The most recent reports of WMD evidence have once again gone unfounded. Reports have it that the US Marines tested materials at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Facility that showed abnormally high levels of radioactivity. The media was told that there was evidence of potential nuclear weapons grade material that would be in breach of the Iraqi claims made prior to the war that no program was underway.

It appears that the Marines actually broke into a facility inspected by the UN over two dozen times. They actually broke IAEA seals put in place to ensure proper containment and documentation of the materials. So, once again, there is nothing currently surfacing in the search for WMD. Perhaps everyone is getting a bit nervous and that helped lead to yet another in a string of false reports this week.

Marines May Have Broken Into Known Radioactive Materials

Hello? The new party line is, well, we lied but the ends justify the means. Oh well. Lies, lies, lies. But we saw it all before, from 1980-2000....

Didn't we all grow up learning that the ends rarely, if ever, justify the means? A lesson that apparently was not learned well by everyone.

Well, the rules apply to SOME, but not to OTHERS. And if you're in POWER, they don't apply to YOU....

BTW, if this stuff really IS WMD, should any of the soldiers be anywhere near it? Aren't the Czechs sending special teams to handle it?

I am sorry! I am ignorant but what is WMD? I am a peace loving liberal, who happens to agree w/ this war on Iraq.

weapons of mass destruction

This has got to be one of the most hypocritical statements this board has ever seen!

Just what the hell have all you Clinton apologists been doing--excusing his behavior, his lies, his corruption, and why? Because (a) he's a Democrat and ( the ends justified the means because [refer back to (a)].

And puhleeze, spare me the chastisement that I'm a Bush lackey. A right-winger I am far from, unlike some on this board.

----------

I reiterate my challenge to you foaming-at-the-mouth Bush haters: If (I'll go with "IF" for now simply for argument's sake) WMD are found, will any of you make posts here praising the troops or Bush? Nope. Will any of you make posts here that back up such vindication of American policy? Nope. You all will sit on your frickin' hands hoping no one noticed your virulent ranting and raving. You'd rather be shot dead than have to publicly admit that this Administration was right.

You know, I have some right-wing friends who wouldn't say anything good about Clinton or present day Democrats if Jesus Christ came down and told them to. I called these people stupid fools. I'd lump many of the left-wingers here into the same category, for there is NO difference.

WOW, i havent seen looting like this since the clinton's left the white house and had to decorate in Hillary's home town, i mean addopted town in NY.

So far, the best evidence of Iraq having WMDs was their previous government's behavior during the various weapon's inspection over the past twelve years. I guess it's possible that Iraq stopped harboring these weapons, but their actions indicated otherwise, and it was as if they were begging to be invaded. For what it's worth, I'm also convinced that if Gore was President, Iraq would have been invaded.

[ April 11, 2003, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

MIB -- your reaction to my previous post seems a little over the top. Not trying to criticize, just really surprised that a pretty simple statement could be blown so out of proportion.

In response (to try and turn this back into a discussion rather than a yelling situation), first you should not convince yourself that you understand any of the rest of us or what we are thinking. The little bit of insight you get from these threads certainly does not lend you any kind of ability to know how we will react or think.

I find it humorous to be labeled a left-wing Clinton lover. I have posted several times that I was not that fond of the President personally, but do have to respect the accomplishments of his administration. Our country thrived while his team was in office. You can come up with any stats you want, but it is generally accepted that this is true.

President Clinton did tarnish the Presidency, he did make dumb personal decisions, and I did not vote for the man in 1992. I am actually a very moderate person, who appears much more liberal simply for the fact that we have the most conservative administration in decades. Don't hold all of us up as wildly liberal when you are comparing us to arch-conservative thinking.

Second, hypocrisy plays no role in this thread. The fact of the matter is that religious/spiritual leaders, political leaders throughout the world, and ethical experts all agreed that the means do not justify the ends in this conflict. There is a small group of people determining that their policy will supercede any considerations of right or just or integrity. To point this out is not hypocritical.

I also point out (guessing that this is a topic you were steering toward) that in the Kosovo situation, the UN was closely involved in getting peacekeepers in place. The US allowed the world to deal with Slobodan Milosevic in the proper manner. Military action was not the end all in Kosovo. We did not invade Yugoslavia and bomb the hell out of the whole country. Milosevic has been tried by a world court, with proper judicial authority, and we did not dictate how everything would be conducted. There is no comparison to the current situation.

You accuse others on the board of being hateful, virulent opposers of the administration. Have you ever noticed that the people who support him and his policies are the only ones who resort to personally attacking other members and trying to discredit them through insults rather than debate? How can that be so if you all are in the right here and we are the ones who don't understand? You should reflect on your own thoughts and behaviors before chastising any of the rest of us for ours.

MIB doesn't give a damn what you have to say. He mentions praising the troops, but if he READ THE THREADS, he'd see I've done that repeatedly. In fact, on the thread about supporting the troops, I made my feelings clear that I support our soldiers, I want them to succeed, and I want them out of Iraq as soon as possible.

But supporting our troops, being a patriot, and seeking to uphold our constitution does NOT mean I or anyone else on here has to join a personality cult for the idiot now occupying the White House. MIB claims not to be a right-winger, but then you have not advanced ONE idea, other than the constant harping about the extremes on both sides, that would deny this. Don't you see that people have legitimate reasons for criticizing Bush? He is not Jesus Christ, he is a president, and central to our political and social traditions--in the United States, since George Washington, our first president--is active dissent and political engagement and argumentation.

We don't have a consensus parliamentary system here. We don't have personality cults and one-party rule. We don't officially stiffle dissent and expect all Americans to fall in lockstep with the government. During the prosecution of several of the U.S.'s major wars--the Civil War, World War I, and World War II--there was active dissent against the government and those presidents--Lincoln, Wilson, FDR--and their policies. The dissent against Wilson was SO GREAT that his opponents in the Congress refused to ratify his plans for the League of Nations.

Perhaps you can't bear that people criticize and critique Bush, but so be it. It's going to happen, and the more he lies, the more those who distrust his and his administration's motives are going to speak out.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]

Just what the hell have all you Clinton apologists been doing--excusing his behavior, his lies, his corruption, and why? Because (a) he's a Democrat and ( the ends justified the means because [refer back to (a)].

[/quote]a couple quick points:

1. his behavior and lies all dealt with his personal life, which can in no way rise to comparison with stretching the truth to justify a war. bush's personal life (most republican's, actually) is always off the table. his drunken decade is chalked up to youthful indiscretion (at 40!); end of subject, he refuses to discuss it further. i see a double standard.

2. corruption? what corruption? the clinton years were the least corrupt in decades. there was exactly one indictment of an administration official that came out the eight clinton years in office. for comparison, the feel good reagan-bush years gave us 27, over a similar 8-year period.

i'm baaaack!

What I find so odd is the rhetorical trick that MIB uses: criticism of Bush = love of Klin-ton. It just does not compute.

I voted for Clinton twice. I knew about 5 minutes after he appeared on the national scene as a serious contendah that he was a used car salesman with a fondness for trailer-trash bimbos. I still voted for him in 1992 anyways because I wanted The 12 Years Of Darkness (aka Raygun/Bush I) to end. Period. I didn't care who the Democrats would have nominated, as long as they had a detectable heartbeat and weren't flat-line on brain monitor, they were getting my vote. 1996, well, talk about a poisoned chalice: 4 more years of Clinton or the walking corpse Dole? Ta, thanks a lot Dems and Repubs for putting such an appealing choice before us. Viable third party anyone?

Clinton's presidency was a mess and he pissed me off by caving in to poll numbers and political pressure over and over, so I'm no fan.

So really, could the Bushites PLEASE stop with the "Disagreeing with Bush's policies = Love Of WJ Clinton"? Pllleeeeaaaassseeee?

And to the topic, what a bunch of f**king Rambo-besotted blockheads those troops were for breaking those seals. When that stuff ends up in some Third World backwater, they'll be to blame.

And if WMD's are found, I'll be the first here to say "My bad". But I doubt very much that anything of any significance--missle shells that go an extra 12 miles don't count--will turn up and it will have all been a lie (see: Saddam is connected to 9/11) to sell the war to the US public.

[ April 11, 2003, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

You mean the never ending trial that has now lasted 2 years?

The UN was closely involved? Clinton averted the UN and went through NATO for that, so if anything the UN like now is riding on the heals when the US steps in and actually does something instead of chatting at the round table while people are being killed.

We allowed the UN to be highly involved in Afganistan, and look at that mess. Have they cleaned anything up in Kosovo? The UN can't get squat done... the only thing they can do is deliver a bag of rice.

Thersis and JA -- thank you for contributing your always reasonable and insightful thoughts. It is nice to see people who are actually talking rather than squawking. Or trying to make up for lost time and catch Joe in Philly for the most posts. Just because you post a lot does not mean you have all that much to say. (I am still LMAO at the fish in a barrel comment from the other thread.)

A-f**king-men, Charlie! These guys are posting dozens of times a day saying the same thing over and over and over. We read it the first time. We get it. And now its even spilling out of the Politics forum and into some of the Sports threads, making it really unpleasant to visit here lately.

Let me Remind you to stay on topic george or start a new thread. As you've pointed out to others.

This is so true. I just went to a post I made in one of the other areas and edited it a bit because it sounded too much like something from the P&R forum. And to try and stop myself from going overboard in the future, I am going to do something I should have done long ago: stop reading these P&R threads.

The war and its aftermath is going to go on for a long time. Here's just one indicator of this, from today's paper:

So there's no doubt, because there are posters here who can't control themselves, the "war" in this forum is also going to go on and on and on. Well, not for me.

Please stay on topic joe, this conversation belong in a different area.

ROFLMAO!!!

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE] If WMD are found, will any of you make posts here praising the troops or Bush? Nope. [/quote]Good point - MIB - EVERYTHING Bush can't be all bad just as EVERYTHING that Clinton did was not ALL bad.

and they hardly post sports-related stuff....

to boot, this is a freakin' sports site.

rofl!

I'd maintain that the left actually is far guiltier of the insult hurtling than the right is, but the right isn't sinless in their stupidity. One example that irritates the hell out of me is when a debate is occurring between a couple folks, and someone like Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly keeps interrupting the person. Furthermore, O'Reilly has this very annoying and immature habit of telling people to "shut up." I am sorry, but telling someone to "shut up" is unacceptable.

I also am getting sooooo sick of people on the right who get this self-righteous indignation when someone disagrees with President Bush, particularly on the war. Dissension is what keeps people in check, for without it--whether it's wrong or right--people in power can quite easily become dictators. Dissension also serves as a key building block of our own government. Hell, it's what started this country in the first place. Disagreeing with Bush or protesting is not unAmerican. Comparing him to Hitler might be unAmerican or even downright stupid, but having an opinion that conflicts with Republican line of thinking is not unpatriotic or unAmerican.

The First Amendment knows no ideology.

Here is another interesting piece on this whole topic. It comes to us from the UK. It discusses the whole WMD issue quite succinctly.

14.000 Sites Targeted. Where are the WMD?

A couple of highlights for those perusing:

and

and

and

Thanks for posting this, Charlie. George W. Bush: "25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and 500 tons of sarin, mustard and nerve gas."

Okay, so at LEAST this much stuff should turn up. Not less, but this amount or more. We had the intelligence that showed it. Saddam and Co., being bombed nonstop, could not have trucked or flown all this material to Syria. Or even most of it. It ain't in Turkey and it ain't in Iran.

So let's see where it is. The small cache "baseball bat" sized weapons, tested but inconclusive, could not contain "500 tons of sarin." And we KNEW Saddam had some weapons because we gave him some and funded the development of others BEFORE the 1991 Gulf War, but supposedly he had "tons" since. That was the premise/pretext.

I guess the American chemical specialists and the Czechs will find them. Eventually. But before or after the war against Syria?

But then again, the article says it quite well:

"The latest theory being touted in Washington by the usual unnamed government sources is that the Iraqis have moved their weapons out of the country, very possibly into Syria. This claim appears to have originated with Israeli intelligence – which has every motivation for stirring up trouble for its hostile Arab neighbors– and has been bolstered by reports of fighting between Iraqi Special Republican Guard units and US special forces near the Syrian border."

"Disarmament experts do not give the claim much credence. After all, any suspicious convoy or mobile laboratory would almost certainly be spotted by US planes or spy satellites and bombed long before it reached Syria."

"But the notion does provide the hawks in Washington with a compelling plot device not unlike the McGuffin factor in Alfred Hitchcock's films – a catalyst that may or may not have significance in itself but that gets the suspense going and keeps the story rolling."

"If the Bush administration should ever seek to turn its military wrath on Damascus, the weapons of mass destruction it is failing to find in Iraq might just provide the excuse once again."

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd