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPON. (NO MUSHROOM CLOUD HERE)

GEE, Seems like GW mentioned SEEKING nuclear weapons, and used that term one other time.....but the OVERWHELMING speech discussed CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL weapons.

If you folks are going to LIE....like all those Democrats must have done in their own quotes about WMD, then at least LIE well enough that one cannot SEEK THE TRUTH. And for sure, he did use the term "mushroom cloud"...but MOST of the EMPHASIS from BUSH has been on CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS.....since THAT is surely what SADDAM had.

GET IT????? Most likely not. The TRUTH destroys liberals even more than liberals would love to destroy GW Bush.

Here's the entire speech.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/bush.transcript/

LB, let it rest. This dog won't hunt. None of this matters.

I was a Democrat right wing hawk before I went to Vietnam, I came out a dove. I morphed into a moderate Western Democrat. On these pages I have always opposed this Iraq business, just a waste of money and man power.

Why we went in, why we should not have gone in, does not matter today. What mattes is that we develop a workable exit strategy that will not get our troops killed when they pull out.

America needs to heal. The liberals and the conservatives must stop with the hate retoric and heal. We are one nation, one people. The opposition between the liberals and conservatives has gone beyond healthy dialog.

We come upon the time celebrating peace on earth and good will towards men. Let's be viligent in our protection of ourselves, but let's not be the world' cop. Iraq was not the hot bed of terrorists and terrorism that it was painted to be. It has become that, only because of our war in that country. Together, Americans - not liberals or conservatives - must stop the name calling of each other; the exclaimination marks, and work together to come up with a workable solution to this mess.

Because in the end, Iraq will be exactly what Iraqis want it to be and our lives and money expended will be for nothing. Same as it was for Vietnam. All our fellow aviators, grunts, troops sacrificed for nothing. LB, you and I still see those lost, we will forever.

Let's just bring the Americans home from Iraq . . . it did not work.

And thanks to CNN, they proved my point to a T as to how the left wing media distort the TRUTH to negatively influence the public.

GW, in his LONG speech discussed "Chemical" weapons 13 times, "Biological" weapons 11 times, yet CNN managed to HEADLINE the article

BUSH: "Dont wait for mushroom cloud".

Middlemas favorite phrase as well. How many times did GW state that?


EXACTLY ONE TIME ONCE.

See how they sucked you in, Middlemas??? Amazing how you can be so DUPED so easily when you are so full of hate for our president....HEY, I don't much care for him either, but better than that TRAITOR Hanoi John Kerry, eh.

Bush and the Media....lemmeesee.....

Bush and Mushroom cloud gets 69,200 hits on google.

BUT....

Bush and Biological gets 2,090,000 hits,

AND THEN

Bush and Chemical produces 12,200,000 hits.

But lets focus on "mushroom cloud" rather than the 2230% MORE hits on Biological or chemical.

Quite frankly, LB, I just skimmed what you posted since, as I think most who read this know, you're a nut.

Be that as it may, I still think you might find this interesting. Or perhaps not:

Three years after it was promised, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s controversial “Phase Two” report on the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence are headed for circulation next year.

"The three unreleased sections of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s controversial “Phase Two” report on the Bush administration’s use of prewar intelligence are headed for circulation next year, incoming Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) told The Hill late last week."

As I have said, the reasoning for going to war has always been easily debatable. Not that your side ever wanted to debate it.

Yeah, I know LB, you aren't letting G-Dub off the hook, just that the "back-stabbing Dems" are as culpable.

Well, anyway, it looks like it's going to take a Dem to finally release the three year old sections. Who would have thought that? Did you LB? Don't bother to answer, I don't think I can stomach another round of your pull quotes from a decade ago.


http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121206/phase2.html

Yeah, LB, I was duped.

As you were.

As we all were.

It used to be that that fact would evoke the strongest of reactions. Now, not so much. You seem to be more concerned about equal blame. Fine. As I have said, I get that.

And Paul is correct. We (this country) has to look beyond that, to heal.
True, part of that is to find out what happened to bring us to were we are. But to do so in ways that are (hopefully) constructive. You can't change what you don't acknowledge I guess the old saying goes. For that to happen, we have to ask what did we know, when did we know it and what was real and what was not.

I'll tell you who else was duped, LB. My brother was. He serves in the military. He has received two Purple Hearts from wounds sustained in combat. He is home right now but is due to go back a third time. He has never complained once and myself and my family are so very proud of him, and support him and all the others.

And as I have said before on these pages, another brother and one of my sisters also served in the military. Thankfully, both saw no combat.

So, as you can see, I have more than a idle interest in finding out what the fu•k went wrong with this God awful $hitty mess we find ourselves in...and in so doing, if crimes are found to have been committed, make sure that those responsible (be they Dems or Repubs or whomever) pay dearly for those crimes.

That's my point. Finally, and thankfully, it seems, that this is direction the current government is headed. A direction that has been, up until very recently, has been blocked and denied.

Any investigation that comes out - most, if not all, of those Dems that you list will not be investigated. Only those people who had the final say over going to war will be. Objectively, it does not matter what anyone else said or did. Subjectively, sure, it matters. It matter to me. It clearly matters to you. But when the final reckoning takes place (if it ever does) it really won't matter what Kerry said.

Just so you know, I am no lover of everything those that you list are and stand for. If asked, I would have to say that I am a very conservative Democrat. Not that it matters, since I am not defending anything. There is nothing for me to defend.

I had this view before the war started. I was against it from the beginning. I felt that the reasons for this war were suspect at the very least and the whole premise was weak. However, if we were bound to go to war, I was for going big and getting it over with as soon as possible.

—-
FYI - With this post, I imply no insults. Just how I see things.

It seems that we may have reached the start of the "tipping point".

By "tipping point" I mean:
"The culmination of a build-up of small changes that effects a big change".
—
From the article, with regards to WMD:

"Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment."

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

The plot thickens...

Here is to the hope that the grunts stop paying the price for the F-up's of others.

"There is a responsibility from a lessons-learned perspective and an accountability perspective to fill in the blanks," said Levin, who voted against authorizing the war in 2002. "And there have been a number of blanks." Some lower-level military personnel have been held accountable for matters such as detainee mistreatment, he said, "but almost none in the intelligence community."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/15/AR2006121501680.html

MORE news you won't SEE on the "News".

Subject: AAPILOTS.COM Chief Pilot's Corner



FLIGHT DEPARTMENT HOTLINE

December 18, 2006


This is Captain Bob Johnson with the Flight Department Hotline for Monday, December 18.



In lieu of our normal weekly recap, I want to share with you a letter we received from FO Gary Blied, written after completing his duties on American Airlines flight #1904, ORD to MIA, on December 3. This is Gary's letter:



"We were informed at the gate that the remains of MSgt Shawn Richardson would shortly be loaded on our flight for the trip to Miami. He was a 17 year veteran of the United States Air Force and had been killed in the service of our country. I went down onto the ramp and found the long box appropriately stationed off to the side in a luggage cart. The curtains on the cart were pulled. I spent a few moments in prayer with him.



"The Captain and I finished our preflight duties and then went down onto the ramp, checked in with the crew chiefs to observe the loading of MSgt. Richardson. We departed almost an hour late due to our late arrival into Chicago. "We called for push and it was immediately granted. Normally, there's a wait. We called ground for taxi and again – immediately granted. Normally, there's a wait. We were cleared onto the runway and for an immediate take off. Passing through about twenty five thousand feet, we were further cleared direct OMN (Ormand Beach) which is the first fix on the arrival into Miami. That's basically a thousand mile straight line and the most direct clearance I've ever received to Miami. Not a word was ever said – but people were watching out for us.



"The flight to and landing in Miami were uneventful, until we went to turn off the runway. The tower asked us to proceed a little further down where an escort was waiting for us. We did as instructed and a Miami Dade Police cruiser met us on the taxiway. He escorted our American Airlines Boeing 757 to the D terminal. The entire north ramp had been cleared of all aircraft.



"As we approached the ramp we noticed the lights. There were at least a half dozen fire trucks, no less than 15 police cars and countless other vehicles. They were all parked in rows with their lights flashing. As we taxied our aircraft to the gate, the fire trucks saluted our arrival with crossed streams of water shooting over the aircraft.



"We parked the aircraft and shut down. After our checklists, Captain Jeff Wallace and I went down to the ramp level and observed the unpacking of the casket, then the dressing with a flag. It was accepted by the honor guard, which was comprised of members of the Miami Dade Police Department, and Air Force Honor Guard.



"After the "present arms" order (when all military and former military render salutes and civilians put their hands over their hearts) and the "order arms" order, when the salutes were finished, I noticed our jet. As I looked up from the ramp level, I saw a face in

every window. Not one of our passengers had moved until our fallen solider had departed the aircraft.



"When the procession left the airport, there were two cruisers in front of the hearse and I have no idea how many behind. It was worthy of a presidential motorcade and a fitting and probably all too uncommon show of love and respect for one of our fallen.



"And in case I haven't mentioned this previously – it was 1:30 a.m. on a Saturday morning and I would bet that most of the people on our ramp were not on the clock.



"Every now and then you see it: the silent majority that makes this country the best in the world. I was so proud that night. Proud that my fellow citizens on every level worked to get MSgt. Richardson to his final repose. Proud of all the people who showed up on
the ramp early that Saturday morning to show their respect. Proud of our passengers that they recognized a greater purpose than getting off the jet. And proud that my company, American Airlines knows how to handle this situation with humility and honor.



"As you go through your day, remember that there are thousands of men and women overseas in the service of our country, far from home and in danger's way. Please remember that they have families back here who live every day in fear of the phone call or visit with the news that their worst nightmare has come true.



"Be thankful for their efforts and if you know someone who is in the service – get their address from their family and write them and thank them. It's the least you can do."

Good one LB.

I agree. We don't hear about story like this one near enough.

Most people what to insulate themselves, eat their F'ing cheese burgers and not think about all this “unpleasantness”. Most people, when confronted, give the proper reverence and respect. The trouble is, they (all of us) are not confronted with the real effects of this war...or any way war....often enough.

I say we should note and talk about every single one of our fallen. Perhaps then, and perhaps ONLY then, would some of the A Holes in this country get off their fat backsides and demand that our beloved warriors are not tossed away like garbage.

Again, good one LB.

Al Qaeda won the election:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/12/al_qaeda_sends_.html