Where's the National Coverage

[shortski]

Turf war keeping lid on evidence of WMD in Iraq?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 97601.html

[Bubba]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

[Cityskier]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

[RJSVermont]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

I took a secondary education class with a refugee from Sudan, the attrocities he spoke about in class were absolutely heartbreaking. Unfortunately Sudan does not have the (Negative in the American public's eye) notorioty of Sadaam who's infamy alone was enough to pull the wool over the eyes of all the right wing conservatives (cough cough) and lead them to believe that Sadaam was a threat of clear and present danger. Even though Osama was the real enemy of clear and present danger and continues to be so to this day. Too bad we're more focused on infusing democracy into the Iraqi people.

Someone I work with was just telling me about a contractor in Iraq who was supposed to be providing water treatment but in reality was just pumping in water from a local watersource and pocketing the contract money. Although I haven't been able to find any sources I did find some interesting articles posted on the Christian Science Monitor.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0127/dailyUpdate.html

Sure, I'll give GWB and his incompetent administration a solid "B" for intentions with their war in Iraq, regardless of the fact that there were obvious alterior motives. But, I give him and his admin an "F" for planning and an "F" for implementation.

[XtremeJibber2001]

notorioty of Sadaam who's infamy alone was enough to pull the wool over the eyes of all the right wing conservatives (cough cough) and lead them to believe that Sadaam was a threat of clear and present danger. Even though Osama was the real enemy of clear and present danger and continues to be so to this day.

IMHO, our biggest enemies and threats are N. Korea and Iran, perhaps even China down the road. I view them as a larger threat than Osama.

[Bubba]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

Been over this ground again and again, so no reason to rehash arguments here. We disagree, that's OK. What we don't disagree on is that once the decision was made to take Saddam out, the planning and implementation was incompetent, to say the least, and made the situation far worse than it ever had to have been with competent leadership.

[Cityskier]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

Been over this ground again and again, so no reason to rehash arguments here. We disagree, that's OK. What we don't disagree on is that once the decision was made to take Saddam out, the planning and implementation was incompetent, to say the least, and made the situation far worse than it ever had to have been with competent leadership.

Pretty typical response. I assume your ducking my question because you have no good answer (or one you're willing to share) as to why Saddam was the only tyrannical dictator we have targeted when atrocities and oppression certainly aren't unique to that country.

[Bubba]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

Been over this ground again and again, so no reason to rehash arguments here. We disagree, that's OK. What we don't disagree on is that once the decision was made to take Saddam out, the planning and implementation was incompetent, to say the least, and made the situation far worse than it ever had to have been with competent leadership.

Pretty typical response. I assume your ducking my question because you have no good answer (or one you're willing to share) as to why Saddam was the only tyrannical dictator we have targeted when atrocities and oppression certainly aren't unique to that country.

Search is powerful - use it.

There have been arguments over justification rehashed in numerous threads here since the day we put up the political forum, if not before. My views are there. Stating them again is pointless - I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

[Cityskier]

If this was real, would the administration allowed Rick Santorum to make it public? Please - this is of no consequence. We knew he had WMD dating back before Gulf War I. That's what we found. What we haven't found is any evidence of reconstituted WMD programs - chemical, nuclear or biological. The lack of evidence and other hard evidence has been made clear by none other then David Kay, the pro-war, pro-WMD program US investigator - Saddam wanted the world to believe he had WMD programs even though he no longer had any. He fooled the world and fooled himself into oblivion. End of story.

The war, IMO, was justified based on the information at the time. There's no need to make stuff up to justify it in retrospect.

Why was the war justified? Was our country in danger? Were we defending our freedom?

Or are we just a selective, opportunistic world cop? You can't pick and choose to do the right thing and have any credibility. Otherwise we would be in Darfur or any other site of oppression. It's all a bunch of sh*t and I welcome your argument otherwise.

Been over this ground again and again, so no reason to rehash arguments here. We disagree, that's OK. What we don't disagree on is that once the decision was made to take Saddam out, the planning and implementation was incompetent, to say the least, and made the situation far worse than it ever had to have been with competent leadership.

Pretty typical response. I assume your ducking my question because you have no good answer (or one you're willing to share) as to why Saddam was the only tyrannical dictator we have targeted when atrocities and oppression certainly aren't unique to that country.

Search is powerful - use it.

There have been arguments over justification rehashed in numerous threads here since the day we put up the political forum, if not before. My views are there. Stating them again is pointless - I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

The question is: "Why are we not spreading freedom and democracy anywhere but Iraq?"

Stop changing the subject. It's a simple question. It's fine if you don't care to answer, but you are addressing an entirely different point.

[XtremeJibber2001]

The question is: "Why are we not spreading freedom and democracy anywhere but Iraq?"

I know you didn't ask me, but you know how I love sharing my two cents.

My answer? Because we can't. Iraq is just the first step to "controlling" the mid-east (maybe the world). Next is probably Iran/N. Korea, maybe Saudi Arabia, who knows. Just trying to look at the big picture.

[DMC Freeride]

Iraq is just the first step to "controlling" the mid-east (maybe the world). Next is probably Iran/N. Korea, maybe Saudi Arabia, who knows. Just trying to look at the big picture.

Sounds like world domination to me....

[XtremeJibber2001]

Iraq is just the first step to "controlling" the mid-east (maybe the world). Next is probably Iran/N. Korea, maybe Saudi Arabia, who knows. Just trying to look at the big picture.

Sounds like world domination to me....

I was being realistic. I think no matter who is elected, that's the direction we're headed. Do I agree with it, no. Is it in our best interest to secure ourselves and critical resources around the globe, maybe.

[DMC Freeride]

I was being realistic. I think no matter who is elected, that's the direction we're headed.

Disagree....

[SkiDork]

Where's the Beef?

[XtremeJibber2001]

I was being realistic. I think no matter who is elected, that's the direction we're headed.

Disagree....

Where do you think we're headed? Just curious, I honestly have no idea, but looking at the picture today, it looks that way.