[Drjones]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/11/145715.shtml


Saturday, Oct. 11, 2003 2:37 p.m. EDT

Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession

The elite media continue to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. attacked in March, citing the scant evidence of any actual weapons finds by U.S. arms inspector David Kay.

But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1991 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons - along with the delivery systems to take them beyond Iraq's borders?

That's right - lost in the debate over why U.S. weapons inspectors have yet to uncover the Iraqi version of the Manhattan Project is this salient fact: Not only did Saddam's regime admit to possessing thousands of tons of lethal chemical and biological agents - Baghdad also gave a detailed inventory of its WMD arsenal to the United Nations.

This week's Weekly Standard revisits Baghdad's 1991 WMD mea culpa - complete with a laundry list of the frightening weapons that the press continues to suggest were a figment of the Bush administration's imagination.

The magazine contended, "Here is what was known by 1998 based on Iraq's own admissions."

Baghdad had produced and failed to account for

• at least 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, along with 805 tons of precursor ingredients for the production of more VX.

• 4,000 tons of ingredients to produce other types of poison gas.

• 8,500 liters of anthrax.

• 500 bombs fitted with parachutes for the purpose of delivering poison gas or germ payloads.

• 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas.

• 107,500 casings for chemical weapons.

• 157 aerial bombs filled with germ agents.

• 25 missile warheads containing germ agents, including anthrax, aflatoxin, and botulinum.

Again, the above arsenal is NOT what U.S. or European intelligence suspected Baghdad had. These are the WMDs that Saddam himself admitted he had - and failed to account for despite repeated demands from the U.N. that he do so.

It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the WMDs Saddam confessed to went completely undetected by U.N. weapons inspectors who combed Iraq for 12 years.

Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq had WMDs have already been answered - by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.

[Art Eatman]

One school of thought has it that it was all a mouth-music bluff, to make himself look deadlier than in reality.

I have no way of knowing, yea or nay...

Art

[DaveB]

Still, thanks to the media's five-month-long campaign to discredit the Iraq war - not to mention the horrible job done by the White House public relations team - most Americans have no idea that questions about whether Iraq had WMDs have already been answered - by no less an authority than Saddam Hussein himself.

A few questions, if I may:

1: Is this simply a PR issue?
2: Could SH have been bluffing to try to avoid an attack?
3: Why do you believe SH for the purposes of this story, but at no time else?
4: It's the liberal media again, right?

So tired... :rolleyes:

Why is it so hard for these people to just admit that they're wrong, and that they've been wrong about this all along - and apologize to their loyal readers?

I think that "Most Americans" know very well what's going on here.

db

[Thumper]

Wow, Dave...you knew in '98 that Saddam had voluntarily gotten rid of all WMD, then lied about it?

That's a pretty amazing claim. You prolly shoulda told the world.

[DaveB]

I think that "Most Americans" know very well what's going on here.

db

[Drjones]

Yeah, you already said that, and yes we do know what's going on.

Why don't you want to admit it and agree with us? Got a special place in your heart for saddamy?

[DaveB]

Got a special place in your heart for saddamy?

Didn't the supremes strike down the tejas saddamy law?

db

[Thumper]

You gotta feel for those whose hatred of Dubya is so great that they end up championing a pillar of the world community like Hussein.

Heads up Dave...It's a War on Terror. Hint: How much was Hussein paying the families of the jihadis blowing themselves up in the streets of Haifa?

"Poor Saddam...reduced to bluffing about his limited stockpile of WMD because of those bullying Americans."

Ridiculous...but entertaining.

[DaveB]

Heads up Dave...It's a War on Terror.

OK.

Why aren't we occupying the country that sanctions Wahhabism, financed 9/11, and provided almost all of the hijackers?

db

[Thumper]

Oh...so you're one of those selective terrorist hunters. I understand....

My answer is simple convenience. The Saudi royal family has so far been smart enough to go against their own people and not shake their fist at the Great Satan.

Here's an interesting question for you:

Do you agree that Afghanistan was the logical First Target?

[DaveB]

Poor Saddam...reduced to bluffing about his limited stockpile of WMD because of those bullying Americans

I like a good debate, but you'll need to use actual facts - and at least give them some historical perspective - if you want to participate.

Read your history, starting at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/overlord.aspx

The Deception - Operation Fortitude

Elaborate efforts were taken in order to deceive the Germans into thinking that a massive Allied force was concentrated in Kent - just opposite Pas de Calais. Command of the fake army (known as the US 1st Army Group) was given to General George S. Patton in order to lend validity to the Army Group. Radio traffic was faked, plywood and canvas installations were constructed, inflatable tanks and vehicles were used extensively in order to deceive the Germans. In all, the plan called Operation Fortitude, was considered a great success in keeping the German High Command guessing about where the real invasion would come from. It would be instrumental in causing the Germans to withhold units once D-Day began. On a side note, Patton would later take command of the US Third Army in Normandy after the landings and during the breakout phase of the campaign.

db

[DaveB]

Do you agree that Afghanistan was the logical First Target?

Yes, I agree. The Taliban was an immediate threat to the US.

Where I part company with you is at the point when the Administration decides to invade Iraq, and lies about the threat to the US in order to get Congressional approval.

It is well documented that the people advising Bush had decided to invade Iraq as part of a geopolitical power play. 9/11 provided a plausable pretext.

The Saudi royal family has so far been smart enough to go against their own people and not shake their fist at the Great Satan.

But doesn't waiting until the threat is overt run counter to the Bush doctrine of premptive war? If we know that the Saudis are funding attacks on us, including 9/11, why wait to defend ourselves?

What are we waiting for?

db

[Thumper]

I like a good debate, but you'll need to use actual facts - and at least give them some historical perspective - if you want to participate.

Oh...I apologize...Does being on the ground during Desert Storm give me enough "historical perspective" to participate?

I was involved in the debrief of EPWs in '91...how about that?

Oh, never mind...you have a 56k connection...I'll defer to you.

[DaveB]

You gotta feel for those whose hatred of Dubya is so great that they end up championing a pillar of the world community like Hussein.

Right... Show me where I, or anyone else here, 'championed' Hussein.

You gotta feel for those whose reverence for Dubya is so great that they end up championing:

1: Wars of Aggression
2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11
4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties
5: War profiteering
6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)
7: Lies upon lies upon lies
8: ...

db

[DaveB]

Oh...I apologize...Does being on the ground during Desert Storm give me enough "historical perspective" to participate?
I was involved in the debrief of EPWs in '91...how about that?
Oh, never mind...you have a 56k connection...I'll defer to you.

You 'made a point' about how silly I was to think SH might try to bluff.

Do you play poker?

It's been done (successfully) before.

db

[Thumper]

2: Could SH have been bluffing to try to avoid an attack?

Poor guy; he was trying to avoid an attack.

:rolleyes:

[DaveB]

Poor guy; he was trying to avoid an attack.

Well, you can't win 'em all.

Perhaps he's got the 4805 tons of chemical agents buried in some functionary's back yard.

Under a rose bush. :D

db

[Thumper]

You 'made a point' about how silly I was to think SH might try to bluff.

So your contention is that:

1.) He had and used WMD.

2.) Sometime pre-'98 he voluntarily disposed of them and kept it a secret (Makes a lot of sense to go ahead and dispose of trip aces, you know...so you can set up your bluff ) and then brilliantly...

3.) He LIED about it to avoid an attack.

Ok...

[greyhound]

You guys have a pretty good (and High Road!) debate going on here.

I do take exception to two points (though I'm not a debater, just a point excepter:D ):

2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11

A lot of the decades old alliances were Cold War based and were gradually going away as nations' priorities changed (i.e France and Germany).

Also, I feel that while a lot of the sympathy expressed was genuine as far as the loss of life we experienced, I think behind the scenes a lot of the world hoped that our government would finally be knocked down a peg, and move a little closer to following the UN, trans-national point of view. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of #3.

Not sure if Iraq was the best next step in the WOT (I favored shutting down the borders, kicking out illegals, and drastically ramping up the military, THEN lets see who acts up), but I sure as heck don't care if we ever interact with the UN again...

just my .02.

[DaveB]

Also, I feel that while a lot of the sympathy expressed was genuine as far as the loss of life we experienced, I think behind the scenes a lot of the world hoped that our government would finally be knocked down a peg, and move a little closer to following the UN, trans-national point of view. Therefore, I am somewhat skeptical of #3.

The only way I can justify #3 is that I've read countless articles discussing the worldwide reaction to 9/11 and, almost without exception, people saw the USA as the injured party. There was tremendous sympathy and affection for us among other countries' citizens - never mind their governments. That's all gone now.

We are no longer the flawed "Light of the World", but just another imperial power.

We're the newest big target.

I honestly believe an American president (literally, almost anybody) without Bush's personality traits and agenda could have delt with the identifiable BGs without, at the same time, terrifying and alienating everybody else on the planet. If America had found some way to terrify millitant Muslims without simultaneously terrifying everybody else outside of the UK, we would not be facing an escalating assymetrical war in Iraq BY OURSELVES.

Bush chose the 'might makes right' path, and our Congress was too gutless to curb him.

My children's children will be paying for this.

db

[CMichael]

Great post Doc. Jones.

But don't forget Saddam Hussein according to his apologists had a sudden change of heart.

In the spirit of humanity he destored his WMD and didn't document it to the inspectors as he was required to because he was caught up in the auora of peace and love :rolleyes:

[bountyhunter]

But if it's true that Saddam Hussein was actually innocent on the WMD charge, then why did he confess in 1991 that his country had amassed huge stockpiles of highly toxic weaponized poisons -

EVERYBODY knew he had them back then in 1991 because he used them in the war with Iran. The question is what he had when Bush attacked in 2003. It hinges on the phrase:

"These are the WMDs that Saddam himself admitted he had - and failed to account for despite repeated demands from the U.N. that he do so."

"Failed to account for" is the catch phrase Bush kept using because Iraq could not pony up stuff it no longer had. There is no doubt much of the "unaccounted for" stuff was used in the Iran war and simply accounted incorrectly when it was deployed. During a war, book keeping is not usually a high priority.

Mud flew on both sides, but the ultimate line came down to Hussein saying: "I don't have them and I can't give you what I don't have. You are simply using that as an excuse to attack my country and kill me."

Bush's position was: "We know you are hiding them and that's a breech so we can attack you."

Problem is, there are two huge points indicating Hussein's version was much closer to the truth:

1) If they had weaponized bios and chems, why did they not use them as our troops rolled through slaughetring their armed forces? They used them on Iran, so why would they not use them now? What's the worst we could have done to punish Hussein for using them.... attack his country and kill him? We were already in the process of doing that.

2) We have found nothing, despite claims by Powell as to knowing exactly where the "chemical bunkers" were.

There may be some stuff hidden in Iraq, but clearly they had nowhere near the stuff Bush claimed they did.... and trotting out 12 year old "confessions" looks pathetic and desparate. Bush should just step up and do a mia culpa and start moving forward with whatever credibility he can scrape together instead of defending a hopeless pack of BS he is dragging like bridal train.

[ARperson]

The signatories to U.N. resolution 1441 also believed that SH still possessed those things which his loss in the first Gulf War prohibited him from possessing. So if Bush lied to people, then everybody else bought the lie too. The fact that they change their mind when the rubber hits the road is indicative of little more than their unwillingness to let their heretofor illegal associations with SH come to light.

I'd also like the naysayers to recognize the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. My mom had Christmas presents for me hidden in the house every year. Just because I couldn't find them didn't mean I thought I was going present-less at Christmas.

And finally, this WMD is but one of the reasons that the U.S. moved. To hinge all justification on this one issue is illogical.

[bountyhunter]

The signatories to U.N. resolution 1441 also believed that SH still possessed those things which his loss in the first Gulf War prohibited him from possessing. So if Bush lied to people, then everybody else bought the lie too. The fact that they change their mind when the rubber hits the road is indicative of little more than their unwillingness to let their heretofor illegal associations with SH come to light.

That pretty succinctly articulates the real chasm that divides Bush followers from those who are not satisfied with his "story":

He claims that if he can catch Saddam in any lie, that proves he was right to go to war.... which is a clear non-sequitur. It may prove a technical breach of a UN resolution, but that is not a sufficient reason to spend US lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in our money for this war and occupation.

The point is (and this question has never changed) show us the reason where the US or her interests were threatened such that it justified war?

Some old chems from the Iran war ain't gonna do it.... 15 year old plans buried in somebody's garden ain't gonna do it... show us a nuclear program that was within spitting distance of having a bomb or show us evidenece that lethal chems were being supplied to Al Qaeada and I'll climb on. But, all we keep hearing about is how they have proof that Hussein was planning to build WMD's.... yeah, and I was planning to retire three years ago but somebody declared war on my 401k. Bottom line, Bush has not produced anything even 1/1000 valid enough to justify the cost and risk of this war and occupation, and all the rest is just noise.

[DRC]

"You gotta feel for those whose reverence for Dubya is so great that they end up championing:

1: Wars of Aggression
2: The tanking of decades-old alliances
3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11
4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties
5: War profiteering
6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)
7: Lies upon lies upon lies
8: ...

db"

I would have to ask that you back these assertions up with some fact. I will forewarn you that I can validate the opposing view to your every point and will provide all necessary sources and links as needed. Before I get started would you please be so kind as to prove your assertions for us all?

Thanks in advance,

DRC

[Drjones]

Some old chems from the Iran war ain't gonna do it.... 15 year old plans buried in somebody's garden ain't gonna do it...


That's right.

For Bush haters, NOTHING will "do it."

I doubt even a nuke in Manhattan, mushroom cloud and all, would "do it" for you types.

[Khornet]

I notice you're upset about the squandering of all that goodwill toward America. My question is:




What goodwill?


Really, Dave.


The French and the Germans have been giving us the finger for decades. Ditto for much of the rest of the world. In Japan, Americans are routinely referred to as barbarians. My Costa Rican cousins were rebuking me for being American forty years ago. Hate and condescension toward America have been de rigueur among the oh-so-enlightened of the world forever. And the vaunted goodwill you and so many others so loudly lament came from all the same cast of careeer America-haters worldwide. I care not a fig for what France and Germany think about us, and quite frankly, if you can judge a man by the enemies he makes, Mr. Bush is looking pretty good just now.

And, Dave---they hate you, too. Doesn't matter that you disagree with what America is doing right now. You will never be good enough, for the reason I will never be good enough: because we're Americans. Fie on their goodwill.

[CMichael]

Problem is, there are two huge points indicating Hussein's version was much closer to the truth:

1) If they had weaponized bios and chems, why did they not use them as our troops rolled through slaughetring their armed forces? They used them on Iran, so why would they not use them now? What's the worst we could have done to punish Hussein for using them.... attack his country and kill him? We were already in the process of doing that.<<

There was no point in using them. The coalition forces were protected against chemical weapons. All it would do was piss off the coalition forces even more and I would imagine many of the Iraqi commanders realized that they were going to lose the war. Maybe they didn't want to be convicted of war crimes.


>>2) We have found nothing, despite claims by Powell as to knowing exactly where the "chemical bunkers" were.

There may be some stuff hidden in Iraq, but clearly they had nowhere near the stuff Bush claimed they did.... and trotting out 12 year old "confessions" looks pathetic and desparate. Bush should just step up and do a mia culpa and start moving forward with whatever credibility he can scrape together instead of defending a hopeless pack of BS he is dragging like bridal train.<<

It was not the responsiblity of the US to prove that Hussein had WMD. According to the Security Council resolution signed by all including France and Germany it was the responsiblity of Hussein to document the destruction of his WMD. The onus was on Hussein to prove he destoryed them not on the US to prove that he did have them.

[Thumper]

The "squandering of world-wide sympathy" argument is only effective with those for whom an appeal to pity is attractive.

[DaveB]

The "squandering of world-wide sympathy" argument is only effective with those for whom an appeal to pity is attractive.

It is most distasteful to those whose response to every challenge is dickw@ving.

db

[Thumper]

You're comments, while inappropriate, are telling.

Defense against a perceived threat is certainly not some sort of missplaced male angst.
distasteful

Fortunately, beeing seen as "tasteful" in the eyes of the world ceased to be a concern for Joe (and Jane, what's SHE waving) American circa 9-11-2001.

[DaveB]

Defense against a perceived threat is certainly not some sort of missplaced male angst.

OK, but if you shoot some guy in a bar because you didn't like the way he was looking at you, you're not defending yourself.

Our own intel community believed that SH wasn't a threat even to his next-door neighbors, so how could he have been a threat to us?

Round and round we go...

Please continue.

db

[Thumper]

OK, but if you shoot some guy in a bar because you didn't like the way he was looking at you, you're not defending yourself.

Nope, but if he's been telling me for years that hes gonna kill me, and suddenly pulls out a sap...well...

Own intelligence community? I can assure you, only your selected minority. This isn't 1990 and I'm not concerned about Saddam's neighbors...I was concerned because of his well documented increasing support for terrorism. You weren't?

Perhaps you'd sleep better if he were still funding terrorism openly?

[Thumper]

Round and round we go...

Hahah...fortunately, no. Saddams out of power, remember? You can continue trashing U.S. foreign policy at your leisure, however.

[BigG]

You know something? To my simple way of thinking, I don't care about all the questions that has this thread buzzing. The simple fact that Hussein ALLOWED terrorists to HARBOR in Iraq and provided them with land for camps, airplanes to practice hijacking, etc. is enough evidence for me to support taking his punk @$$ out. Bravo, President Bush! Go USA! Rah rah!

[SkunkApe]

Nope, but if he's been telling me for years that hes gonna kill me, and suddenly pulls out a sap...well...

...well...the police darn well better find that sap when they get there, or you're in a heap of trouble.

[Malone LaVeigh]

This thread is a perfect example of why I haven't missed anything by being gone on fires for the last couple of months. It doesn't matter whether Saddam was a threat to some people. Trying to talk rationally to jingoistic followers is futile. The fact that it is against international law to make unilateral, preemptive war is also immaterial to those that don't respect the law.

[DRC]

I guess I will ;)

"1: Wars of Aggression"

First I have to ask this question: Is there any other kind of war? One does not go to war to sit around and argue over a Bridge game. Here's a link http://www.cpa.org.au/campaign/ushistory.pdf excluding the present look at what these wars were for. Sadly, in many of these wars good ole Democrats truned their backs on the regimes we were originally supporting and allowed Communism to take over those countries and millions died, not because of the "War of Aggression" but because of a lack thereof or continuance.

"2: The tanking of decades-old alliances"

As has been stated many of these "decades-old alliances" were more lip service than anything. Whenever the US elected to act, many of our allies turned their backs on us and it was obvious just how sound those alliances were. But to say that Bush tanked these alliances is assinine. The biggest problem is that you only know what you're being fed and not all that's going on. Strangely we managed to get the rebuilding of Iraq resolution unnanimously approved by the UN Security Council. Even those who's support Bush "tanked" signed on. Amazing isn't it?

"3: The squandering of world-wide sympathy and support after 9/11"

Again it's already been said but where have you been? People that support you don't attack you. Much of Europe has taken an anti-American stance and this is nothing new. It's been going on for year prior to 9/11. Typically WE support the world communities, not the other way around. Need proof? Name the last war fought on American soil along side our allies? Now name the last war fought on foreign soil along side our allies. Here's a link to get you started http://web.syr.edu/~laroux/history/history.html This is the French and Indian war but does go on into the Seven Years War as well. Happy reading.

"4: Unconstitutional violations of civil liberties"

While I agree there are some things that have been done that can and probably will incroach on our liberties I don't believe there are any presently set up by the Bush administration that directly affect our individual liberties. Example:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

The Patriot Act. Good and bad points depending on who's wielding the power. Were something like this in place with the Clintons in office you can bet there would have been rights violations all over the place for political gain and the maintainence of political power.

"5: War profiteering"

Bush is profitting from this war? Perhaps he's profitting in National Security? Monetarily I would like for you to show me just how much money he has made off this war and how much he stands to make if you don't mind. Show me where President or anyone else in his administration has laid claim to anything in Iraq if you would be so kind (and No Cheney has nothing to do with Haliburton anymore since he sold off all his intrests in that company (at a loss no less) to appease the left when he and President Bush took office.)

"6: Criminal violations of law (outing a CIA spy to punish her husband)"

I am in total agreement with you on this one except for one small detail; the White House didn't leak this information. Amazingly, Joseph Wilson himself named his wife Valerie Plame in his bio on the Middle East Institute web site but strangely enough now the link I originally read the bio on no longer works: Here are Robert Novaks stories first about Joseph Wilson where his wife is named and identified and secondly his debunking of the idea that the White House leaked anything to him:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html

Enjoy

"7: Lies upon lies upon lies"

If you're talking about the Clinton administration I agree, but since I know you're talking about the Bush administration, what lies are you referring to? I've argued this subject ad nauseum and have come to the conclusion that ignorance is bliss for some people. No amount of education, fact, documentation, common sense or reasoning will make a difference for some. They are convinced that Bush lied even though they have absolutely no proof whatsoever to back this assertion up. Sad. Truly sad. Don't ask me to prove he didn't lie I want you to prove he did. I and others have laid out so much information debunking these "Bush lied" assertions that it's not worth our time anymore.

"8: ..."

This one is tricky. It's either the definitive sign for infinity as written in computer speak or it's a failed attempt at some strange emoticon ;) Wichever it is I'm sure it would have been cool.

Take care,

DRC

Malone! Buddy! Where have you been young man? Good to see you. :)

"This thread is a perfect example of why I haven't missed anything by being gone on fires for the last couple of months."

You can say that again. They're bringing up the "Bush lied" BS again.

"It doesn't matter whether Saddam was a threat to some people. Trying to talk rationally to jingoistic followers is futile."

Boy, don't I know that one! Been dealing with it since I signed on to THR. ;)

"The fact that it is against international law to make unilateral, preemptive war is also immaterial to those that don't respect the law."

You know? This is why I like you. Your attention to detail on the issues. So what and when were the "International Police" going to do about all the other law breakers? I equate International law to being the best ballerina in all of Galveston; it sounds good but doesn't mean anything. Hell, the only country that has ever obeyed International Law IS the USA, plus wasn't Saddam breaking International Law? 18 or 19 of them if memory serves and the "International Police" were doing virtually...No wait. They were doing absolutely nothing about it. It's so nice to see how effective International Law can be especially when it's not "International" at all when these laws only apply to one country; the USA!

And how dare you call me a jingoist! I prefer Warmonger IF you don't mind. Remember that for future reference please. :D

DRC

PS. Good to see you're back safe. Hope all went well.

[DaveB]

DRC, check your PMs.

db

[DaveB]

#5: I doubt very much if the left feels appeased.

From The Nation Mag...

Despite Cheney's claim during a September "Meet the Press" appearance that he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest" in Halliburton, Lautenberg argues that Cheney retains significant financial ties to the company. A successful businessman and investor before his election to the Senate, Lautenberg notes that Cheney, who received a $34 million package when he left Halliburton to become Vice President, continues to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary and retains $433,333 in unexercised stock options.

According to an analysis distributed by Lautenberg, if Cheney were to exercise his options, the Vice President could:

* Buy 100,000 shares of Halliburton stock at $54.50 before the end of 2007. That adds up to $5,420,000.

* Buy 33,333 shares of Halliburton stock at $28.13 by the end of 2008. That adds up to $937,657.29.

* Buy 100,000 shares of Halliburton stock at $39.50 by the end of 2009. That adds up to $3,950,000.

Over $10M. It's a good thing he has no conflict of interest here.

No! Wait!

db

[BigG]

against international law

In case you ain't been paying attention in school, there is NO SUCH THING. A look at a few objective sources will reveal that sovereign nations can agree on little, if anything.

[DRC]

"#5: I doubt very much if the left feels appeased."

And they never will regardless of the concessions made to them either.

"From The Nation Mag...

Despite Cheney's claim during a September "Meet the Press" appearance that he had "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest" in Halliburton, Lautenberg argues that Cheney retains significant financial ties to the company. A successful businessman and investor before his election to the Senate, Lautenberg notes that Cheney, who received a $34 million package when he left Halliburton to become Vice President, continues to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary and retains $433,333 in unexercised stock options."

The $34 million could have been closer to $150 million had he kept it and waited to sell it off and not sold at the prompting of the opposition. In reality he LOST money by selling when he did. The deferred salary and unexercised stock options were a part of the "package" when he sold off his stock ownership and this is standard practice to share holders that do this in most companies, but the fact is they relinquish any controlling ownership.

"According to an analysis distributed by Lautenberg, if Cheney were to exercise his options, the Vice President could:"

Lautenberg is not the worlds most brilliant man and really should not be taken seriously in anything he says. Let's find out why.

"* Buy 100,000 shares of Halliburton stock at $54.50 before the end of 2007. That adds up to $5,420,000."

These numbers do not add up by the way.

"* Buy 33,333 shares of Halliburton stock at $28.13 by the end of 2008. That adds up to $937,657.29."

* Buy 100,000 shares of Halliburton stock at $39.50 by the end of 2009. That adds up to $3,950,000."

If these projected figures are correct they would show a net loss of $1.5 million if the numbers projected are on par with the trends of the stock market and valuation of shares for Haliburton from 2007 to 2009. That's not a good return on ones investment if you ask me. Otherwise these analysis being distributed by Lautenberg are completely meaningless. Did Lautenberg divulge his investment portfolio or are we to believe that Dick Cheney is the only one in congress that has one?

Yes, if you buy 33,333 shares of a stock at $28.13 it will add up to $937,657.29 (simple math) but pointless. If Cheney buys it or I buy it, it will cost $937,657.29 for me too. So I'm not sure what the information posted has to do with anything other than a short lesson in simple math.

Well, anyway...if the numbers add up you did it right, if they don't you did it wrong. Either way there's no point to be made with these.

Take care,

DRC

[Thumper]

...well...the police darn well better find that sap when they get there, or you're in a heap of trouble.

That was pretty funny, Skunkape.

But your analogy falls apart: The "police" aren't looking, I am...and I've admittedly not found the sap or what happened to it. Makes me look pretty bad, even though I'm perfectly capable of producing a dummy sap to save my rear.

Doesn't that gum up the cogs in your Lying, Cheating, Oil-Stealing, Imperialistic U.S. world view?

Malone,
international law
:D
By definition, "International Law" doesn't have my country's best interests in mind. Why on earth would we subject ourselves to something like that?

[Thumper]

This thread is a perfect example of why I haven't missed anything by being gone on fires for the last couple of months.
Goodness, Malone, you've taken up flag burning full time, now?
;)

[Hkmp5sd]

2: Could SH have been bluffing to try to avoid an attack?

Who cares? If you walk into a bank and inform the teller you have a gun, the police believe you. If you say you are going to kill the president, the Secret Service believes you. If you board an aircraft and claim to have a bomb, the FBI believes you.

So why should we not believe Saddam?

[CMichael]

It's mroe like the Nation Rag, instead of the Nation mag.
The Nation is an extreme left wing rag and I wouldn't take anything it says seriously.

As far as the Int'l law argument...Okay try to follow this pro-Saddam people.

As part of the 1991 Persian Gulf cease fire agreement, Hussein committed to provide documentation that he will destory the WMD. Hussein failed to do this. He is therefore in breach of the cease fire agreement, meaning that a state of war continued to exist. Why is this so difficult for some to understand?

Who cares if the French and the Germans were on board. It would have been nice but we aren't going to sacrifice our security for the whims of the frogs and krauts.

[moa]

CMichael is right.

I would also add that it was the original function of the UN weapons inspectors to verify the destruction of WMDs, which Iraq was required to do. I was not the original function of the inspectors to go on an endless hunt for WMDs.

[greyhound]

I had really hoped 9/11 would finally unite our country against the enemy (Islamic terrorism). We had been attacked and "Let's Roll" and "United We Stand" was heard every day.

Two years later we are more divided than ever.

Most of our citizens agree that we had to do something about Afghanistan.

Some of our citizens think that the war against nations should stop there and we should switch to "police action mode".

Some of our citizens think we need regime change in every Middle East/Islamic country.

A few of our citizens think no war is just, no matter what.

A few of our citizens want to withdraw from the world, kick out illegal immigrants, and seal the borders.

Personally, I share some of all those views (except no war, period).

I do get chapped when people start with the "we attacked Iraq when the real enemy was Saudi Arabia" types. This is a broad brush I am painting with, but from the mountains of stuff I read they seem to be anti-Bush folks who who actually be having the same "Iraq cow" if we started bombing Mecca and Riyadh.

According to these views, they would be OK with us attacking SA right now since they are the real terrorists: they still wouldn't agree with Iraq, but we'd be doing the right thing, only a little late. Yeah, right.

Yep, it was pretty simple on 10/6/01: but nothing since then has been anything like simple....

I do feel that the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the 800 pound weight dragging down the WOT. When 3 Americans are killed in a suicide attack, and what we hear is "this is not helpful to the peace process", something is seriously wrong here....