0
PhillyKev

Ex-Arms Hunter Kay Says No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

David Kay... said he did not believe the country had any large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons.



How large is "large"?

Since only small amounts of this material can kill thousands of people, it doesn't matter how "large" it was.

And this is also an admission that Sadam did possess these weapons, and the only question is in what quantities.



The lefties argue that we sold WMDs to SH. Then they say that he didn't have any. It's so confusing.:S



It's only confusing if you are trying to defend the indefensible. Otherwise it's quite clear.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's not that hard to follow....

We sold him WMD in the 80's. We invaded in the 90's. We demanded he get rid of them and sent in UN inspectors. He got rid of the WMD. We claimed he still had them and invaded again.

What's so confusing about that?



Let's enhance it:

We sold them in the 80s. He used them in the 80s. We invaded Iraq as part of the liberation of Kuwait in the 90s. He was told 17 times to get rid of them. He said one thing, did another. Every source of intel in the 90s said he had them. We invaded again.

Look, if you asked anyone in any official channel in 1988, 1991, 1995, 1998, or 2003, the overwhelming majority would have responded in the affirmative. Why is that?

Now, assumming what it takes to simply hide or move these things...

No large stockpiles, I'll buy that. Nothing at all though? -- Nope, they're there...somewhere.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lefties argue that we sold WMDs to SH. Then they say that he didn't have any. It's so confusing.:S



It's only confusing if you are trying to defend the indefensible. Otherwise it's quite clear.



Which is it Kallend? Did we sell them WMD's? If so where did they go?



never pull low......unless you are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The lefties argue that we sold WMDs to SH. Then they say that he didn't have any. It's so confusing.:S



It's only confusing if you are trying to defend the indefensible. Otherwise it's quite clear.



Which is it Kallend? Did we sell them WMD's? If so where did they go?



Yes we did (to our shame), and not into hiding in Iraq according to all the evidence.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

defend the indefensible



And that would be?

FallRate



1. Selling WMD to Iraq in the first place. I forget which administration did that.

2. Lying to Congress and the American people in the 2003 State of the Union address, and numerous other occasions.

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly"
9/12/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have" George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003

"The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory." Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Associated Press Interview
6/12/2003

"A British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were -- facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." Unnamed British Weapons Inspector
The Observer
6/15/2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling" Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite a list. Strangely, not one quote from any Democrat who stated the exact same things. Clinton, Lieberman and Clark come to mind. (To Lieberman's credit, he hasn't backed away from his position that this was a just war.)

The point concerning the "bluff" is that the Iraqi regime chose to play a game. The unwillingness to allow unrestricted access to the UN inspectors throughout the 90's left most everyone with the opinion that the Iraqi regime had either retained WMD's or was working to acquire them again. So it may in fact be the case that Iraq is completely free of WMD's, but if this is the case the Iraqi regime had many opportunities to demonstrate it. They did not. They bluffed, they lost. (It should be noted that after the Gulf War, Iraq completely denied the existence of a nuclear weapons program. It took one year of UN investigation to determine that Iraq did in fact have an active program in place. Investigation takes time. Conclusions at this point might be premature.)

Defensible? Yes.

FallRate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your ability to be selective is surpassed only by your persistence... :S Geez dude. The same thing was touted by Clinton more than once. It was also talked about heavily in the UN back when it still had a sliver of credibility.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The unwillingness to allow unrestricted access to the UN inspectors throughout the 90's left most everyone with the opinion that the Iraqi regime had either retained WMD's or was working to reaquire them.



Quite right!

He did not comply with the agreement that ended the war in '91.

For many, including certain professors with disturbing green alien creature avatars, this is not a problem. He was "contained". No more concern needed than was shown for the little Austrian corporal when he defied the limitations of the Treaty of Versailles. Fortunately for the world, GWB was a lot more like Churchill than Chamberlain.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The unwillingness to allow unrestricted access to the UN inspectors throughout the 90's left most everyone with the opinion that the Iraqi regime had either retained WMD's or was working to reaquire them.



Quite right!

He did not comply with the agreement that ended the war in '91.

For many, including certain professors with disturbing green alien creature avatars, this is not a problem. He was "contained". No more concern needed than was shown for the little Austrian corporal when he defied the limitations of the Treaty of Versailles. Fortunately for the world, GWB was a lot more like Churchill than Chamberlain.



The ability of Republicans to be selective simply amazes me. Kallend points out what we now know to be lies that were spoken by our President, and you guys try to gloss it over with "Clinton said it too"?? Then you say that violations of UN Resolutions gave us the right to use force. Ha, how many other countries regularly ignore the UN. I can guarantee you there are a few, we're one of them. But you select Iraq. Get over it, no weapons, they bluffed, they thought we were bluffing, they lost? 500+ American troops killed, was that worth it if there were no weapons? What did you guys think of Kosovo where no Americans died and we stopped ongoing genocide?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quite a list. Strangely, not one quote from any Democrat who stated the exact same things. Clinton, Lieberman and Clark come to mind. (To Lieberman's credit, he hasn't backed away from his position that this was a just war.)



I don't doubt it was "just", but lies are lies. I produced my list, you produce yours. Saying some other guys lied too is not an excuse.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Your ability to be selective is surpassed only by your persistence... :S Geez dude. The same thing was touted by Clinton more than once. It was also talked about heavily in the UN back when it still had a sliver of credibility.



Clinton is a proven liar. Why would you use him as a yardstick of truthfulness?

Saying "He did it too" never got me out of trouble when I was a kid. I guess it worked in your family.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a sure thing that Saddam DID possess weapons of mass destruction as he used them on the Kurds. However, that was long ago, and there has been NO evidence he possessed them when Geo W Bush started his war to find what evidently wasnst there.

Its like Bush's claim that Saddam was buying material for a bomb from Africa...a story made up to convince the public he was doing the right thing by making war on Iraq.

The original attack on the World TradeCenter, followed by the attacks of 9/11, are only the beginning of an all out war against America by the followers of Islam. They will take the technology that the Americans discovered and will use it against America...no matter how long it takes ( and it wont take long at all)...and their goal is to destroy America.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and FBI Director mueller have all stated that its just a matter of time, and these wacko Islamic extremists WILL strike again , and it will be with nuclear weaponry.That is the American government telling you it WILL happen.

Thy all agreed, there is NOTHING that America can do to stop it.

Homeland security make make it a bit harder for them to carry out a nuclear attack...but Homeland Security will never prevent it.

There has been two attacks on New York City...and there will be a third and final attack as well.


Bill Cole




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Your ability to be selective is surpassed only by your persistence... Geez dude. The same thing was touted by Clinton more than once. It was also talked about heavily in the UN back when it still had a sliver of credibility.



It wasn't just Clinton...

-
Jim



Mommy Mommy, nasty Feinstein did it too!:)
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Your ability to be selective is surpassed only by your persistence... :S Geez dude. The same thing was touted by Clinton more than once. It was also talked about heavily in the UN back when it still had a sliver of credibility.



Clinton is a proven liar. Why would you use him as a yardstick of truthfulness?

Saying "He did it too" never got me out of trouble when I was a kid. I guess it worked in your family.



Again, as I said, you have an amazing selective ability, citing the obvious (Clinton's lies for example) only when prodded for more clarification. But in this case, using the benchmarks we have available, then the UN as a body is a total lie also, as well as the UK, France, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (more obvious-ness)... :P:S

I'm not using him as a yardstick of truthfulness, but using him as a measurement against the worldwide perception at the time. As I originally posted in this thread, 99% of the world was absolutely certain that Iraq has WMDs. Now, the faltering of opinion is a matter of convenience, nothing more.

If you sold me a gun, saw me use it, and continue to claim its power then put up a screen so you couldn't see me anymore, then you removed the curtain, you would have every reason to believe I was still armed.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Your ability to be selective is surpassed only by your persistence... :S Geez dude. The same thing was touted by Clinton more than once. It was also talked about heavily in the UN back when it still had a sliver of credibility.



Clinton is a proven liar. Why would you use him as a yardstick of truthfulness?

Saying "He did it too" never got me out of trouble when I was a kid. I guess it worked in your family.



Again, as I said, you have an amazing selective ability, citing the obvious (Clinton's lies for example) only when prodded for more clarification. But in this case, using the benchmarks we have available, then the UN as a body is a total lie also, as well as the UK, France, Germany, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (more obvious-ness)... :P:S

I'm not using him as a yardstick of truthfulness, but using him as a measurement against the worldwide perception at the time. As I originally posted in this thread, 99% of the world was absolutely certain that Iraq has WMDs. Now, the faltering of opinion is a matter of convenience, nothing more.

If you sold me a gun, saw me use it, and continue to claim its power then put up a screen so you couldn't see me anymore, then you removed the curtain, you would have every reason to believe I was still armed.



Not if I'd sent inspectors in and they had reported finding nothing, which is the case in Iraq before the inspectors left prior to the invasion.

Lies are lies. Your defense of this lying administration is incomprehensible to me.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not if I'd sent inspectors in and they had reported finding nothing, which is the case in Iraq before the inspectors left prior to the invasion.



Didn't the Iraqi government lead the inspectors around on a leash, only allowing access to select buildings at select times? That gave, in my opinion, the impression that Iraq was playing a shell game with something they didn't want the inspectors to find. What do you think they were hiding? Massive stockpiles of Cookie Crisp? Their new high-tech marshmallow manufacturing process?

Whether they exist[ed] or not, they Iraqi government created the illusion that they did. What else were we supposed to go on? How long were we to let the charade continue?

The Iraqi government played a dangerous game. They lost.

-
Jim
"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote

Not if I'd sent inspectors in and they had reported finding nothing, which is the case in Iraq before the inspectors left prior to the invasion.



Didn't the Iraqi government lead the inspectors around on a leash, only allowing access to select buildings at select times? Jim



No.

Try this for another lie.

"[The federal budget deficit] will be small and short-term." GWBush, State of the Union Address, 2002.

"We are looking at (a deficit) for the foreseeable future," White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, Jan 2003.

And now, the 2004 deficit is predicted to set an all time record, larger even than GWHB's $290B record.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This just in . . .

Quote


Secretary of State Colin Powell held out the possibility Saturday that prewar Iraq may not have possessed weapons of mass destruction.



Full story here.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040124/D809G8B80.html

Ok, guys, you can discount Kay all you want, but if Powell is starting to say it, what then?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I thought we were talking about Iraq and WMD.

Please spout the other lies in another thread.

Thank you. Come again.

-
Jim



Clear evidence of lying by the administration. It establishes the pattern of behavior. 100% admissible when establishing credibility. I've got lots more.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0