posted on November 6, 2003 02:08:35 PM new
I don't see anything funny about it. I have seriously offered to answer any question you have and you refuse to ask one.
As I told you yesterday, I don't read all of your innane comments but I have given you the opportunity to ask your questions in this thread three times and you have refused. Now, can you still complain that I don't answer your dumb questions?
BTW...Where is your answer to Austbounty's question?
posted on November 6, 2003 02:28:01 PM new
Oh really [innane comments] You don't? You comment on almost every post I make. Get real.
As far as austi and I go...that's between us.
Here are the questions I've tried to get you to answer since you first started bitching about Bush taking our country to war. And have repeatedly asked in this thread. At least five times. Some mentioning I've treid to get you to answer these questions for over a year.
posted on November 6, 2003 08:38:11 AM
helen - The question is basically why you place no blame for preventing this war at Saddams feet?
..
Maybe you can explain, your views, on why IF Saddam had no weapons did he then continue the 'farse' and game playing with the UN?
What was all the reluctance to cooperate with UN inspectors all about?
Why would he not have wanted to end this conflict years ago so all the embargos could be lifted?
edited to clarify a little better
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 6, 2003 02:31 PM ]
posted on November 6, 2003 03:07:33 PM newhelen - The question is basically why you place no blame for preventing this war at Saddams feet
This war, linda was a preemptive strike on Iraq. Saddam made no threats to our country or to any other country. How could he be blamed for a war in which he threatened no one? It's true that he was an evil and oppressive leader of his country but if that's a reason to go to war, we would be all over the world in the business of regime change. George Bush was determined to destroy Iraq and nothing that Saddam Hussein could do would have avoided this war.
Saddam was willing as a last resort to make several concessions in order to avoid a war. He even offered to give the U.S. first priority relating to oil rights. He offered to cooperate with the United States and that included disarming Iraq. The news today mentioned help in the Arab Israeli conflict.
Maybe you can explain, your views, on why IF Saddam had no weapons did he then continue the 'farse' and game playing with the UN?
It's clear that because of the Gulf war and the intensive and repeated bombing by the Clinton administration, Saddam did not have the military or ammunition to fight a battle with the U.S. He was simply posturing with hopes of avoiding the conflict.
What was all the reluctance to cooperate with UN inspectors all about?
It's not true that he was always reluctant to cooperate with U. N. inspectors. When he had weapons during Clinton's term he failed to cooperate but before Bush's war it was reported that he was very cooperative.
Why would he not have wanted to end this conflict years ago so all the embargoes could be lifted?
Saddam did want to end the conflict years ago but there was too much resistance from the U.S. who felt that Israel would be in jeopardy if Saddam was allowed to regain control of Iraq.
posted on November 6, 2003 04:56:12 PM newSaddam did want to end the conflict years ago but there was too much resistance from the U.S. who felt that Israel would be in jeopardy if Saddam was allowed to regain control of Iraq.
Saadam still could have averted war, all he needed to do was fly to Egypt, Iran or another country & give himself up, or stand in front of his home with arms raised, or even ask Hans the weapons inspector for asylum.
"Another plague upon the land, as devastating as the locusts God loosed on the Egyptians, is "Political Correctness.'" --Charlton Heston
posted on November 6, 2003 04:58:48 PM new
The day after Bush issued his ultimatum to go to war, the Washington Post headline was, "Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq." The story began, "As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this week it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been challenged and in some cases disproved by the United Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence reports."
Now, after so many Bush lies have been revealed, you still believe that Saddam Hussein caused the war with Iraq. That is sad.
posted on November 6, 2003 09:18:25 PM new
Amazing. The topic currently under discussion is Saddam Hussein, and you still manage to twist it around to be about Clinton... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on November 6, 2003 09:21:34 PM newThe twenty lies of George W. Bush
see above site for links.
By Patrick Martin
20 March 2003
All of the false statements listed below are directly quoted from the verbatim transcript of Bush’s remarks published on the Internet.
Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”
The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.
Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. ”
The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.
Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament... ”
Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.
Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men. ”
According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “[U]nder UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”
Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. ”
The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not be much of a stockpile.”
Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda. ”
No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.
It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against Washington in the 1990s.
Lie No. 7: “America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. ”
The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush’s most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.
Lie No. 8: “These governments [the Security Council majority] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. ”
This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed—by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.
Lie No. 9: “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. ”
Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members of the “broad coalition” are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of their own population.
Lie No. 10: “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours. ”
Bush defines the UN body’s responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the UN, however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to “enforce” its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the Security Council is a violation of international law.
Lie No. 11: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. ”
The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will “shock and awe” the Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one press preview, US and British forces “plan to launch the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously.” Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects are included.
Lie No. 12: “As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. ”
This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq’s population. As for medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as “dual-use” items that could be used in a program of biological warfare.
Lie No. 13: “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. ”
The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.
A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable from the standpoint of American interests, because “anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.”
Lie No. 14: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it. ”
This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use “every measure,” up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win it.
Lie No. 15: “War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice. ”
There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for Bush’s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.
Lie No. 16: “[the only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so. ”
Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no different. His hypocritical statements of “concern” for the Iraqi people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely admit, this is “a war of choice”—deliberately sought by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.
Lie No. 17: “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed. ”
No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.
Lie No. 18: “We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. ”
This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a threat to any “free nation,” if that term has any meaning, only to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.
Lie No. 19: “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. ”
The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways—claiming to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq (“the just demands of the world”), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world’s governments, and the vast majority of the world’s people.
Lie No. 20: “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”
For “the Iraqi people,” substitute “the Egyptian people,” “the people of the Arabian peninsula,” “the Pakistani people” or those of other US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government believe that any of them are “deserving and capable of human liberty?” When the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this democratic decision.
posted on November 6, 2003 09:30:17 PM new
This was published in the London Observer, written by Terry Jones of Monty
Python fame.
To The Observer:
I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq:
He's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr. Johnson,
who lives a couple of doors down the street.
Well, him and Mr. Patel, who runs the health food shop.
They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure
Mr. Johnson is planning something nasty for me,
but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to,
but he's got everything well hidden.
That's how devious he is.
As for Mr. Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know -
from very good sources that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer.
I have leafleted the street telling them that
if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof,
why don't I go to the police?
But that's simply ridiculous.
The police will say that they need evidence of a crime
with which to charge my neighbours.
They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling
about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike
and all the while Mr. Johnson will be finalising
his plans to do terrible things to me,
while Mr. Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range
of automatic firearms, I reckon
it's up to me to keep the peace.
But until recently that's been a little difficult.
Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear
that all I need to do is run out of patience,
and then I can wade in and do whatever I want!
And let's face it, Mr. Bush's carefully thought-
out policy towards Iraq is the only way
to bring about international peace and security.
The one certain way to stop Muslim fundamentalist
suicide bombers targeting the US or the UK
is to bomb a few Muslim countries
that have never threatened us.
That's why I want to blow up Mr. Johnson's garage
and kill his wife and children. Strike first!
That'll teach him a lesson.
Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me
in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr. Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know
before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really
nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction -
even if no one can find them.
I'm certain I've just as much justification
for killing Mr. Johnson's wife and children as
Mr. Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr. Bush's long-term aim is to make the world
a safer place by eliminating
'rogue states' and 'terrorism'.
It's such a clever long-term aim because
how can you ever know when you've achieved it?
How will Mr. Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists?
When every single terrorist is dead?
But then a terrorist is only a terrorist
once he's committed an act of terror.
What about would-be terrorists?
These are the ones you really want to eliminate,
since most of the known terrorists,
being suicide bombers, have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr. Bush needs to wipe out everyone
who could possibly be a future terrorist?
Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective
until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead?
But then some moderate Muslims might
convert to fundamentalism.
Maybe the only really safe thing to do
would be for Mr. Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Patel are
just the tip of the iceberg.
There are dozens of other people in the street
who I don't like and who - quite frankly -
look at me in odd ways.
No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out.
My wife says I might be going too
far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic
as the President of the United States.
That shuts her up.
Like Mr. Bush, I've run out of patience,
and if that's a good enough reason for the President,
it's good enough for me.
I'm going to give the whole street two weeks -
no, 10 days - to come out in the open
and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers,
galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds,
and if they don't hand them over nicely
and say 'Thank you',
I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing -
and, in contrast to what he's intending,
my policy will destroy only one street.
posted on November 7, 2003 10:22:08 PM new
Too bad Ol' Hussein didn't go public with all of his magnanimous offers. Could have undercut Bush and all that icky war stuff.
Trent Lott advocated genocide when he stated..." “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens."
Looks like the action is beginning....After the helicopter crashed Friday killing six U.S. soldiers the military retaliated by blasting houses suspected of being insurgent hideouts with machine guns and heavy weapons fire.
"This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them," said Lt. Col. Steven Russell, commander of the 1st Battalion, 22nd Infantry Regiment...
Late Friday, U.S. troops firedmortars and U.S. jets dropped at least three 500-pound bombs around the crash site, rattling windows over a wide area in an apparent show of force.
posted on November 8, 2003 12:34:20 PM new
Works for me.
Hussein was a godsend to us. He could have submitted to the UN and beem just a simple billionaire dictator. In aspiring to be the dictator of the entire Arab world, he gave us the chance to get rid of a despot and support of terrorism. With an American presence in the Middle East, we no longer have to trade with scum like the Saudis to get things accomplished. Already Syria, the next biggest trouble maker in the area and impediment to peace with the Palestinians has become "Syria who", since we control the illegal pipeline built from Iraq to Syria. Overnight the Iranians have agreed to allow the UN to determine they do not have a nuclear program or stategic arms. They'll be quiet until the moderates are able to overthrow the religious dictatorship.
Over the coming years, this "little war" will probably be responsible for saving countless lives and be the beginning of peace in the region for the first time in decades.
posted on November 8, 2003 01:29:21 PM new
Well stated, desquirreL.
-------
On the news this morning someone was talking about all the mass graves we've found in Iraq. Something like 250 grave sites, with close to 300,000 bodies in them. Women and children, included, who'd been shot in their heads.
posted on November 8, 2003 01:59:38 PM new
DeSquirrel,
If our goal as you suggest was to get rid of a despot who supported terrorism, we were looking in all the wrong places. Saddam was not a supporter of terrorism. I don't believe that this "little war" as you call it, will achieve peace in the middle east. Right now, we don't have control of Iraq, Syria or Iran. You mention an American presence in the Middle East. I suppose you mean forever?
In Tehran, meanwhile, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned his country would end co-operation with the IAEA if further demands undermined Iran's national interests. It was the first time Khamenei, who has the last word on all state matters in the Islamic Republic, had aired his views on Iran's deal to suspend uranium enrichment and sign up to snap nuclear checks.
"If we reach the point that Iran's national interests and values are threatened, we will not hesitate to stop our co-operation," he said, according to state television. "Anyone who ever tries to challenge Iran's peaceful nuclear program will be slapped in the face."
They lie, just like George Bush. The ends justify the means there just as they do in the White House.
posted on November 8, 2003 02:46:08 PM newSaddam was not a supporter of terrorism
Defending him again.....shame...shame.
Most look at the $25,000 he was giving to the families of the suicide bombers as supporting their terrorism against Israel. Although it certainly doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't.
It's certainly true that Saddam Hussein has favored the Palestinian cause for many years. In fact, Iraq offered to allocate about one billion of its oil for food deal to buy food and medicine for the Palestinians and help the families of people killed or wounded but the U.N. would not approve the pledge. Some think that the money given to the families of the suicide bombers has been presented in a deliberately misleading fashion in order to depict Hussein as promoting terrorism. Frankly, I don't know if that is true or not. We give money to Israel but I don't think that we are giving that money to promote Israeli terrorism against Palestine. The Iraq govt. claims to also pay the families of all Palestinians killed in the intifada...most of whom were not suicide bombers. Less was paid to Palestinians wounded and to those who had their houses demolished by the Israeli army.
posted on November 9, 2003 05:45:33 AM new
1. Saddam was a known LIAR
2. If he really wanted to "cooperate" he would of stepped down, he knew his regime was over one way or the other... showed his complete lack of caring for his own people.
3. UN Sanctions, now austbounty you are even slamming the UN, shows how much of a worthless Org. they actually are.
4. No one on the left will even consider that any WOMDS are now in Syria...
that is sad and shows that their hatred of the President is overriding what is good for our country.
I am inviting you austbounty... you and "some" lads are "welcome" to come to my place to inspect any time... I will place the welcome mat out... you will need a place to catch your a$$ as it hits the ground.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on November 9, 2003 06:42:25 AM new
Everyone knows that Saddam is not a gentleman and a scholar. With that in mind, why would anyone slink to his level and kill thousands of people while leading this good country into an unending quagmire war unless perhaps they have a similar character.
posted on November 9, 2003 12:43:39 PM new
If ALL of Saddam's WOMD were moved to Syria, do you think the U.S. wouldn't know about it in advance with their high powered spy satellites? If they were moved to Syria, why go after Iraq?
You comment on almost every post I make. Get real.
