Powell Slams Leftist Media Reporting On Iraqi WMD

[Jedi Knight]

Colin Powell, with a film showing in the background of Iraqi air force jets spraying chemical/biological weapons, slammed the leftist media attacks on President Bush that claim Iraq doesn't have any 'WMD'.

Read the article here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html).

"It's the media that invents words such as bogus." Powell said.

I like Powell ;)

JK

[Gem]

Also

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/06/sprj.irq.blix.wmd/index.html

LONDON, England -- Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says he would not be surprised if coalition forces found chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.

With the 1000+ team searching for the infamous smoking gun, it's starting to look like a bad easter egg hunt.

Hmmm, Toxin Chocolate...:p

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Also

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/06/sprj.irq.blix.wmd/index.html



With the 1000+ team searching for the infamous smoking gun, it's starting to look like a bad easter egg hunt.

Hmmm, Toxin Chocolate...:p

Gem

I have to admit that the WMD thing is a pretty slippery attempt by the radical left to hammer Bush.

Think about it. France and Germany stall US action at the UN for over a month, giving Saddam time to hide the weapons. Then when we do go in and find that Saddam hid them too well, so well that it is blatently obvious he had help and was given the US invasion timeline by traitors in NATO.

Those traitors can be dealt with later. Right now we need to find the WMD Saddam produced and 'get it off the streets' so to speak. In the months Saddam was moving the weapons around, he could have moved them out of Iraq and into the hands of terrorists. We have to find those weapons.

But the baseline question that Saddam doesn't have WMD because 'we can't find them' is the most rediculous propaganda seen since Stalin used the "bread, land and peace' propaganda to enslave and murder 150,000,000 people last century.

JK

[Frostbite]

'No doubt whatsoever' they were present before invasion'

Oh my, what next? Invade Syria? Invade Saudi Arabia?

[chulbert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Colin Powell, with a film showing in the background of Iraqi air force jets spraying chemical/biological weapons, slammed the leftist media attacks on President Bush that claim Iraq doesn't have any 'WMD'.

Read the article here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html).

"It's the media that invents words such as bogus." Powell said.

I like Powell ;)

JK

Saying Iraq doesn't have WMD is not the same as saying it never had them.

[corplinx]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88858,00.html


Colin Powell has come out swinging apparently.

Like I said, the current WMD mania is part anti-bush reationaries, part a self-perpetuating media frenzy, and part politicians doing their thing.

We simple don't know yet if these stockpiles Powell claims aren't there!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frostbite
'No doubt whatsoever' they were present before invasion'

Oh my, what next? Invade Syria? Invade Saudi Arabia?

I think it is in the best interests of nation-states hostile to democracies to think twice before they try to develop and accumulate weapons of mass destruction. There is a preemptive doctrine evolving regarding those dangerous weapons.

Any country that hints to using them against the United States or assisting terrorist groups with them can now be open to preemptive attack.

JK

[Cinorjer]

Of course Bush, Inc. will try to portray legitimate concerns as an attack by "the radical leftist media." Asking why an intense hunt for WMD has turned up very little so far is legitimate. Part of his justification for the war was that he knew - not suspected, but knew - that Sadam had hidden stockpiles. Many of us don't think that the ends justify the means, and being deliberately lied to by the Man in the White House shows a contempt for the people of this country.

That said, it's increasingly obvious that Sadam's current WMD program was nothing like we were lead to believe, but then again a psychopath with billions of dollars at his disposal and a history of using WMD was a danger to the whole world. All things considered, I would have still supported the war. Pity our politicians don't trust us enough to make the right decisions when told the truth.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Read the article here (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/08/sprj.irq.main/index.html).

"It's the media that invents words such as bogus." Powell said.

I like Powell ;)

JK


The media is contributing culturally!

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


....France and Germany stall US action at the UN for over a month, giving Saddam time to hide the weapons. Then when we do go in and find that Saddam hid them too well, so well that it is blatently obvious he had help and was given the US invasion timeline by traitors in NATO.

... In the months Saddam was moving the weapons around, he could have moved them out of Iraq and into the hands of terrorists. We have to find those weapons.

....
JK

You have a theory and you are making the facts fit your theory.

According to your theory one outcome is: the US has failed its major objective: keeping the suspect weapons from being delivered to terrorists.


BTW: Blair and "Oops!"

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/08/blair.weapons/index.html

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


You have a theory and you are making the facts fit your theory.

According to your theory one outcome is: the US has failed its major objective: keeping the suspect weapons from being delivered to terrorists.

That's true and that is why it is important for other nation-states like France and Germany to stand with us, rather than allow the empowerment of perverse organizations like Al 'Qaida.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That's true and that is why it is important for other nation-states like France and Germany to stand with us, rather than allow the empowerment of perverse organizations like Al 'Qaida.

JK
And the French did stand beside us when we went into Afghanistan to root out the Taliban. They also support our efforts to get rid of Al Qaeda. There is still no good evidence that either of these organizations had strong ties to the Iraqi government. It appears that France and Germany are paying closer attention to detail than America.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


That's true and that is why it is important for other nation-states like France and Germany to stand with us, rather than allow the empowerment of perverse organizations like Al 'Qaida.

JK
When did France and Germany "...allow the empowerement of perverse organizations like Al'Qaida."?

Don't fabricate history, but give me historical dates for this.

France and Germany didn't stand with U.S. when Bush acted like a criminal who didn't abide by U.N..

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion

When did France and Germany "...allow the empowerement of perverse organizations like Al'Qaida."?

Don't fabricate history, but give me historical dates for this.

France and Germany didn't stand with U.S. when Bush acted like a criminal who didn't abide by U.N..

Are you dumb or what? The UN collectively recognized that Iraq was developing and stockpiling WMD. Use your head.

Oh wait, it is your hatred of Bush that blinds you to these facts. Bush is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. Your tired infantile whining that Bush 'lied" is ridiculous propaganda that has no basis in reality.

Just admit you are an angry leftist who got so mad that you couldn't even see after Bush won the presidency lol. Just admit it.

JK

[Tricky]

Some great stuff here (http://www.geocities.com/anarchiebunker/foreignpolicy.htm)

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer...
{snip}
Questions and Answers
about Foreign Policy

(and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq)
(c) 2003 anarchie bunker

Permission is freely granted to copy, print, and distribute this material by any means, so long as the author is given proper credit and so long as this statement is included in any and all copies made for distribution.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Are you dumb or what?
...
JK
Have you read Tricky's post?

Because it shows you being dumb.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion

Have you read Tricky's post?

Because it shows you being dumb.

There have been only 15 replies to this thread since yesterday. I was certain leftists like you could flood this thread with evidence Bush was lying about the Iraqi WMD, but since Powell announced they were telling the truth, all I get is "you are being dumb".

Well smart-guy, since you claim I am 'dumb", disprove what Powell said.

In the end I think it will be proven that you are echelons of dumb lol. :D

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Hey lon, just admit that you are pissed Bush is president. Admit it. Don't be a coward.

When you saw Bush raise his right hand and accept the Presidential Oath, you were home weeping puppy-dog leftist tears lol.

Baha.

That is why you are inventing things about Bush. It is envy and jealousy of the greatest president ever.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There have been only 15 replies to this thread since yesterday. I was certain leftists like you could flood this thread with evidence Bush was lying about the Iraqi WMD, but since Powell announced they were telling the truth, all I get is "you are being dumb".
JK It is a bit difficult to prove there are no WMDs in Iraq.

It should, however, be easier to prove that they ARE there - just show them to us.

It has been about a week now since Dubya said we had found the WMDs in the interview in Poland, as far as I know he has not repeated the statement. Maybe he was adviced not to? :confused:

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hey lon, just admit that you are pissed Bush is president. Admit it. Don't be a coward.
...
JK
Since the war in Iraq by Bush bypassing the U.N., I didn't hide that Bush is inept as U.S. President.

There should be many better Americans than what Bush is, as far as the U.S. Presidency goes.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion

Since the war in Iraq by Bush bypassing the U.N., I didn't hide that Bush is inept as U.S. President.

There should be many better Americans than what Bush is, as far as the U.S. Presidency goes.

You should learn some things about the UN. The US had UN approval to invade Iraq.

JK

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88904,00.html


The director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby (search), acknowledged last week that he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but did believe Iraq had a program to produce them.

[Ion]

Jedi,

isn't life hard for you when facts don't back up your wishes?

Take this, for example:
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
The US had UN approval to invade Iraq.
JK
The San Diego Union Tribune from Saturday June 7, writes abut the U.S. war on Iraq:

"But the United States cut the U.N. inspections when it went to war without Security Council backing."

So, U.S. didn't have the U.N. approval to invade Iraq.

Is life too hard for you, Jedi?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
Jedi,

isn't life hard for you when facts don't back up your wishes?

Take this, for example:

The San Diego Union Tribune from Saturday June 7, writes abut the U.S. war on Iraq:

"But the United States cut the U.N. inspections when it went to war without Security Council backing."

So, U.S. didn't have the U.N. approval to invade Iraq.

Is life too hard for you, Jedi?

You quote newspaper opinion and think it is fact? The US simply took permission from a previous UN resolution. The permission example used by that leftist newspaper was for a 'second' approval. The US didn't need a 'second approval', and therefore didn't seek one.

JK

[Ion]

You don't inform yourself from the replies in your own threads, do you?
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...
The US simply took permission from a previous UN resolution.
...
JK
There is no U.N. Resolution calling for force on Iraq.

Every U.N. Resolution -1441, 12xx I forgot but I can find it- asks for Iraq's compliance with disarmement and for U.N. inspections.

When failure to do so by Iraq is assessed in U.N., then the U.N. Security Council was to decide on the action.

I even remember when Bush was trying to bully ambassadors in the U.N. Security Council into a war on Iraq, but it didn't work.

So, here we are with Bush almost alone in a war against Iraq, and no WMDs in Iraq.

After so much destruction, that must be embarrassing to Bush...

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
You don't inform yourself from the replies in your own threads, do you?

There is no U.N. Resolution calling for force on Iraq.

Every U.N. Resolution -1441, 12xx I forgot but I can find it- asks for Iraq's compliance with disarmement and for U.N. inspections.

When failure to do so by Iraq is assessed in U.N., then the U.N. Security Council was to decide on the action.

I even remember when Bush was trying to bully ambassadors in the U.N. Security Council into a war on Iraq, but it didn't work.

So, here we are with Bush almost alone in a war against Iraq, and no WMDs in Iraq.

After so much destruction, that must be embarrassing to Bush...

Sure there was. It was part of the Iraqi non-compliance agreement.

Give it a rest, lon. You are a clueless Bush hater.

JK

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sure there was. It was part of the Iraqi non-compliance agreement.
...
JK
OK,

prove this claim.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion

OK,

prove this claim.

The US Invasion of Iraq (2003).

I quote--"On November 8, 2002, the UN passed Resolution 1441 urging Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences". The resolution passed with a 15 to 0 vote, supported by Russia, China and France, and Arab countries like Syria. This gave this resolution wider support than even the 1992 Gulf War resolution. Although the Iraqi parliament voted against honoring the UN resolution, Saddam Hussein agreed to honor it."

JK

[Ion]

And 'serious consequences' is undefined, and can mean peaceful serious consequences, for example an embargo on some goods from Iraq.

Read this:

UN Security Council Resolutions Relating to IRAQ (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html)

Is the U.N. text of the U.N. Resolutions against Iraq.

None of them spells war against Iraq.

War or no war against Iraq, that was to be decided by the U.N. Security Council.

Not by Bush, outside the U.N..

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
And 'serious consequences' is undefined, and can mean peaceful serious consequences, for example an embargo on some goods from Iraq.

Read this:

UN Security Council Resolutions Relating to IRAQ (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html)

Is the U.N. text of the U.N. Resolutions against Iraq.

None of them spells war against Iraq.

War or no war against Iraq, that was to be decided by the U.N. Security Council.

Not by Bush, outside the U.N..

Well, Iraq ignored 55 UN resolutions before resolution 1441 so war was inevitable.

JK

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, Iraq ignored 55 UN resolutions before resolution 1441 so war was inevitable.

JK
How do you know that "...war was inevitable."?

France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Belgium, etc., disagreed that "...war was inevitable." and were saying instead to continue with the U.N. inspections.

In fact after a poll, Bush decided not to submit war in the U.N. Security Council, but to war on Iraq outside U.N., by himself.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion

How do you know that "...war was inevitable."?

France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Belgium, etc., disagreed that "...war was inevitable." and were saying instead to continue with the U.N. inspections.

In fact after a poll, Bush decided not to submit war in the U.N. Security Council, but to war on Iraq outside U.N., by himself.

Well, Iraq ignored 55 UN resolutions before resolution 1441 so war was inevitable.

JK

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well, Iraq ignored 55 UN resolutions before resolution 1441 so war was inevitable.

JK
This information is brought to you courtesy of the JRIF. (Jedi Random Information Fudger)

Really, Jedi. 55? Which ones were they? And since we have not found any WMDs, it appears they did not completely ignore them. Since they allowed Blix and the inspectors in, they did not ignore them. And since the US completely bypassed the UN by invading without official sanction (which they knew they would not get), they too are ignoring the UN. Young Jedi, you have not controlled your anger. Given yourself to the dark side, you have.

[Ion]

I agree with this:
Originally posted by Tricky

...
And since the US completely bypassed the UN by invading without official sanction (which they knew they would not get), they too are ignoring the UN.
...

It seems to me that Jedi is too simple minded for the U.S. war on Iraq situation.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tricky

This information is brought to you courtesy of the JRIF. (Jedi Random Information Fudger)

Really, Jedi. 55? Which ones were they? And since we have not found any WMDs, it appears they did not completely ignore them. Since they allowed Blix and the inspectors in, they did not ignore them. And since the US completely bypassed the UN by invading without official sanction (which they knew they would not get), they too are ignoring the UN. Young Jedi, you have not controlled your anger. Given yourself to the dark side, you have.

It has nothing to do with anger, Tricky. When I debate leftist Marxists and they deliberately ignore facts, I simply repost them until they get it.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
I agree with this:

It seems to me that Jedi is too simple minded for the U.S. war on Iraq situation.

No, you are just a Bush (America) - hating leftist.

Here is the answer. It is simple. You ignored it twice so let's go over it again together:

Iraq ignored 55 UN resolutions before resolution 1441 so war was inevitable.

JK

[Gem]

Just curious JK, could you provide a link to the 55 resolutions? I thought it was 52 (minor detail).

Gem

[Ion]

Jedi:
Originally posted by Ion

How do you know that "...war was inevitable." after Iraq ignored 55 U.N. Resolutions, or 255 U.N. Resolutions, or 455 U.N. Resolutions, or whatever ?

France, Germany, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Mexico, Belgium, etc., disagreed that "...war was inevitable." and were saying instead to continue with the U.N. inspections.

In fact after a poll, Bush decided not to submit war in the U.N. Security Council, but to war on Iraq outside U.N., by himself.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
Jedi:


?

JK

[Ion]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

?
JK

!

[Ion]

Come on Jedi:

it's been half an hour since your last post, and that was not much of a post either.

Amuse me!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Ion
Come on Jedi:

it's been half an hour since your last post, and that was not much of a post either.

Amuse me!

Amuse you? I thought leftists had no sense of humor? :p

OK, here is a joke to amuse you.

Q: What do you call a communist with a dog?

A: A rancher

JK

[Ion]

Jedi,

is not that there is much sense of humor in your post, but hey, you did your best.

How is this one?

"George Bush has two sides in his brain:

.) the right side,

and

.) the left side.

On the right side there is nothing right.

On the left side there is nothing left."

Isn't this better now?

[ImpyTimpy]

Don't bother arguing with Jedi, he's a little unstable. Just do a search on JREF to see some other wonderful things he came up with and failed to back up (believe me, he comes up with some very far fetched ideas).