Zarqawi Wounded? Pathetic Silence from CAG's Left

CTLesq

CAGiversary!
All day this has been on the top of the wires virtually all day. Has it been verified? No. However, in non-stunning fashion none of CAG's resident Left wingers have conviently ignored this while focused on issues as important as what the White House Press Secretary said.

Can't said the thought of success in Iraq can you people?

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer


BAGHDAD, Iraq - A Web site that acts as the clearinghouse for messages from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said Tuesday that Iraq's most-wanted militant had been wounded "for the sake of God" and asked Muslims to pray for his recovery.

The statement — unusual in that it seemed to seek sympathy for the Jordanian-born militant and possibly may even be preparing supporters for coming bad news — roughly coincided with hints that U.S. and Iraqi officials have recent, solid tips about al-Zarqawi's movements.

In one recent case, Iraqi officials tore apart a Baghdad hospital in a frenzied, ultimately fruitless search for the terrorist mastermind.

But U.S. officials cautioned they did not know if the posting was authentic, and privately said the information also may have been designed to mislead.

"We don't know if the report is fact or fiction or what the state of his health is. He remains our number one priority to capture or kill," U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Boylan said in Baghdad.

The statement was posted on a Web site known for carrying prior statements by al-Qaida in Iraq and other militant groups. The Arabic word for injury or wound used in the statement, "jarh," could mean that al-Zarqawi suffered either a wound in an attack or an accidental injury. But the context implies that he was wounded in an attack or battle.

"Let the near and far know that the injury of our leader is an honor, and a cause to close in on the enemies of God, and a reason to increase the attacks against them," said the statement, posted in the name of the group's media coordinator, Abu Maysarah al-Iraqi.

The statement ended with prayers for al-Zarqawi, calling on the nation of Islam to "pray for our Sheik Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to recover from an injury he suffered for the sake of God."

A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the official's work said one of the possibilities being considered is whether the statement was purposely misleading.

But the increasing number of tips and reports about the whereabouts of al-Zarqawi indicate the man is increasingly in the line of vision of his pursuers.

One of al-Zarqawi's closest aides was arrested three days ago in Salahuddin province, the Iraqi presidential adviser for security affairs, Gen. Wafiq al-Samarie, said in an interview Tuesday on Al-Jazeera television.

"Maybe he gave information, of course he gave information about (al-Zarqawi)," al-Samarie said.

In addition, a senior U.S. military official said recently that al-Zarqawi may have met with his lieutenants in Syria last month, during a get-together in which he ordered increased attacks.

On April 28, the day the new Iraqi government took office, U.S. forces acting on a tip from local informants searched a hospital in the central Iraqi city of Ramadi for suspected terrorists, but they refused to say whether they were looking for al-Zarqawi. The Washington Post reported a few days later that the U.S. military was looking into reports that al-Zarqawi had been present at the hospital and the possibility that he have been ill or wounded.

A Pentagon official at the time said it would be inappropriate to say publicly whether U.S. officials believed al-Zarqawi to be ill or injured, because such information could complicate capture efforts.

Then last week, a large Iraqi military operation at a hospital in a Baghdad neighborhood prompted reports that al-Zarqawi was hiding inside. A U.S. official at the time confirmed the operation but said nothing about its nature.

The search came after a tip that al-Zarqawi was hiding in the women's ward of the hospital, one Iraqi security official told the AP at the time. Another official, with a Shiite political group, said hundreds of police and soldiers took part, searching everything from the hospital's sewage system to its morgue.

Al-Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for attacks on Iraqi civilians and security forces and kidnappings and beheadings of foreigners, and has a $25 million bounty on his head — the same as al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.

He is believed to be behind numerous high-profile attacks in Iraq, including the 2003 bombing of the U.N. headquarters and a Feb. 28 attack in Hillah that left 125 people dead.

Charles Heyman, a senior defense analyst with Jane's Consultancy Group in Britain, said it was impossible to read into the Internet statement whether al-Zarqawi was really hurt.

"We are in the middle of a very nasty war and it is very difficult to get the truth out. We don't know what is going on," Heyman said from London. "Have they said (he is injured) to try to take the heat off al-Zarqawi?"

But Al-Samarie, the presidential adviser, said another possibility is that supporters are trying to stage a popularity stunt for al-Zarqawi, who could emerge from these rumors as a "superman" invincible even when under attack.

Al-Zarqawi's network, through its media operation on the Internet, has denied he recently was in Syria, and also recently posted a recording in which he denounced Iraq's Shiites as U.S. collaborators.

"God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if armed infidels and unintended victims — women and children — are killed together," said the speaker, purported to be al-Zarqawi.

On the streets of Baghdad, many like Saliha Elaibi, covered in black dress from head to toe, were praying the news of his injury was true.

"We are praying for his death. We ask God to save us from him and from his car bombs," she said.
 
Wait, a report that zarqawi may be injured, a report that no one, right or left, has mentioned (before you). So, basically, you're complaining that one websites liberals haven't mentioned an unconfirmed report of an unconfirmed injury to zarqawi, while simultaneously not condemning moderates and fellow conservatives. At the same time, whats the story here? There is a report that may be legitimate about an unconfirmed injury?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, a report that zarqawi may be injured, a report that no one, right or left, has mentioned (before you). So, basically, you're complaining that one websites liberals haven't mentioned an unconfirmed report of an unconfirmed injury to zarqawi, while simultaneously not condemning moderates and fellow conservatives. At the same time, whats the story here? There is a report that may be legitimate about an unconfirmed injury?[/QUOTE]

1. There are a handful of conservatives and moderates on this forum relative to the number of people on here from the left.

2. The forum is littered with the least significant items of "news" used to condem GWB or the war in Iraq, for that matter the slightest hint of bad news about Iraq is posted on this forum with Drudge Report like speed.

3. All day anyone on this forum (IE its 97% left membership) could have posted this.

4. You prove my ultimate point in reviewing this article. You attack it and couldn't even be bothered to comment on the most obvious point of the posting: Zarqawi being seriously injured (we can only hope for his death) is good news.

Couldn't bring yourself to say that could you?

5. Did you find it disappointing that ordinary Iraqi's hope he dies?
 
What, are you saying we support that motherfucker?

Buddy, if you talked like that in real life I would drag your sorry ass into an alley and beat you down.

Heh, censor won't let me link to a "fuck yourself" picture, but I believe my sentiments were properly expressed, now go blow your brains out dipshit.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']What, are you saying we support that motherfucker?

Buddy, if you talked like that in real life I would drag your sorry ass into an alley and beat you down.

Heh, censor won't let me link to a "fuck yourself" picture, but I believe my sentiments were properly expressed, now go blow your brains out dipshit.[/QUOTE]

Big man on the internet threatening someone else.

Yet, I still see no comments such as "this is good news".

Just attacking the messenger...

Do you support him? Your failure to greet this as positive news coupled with you loathing of America.

I will let the reader draw their own inferences.

CTL
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Wow, what a smart little cunt you are to form those little strawman arguments and label me as an America hater.[/QUOTE]

Still can't bring yourself to say it, "this is great news Zarqawi was hurt. I hope he dies!"

Strawman my ass. Look at the anti-Iraq war BS posted on this forum in an unending torrent.

I defy you to cite a single positive article posted by more than myself, PAD and perhaps bmulligan who wouldn't identify themselves as a conservative.

Oh no we need more articles posted about how some opinion poll which called 100 people can be extrapolated over 280m to say the average American opposes the war in Iraq or how some HS kid feels oppresseed because ROTC is offering scholarships.

Any positive news about Iraq - oh file that under irrelevant.

CTL
 
CTL you are trying way to hard. You are reaching so much that you might pull a muscle.

on second read.. this is the funniest damn post I've read in a while.

Maybe I'll make a topic equally as stupid.

CAG righties fail to condem goat f*cking, therefore they must be in favor of goat f*cking. Your SILENCE on the goat f*cking issue is DAMNING beyond words. Do you like the horns? You are all SICK!
 
Yes I do hope he dies.

That is not a victory for the right, though, it's a victory for America; so why are you gloating like a pig to the "liberals"?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yes I do hope he dies.

That is not a victory for the right, though, it's a victory for America; so why are you gloating like a pig to the "liberals"?[/QUOTE]

Oh it only took three posts!

"gloating like a pig to the "liberals"?"

Because your silence on the subject is deafening.

You people find and endless amount of crap bad news to post about Iraq but none of you could be bothered to post this.

You don't have to use any muscle to see the clear connection.

Any good news in Iraq is bad news for this forum's liberals based on the extremist positions THEY have taken. And this article just wouldn't fit in with your world view of American failure in Iraq.

Ask Jon Stuart and his guests. They are still hoping things go south in Iraq. Much like all of you/

CTL
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, a report that zarqawi may be injured, a report that no one, right or left, has mentioned (before you). So, basically, you're complaining that one websites liberals haven't mentioned an unconfirmed report of an unconfirmed injury to zarqawi, while simultaneously not condemning moderates and fellow conservatives. At the same time, whats the story here? There is a report that may be legitimate about an unconfirmed injury?[/QUOTE]

Well, according to CTL Kerry is holding America "under siege"

Listen CTL, I know you're trying to take a page from Rove but you're nowhere near that talented at lies, deception, and fooling enough of the people into supporting your war.
 
[quote name='camoor']Well, according to CTL Kerry is holding America "under siege"

Listen CTL, I know you're trying to take a page from Rove but you're nowhere near that talented at lies, deception, and fooling enough of the people into supporting your war.[/QUOTE]

Yes its all my war. I am conducting it in my basement.

camoor did you have an anuerism while I was away? I am being serious, you are generally very amusing and you have been dreadful for your last 12 or so posts.

CTL
 
@OP

Why do you toss your pearls before the swine of this board?

You know they hate America and wish to see us gutted by the rest of the world so why do you bother trying to make them admit something they won't?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']1. There are a handful of conservatives and moderates on this forum relative to the number of people on here from the left.

2. The forum is littered with the least significant items of "news" used to condem GWB or the war in Iraq, for that matter the slightest hint of bad news about Iraq is posted on this forum with Drudge Report like speed.

3. All day anyone on this forum (IE its 97% left membership) could have posted this.

4. You prove my ultimate point in reviewing this article. You attack it and couldn't even be bothered to comment on the most obvious point of the posting: Zarqawi being seriously injured (we can only hope for his death) is good news.

Couldn't bring yourself to say that could you?

5. Did you find it disappointing that ordinary Iraqi's hope he dies?[/QUOTE]

97% liberal? Taking a quick rundown of posts there's Pad, bmulligan, fansk, scrub, you, rich, then for moderates there's guile, elprincipe and david, then liberals you got camoor, me, quack, e-z, evil, myke, usicken, mr bad. So, out of the main group that contributes (not just an odd, snide comment here or there), 6 conservatives, 3 moderates, 8 liberals. I'm probably missing some, and it favors liberal, but it's not like a landslide or anything.

I could also say chunks a conservative, but he's off in his own little world.

Besides, you want my opinion then call me when there's real news, like he's dead or the injury is confirmed.
 
Even if Zarqawi dies, there are thousands of others who are more than willing to step up and take his place. Claiming that we got one guy is not a victory. I love how conservatives have to force the "bright side" of the war on us. The fact is, we wouldn't even know who the hell Zarqawi was if we hadn't illegally invaded the country in the first place. Congratulations! We may or may not have actually injured a terrorist we created!

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to make a thread trying to stick something to us dirty liberals, take the time to form a proper sentence:


[quote name='CTLesq']All day this has been on the top of the wires virtually all day. Has it been verified? No. However, in non-stunning fashion none of CAG's resident Left wingers have conviently ignored this while focused on issues as important as what the White House Press Secretary said. [/QUOTE]

Your first sentence is painfully redundant in its all-dayness. And none of us have conveniently ignored it? Thank you for pointing out how much we ARE paying attention.

[quote name='CTLesq']
Can't said the thought of success in Iraq can you people?
[/QUOTE]

And I have an idea of what you thought might be a good sentence here, but evidently the stress got to you.
 
the real question I want to know is are they going to find him soon? Since we have seven times more troops in Iraq than Afganistan (I personally did not know the disparity between the dispersement of troops was so large, and that by proportionally looking at both countries the death rate is actually higher in Afganistan by a substantial margin), hopefully they catch him soon and this does not turn into a hunt like what has happened with Osama where they try and build up people's hopes every once and a while, but it pretty much seems like they will not catch him.

since he is wounded, they must have been close to him at one point and have a general sense of where he is operating and probably are closing in on the movements he has been making
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Even if Zarqawi dies, there are thousands of others who are more than willing to step up and take his place. Claiming that we got one guy is not a victory. I love how conservatives have to force the "bright side" of the war on us. The fact is, we wouldn't even know who the hell Zarqawi was if we hadn't illegally invaded the country in the first place. Congratulations! We may or may not have actually injured a terrorist we created![/quote]

Illegal? Check the US Constitution. Congress voted and authorized war. Its legal. Accept it.

Yes. Thousands. Is that why he was complaining he lacked willing martyrs in Iraq? And so what if there are "thousands" more. Does that mean we don't whack him? Oh, in the minds of many, probably not.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Oh, and by the way, if you're going to make a thread trying to stick something to us dirty liberals, take the time to form a proper sentence:[/quote]

And I imagine that is the best defense you have to my arguments - my typos.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Your first sentence is painfully redundant in its all-dayness. And none of us have conveniently ignored it? Thank you for pointing out how much we ARE paying attention.[/quote]

Given the trivial anti-Iraq war nonsense posted, yes I am confident many of you saw it. More than enough to post it.

[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']And I have an idea of what you thought might be a good sentence here, but evidently the stress got to you.[/QUOTE]

Edit: Yes the stress of the internet. Wow. You associate stress with this? You don't have the first clue what stress is.

CTL
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']What, are you saying we support that motherfucker?

Buddy, if you talked like that in real life I would drag your sorry ass into an alley and beat you down.

Heh, censor won't let me link to a "fuck yourself" picture, but I believe my sentiments were properly expressed, now go blow your brains out dipshit.[/QUOTE]

Quack, I have the feeling both myself and CT would hand you your everloving ass to you in that alley and you'd be going down that dark cemented stretch kicking and screaming like a pre-schooler who just lost his Barney doll.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Illegal? Check the US Constitution. Congress voted and authorized war. Its legal. Accept it.[/QUOTE]


This really bugs me when people bring this up. What congress did was declare a war on terrorism right after 9/11. This was largely a symbolic gesture with no actual plans and/or targets.

What happened with Iraq was/is a military action that the president initiated. According to our own system this is legal, however, when taking into account the lack of support/endorsement from the United Nations security council, it could be considered illegal on a world basis. The only thing is, no one's going to be invading the U.S. anytime soon to arrest Bush for violation of international law.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Quack, I have the feeling both myself and CT would hand you your everloving ass to you in that alley and you'd be going down that dark cemented stretch kicking and screaming like a pre-schooler who just lost his Barney doll.[/QUOTE]


And he would probably have support from at least one other person on this board if it wasn't for the fact that he attacks people that even agree with him.

Point being, its quack, threatening to beat him up like in elementary school just lowers you. Then again, given some of the other things you've said around here, PAD, I'm thinking that really doesn't matter to you.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This really bugs me when people bring this up. What congress did was declare a war on terrorism right after 9/11. This was largely a symbolic gesture with no actual plans and/or targets.[/quote]

Ah, no.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

How many times do I have to post this?

"Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. "

There was NOTHING symbolic about this.


[quote name='RedvsBlue']What happened with Iraq was/is a military action that the president initiated. According to our own system this is legal, however, when taking into account the lack of support/endorsement from the United Nations security council, it could be considered illegal on a world basis. The only thing is, no one's going to be invading the U.S. anytime soon to arrest Bush for violation of international law.[/QUOTE]

When the Belguim rules to launch war are valid in the US you have a point, they aren't so you don't have a point.

Even the UN charter allows for self defense - so you don't even have that.

But its irrelevant. The US Constitution gives war making powers to the Congress - they voted to give the President authority to invade.

The issue is closed. It was legal.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Ah, no.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

How many times do I have to post this?

"Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. "

There was NOTHING symbolic about this.




When the Belguim rules to launch war are valid in the US you have a point, they aren't so you don't have a point.

Even the UN charter allows for self defense - so you don't even have that.

But its irrelevant. The US Constitution gives war making powers to the Congress - they voted to give the President authority to invade.

The issue is closed. It was legal.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Ahh, I see. I assumed you were referring to the vote on the war on terror.

I still stand by my statement about the world possibly seeing it as being illegal because how can you proove that pre-emptive action was for self defense. That's like me going out and killing someone just because they said to me that they wanted to kill me.
 
Yes, the senate authorized war, but not under the actual conditions that it was carried out, though it's sketchy, but most aren't arguing the legality from within the u.s.

And the un allows for self defense, Iraq was not self defense, so you don't have that.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahh, I see. I assumed you were referring to the vote on the war on terror.

I still stand by my statement about the world possibly seeing it as being illegal because how can you proove that pre-emptive action was for self defense. That's like me going out and killing someone just because they said to me that they wanted to kill me.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it would be more like a 350 pound muscle man killing a 1st grader who threatened to beat him up.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Actually, it would be more like a 350 pound muscle man killing a 1st grader who threatened to beat him up.[/QUOTE]


Ok but to be fair, the 1st grader did kick the 350 lb guy's friend in the shin a few years earlier.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahh, I see. I assumed you were referring to the vote on the war on terror.

I still stand by my statement about the world possibly seeing it as being illegal because how can you proove that pre-emptive action was for self defense. That's like me going out and killing someone just because they said to me that they wanted to kill me.[/QUOTE]

RvB I will give the amazing distinction on this forum that you actually read someone's post you initially disagreed with and saw they actually had a legitimate point. Bravo.

How can I prove pre-emption is self defense? You wish to live in a society where you get hit first - be my guest. The loss of 3K people on 9/11 changed that. The US has actually had a policy of pre-emption, consider the Cuban Missle Crisis, the incursions into Mexico to get Pancho Villa. The Bush doctrine isn't that new.

I stand by my point that what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant.


[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, the senate authorized war, but not under the actual conditions that it was carried out, though it's sketchy, but most aren't arguing the legality from within the u.s.[/quote]

Oh where to begin? The Senate doens't authorize war. The Congress authorizes war. Both Houses voted to authorize war.

I fail to see what conditions weren't met. If Hussein didn't give up his WMD up then Bush was authorized to invade. I would point two things out.

1. The universe believed he had WMDs. You simply can't argue that anyone thought he didn't other than two discredited groups. A. Hans Brix: How long had he been out of the country? He was guessing. He had the luxury of being able to guess. B. US Peace activists. Are you really going to tell me that they had actual, credible intelligence that said Hussein didn't have WMDs? In fairness you can't. They were guessing beacuse that was the negative argument.

2. The burden to prove he no longer had WMD was Saddam's. He could have ended this by saying I open my country to inspectors. He didn't.

I would further point out that there were what? 16 UN resolutions against Iraq from 1991? The cease fire was signed with the US. Hussein violated that cease fire every time he fired at a US or British warplane enforcing the no-fly zone.

You people COMPLETELY ignore France's selfish vow to veto the 17th UN res on Iraq. Chirac could have cared less about the intelligence. He cared about France's dying prestige.

You give no consideration to the fact that without Chirac there would have been a 17th Res.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']And the un allows for self defense, Iraq was not self defense, so you don't have that.[/quote]

Based on the intelligence prior to the war, the belief terrorists would attack the US with WMD, and the concern that Hussein would provide them with those weapons I most certainly do have a case for self defense.

That it turned out he didn't have them is irrelevant - he represented that he did.

But this entire argument is moot. We invaded. Really, you people need to get over this.

CTL
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Quack, I have the feeling both myself and CT would hand you your everloving ass to you in that alley and you'd be going down that dark cemented stretch kicking and screaming like a pre-schooler who just lost his Barney doll.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, right.

I would push you down and break your hip, old man.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
1. The universe believed he had WMDs. You simply can't argue that anyone thought he didn't other than two discredited groups. A. Hans Brix: How long had he been out of the country? He was guessing. He had the luxury of being able to guess. B. US Peace activists. Are you really going to tell me that they had actual, credible intelligence that said Hussein didn't have WMDs? In fairness you can't. They were guessing beacuse that was the negative argument.[/QUOTE]

I didn't believe he had WMDs, the majority of people on earth didn't believe he had WMDs, and the majority of people in the univers don't even know earth exists.

It's funny how the only people who are, in your opinion, credible, were totally wrong.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']@OP

Why do you toss your pearls before the swine of this board?

You know they hate America and wish to see us gutted by the rest of the world so why do you bother trying to make them admit something they won't?[/QUOTE]

Who said the right was elitest and bigoted?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This really bugs me when people bring this up. What congress did was declare a war on terrorism right after 9/11. This was largely a symbolic gesture with no actual plans and/or targets.[/QUOTE]

While we're at this war on Terrorism (and I assume the war on Drugs is still going on), can we just declare a war on "Badness" too?

"Are you for goodness Danny, or for badness?"
"Goodness, sir"
"Good, gooooooood"
- Caddyshack
 
Wait a minute... Who's this Zarqawi guy? I thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for all of the ills of the world including 9/11 and we got him already. So Game Over! We won! USA! USA! USA! USA!

(Sorry, too much Karl Rove Kool-Aid this morning I guess.)
 
When Al Qaeda moved into Iraq to fight the "Amreekans" during the postwar crisis when the border was opened Osama bin Ladin appointed Zarqawi as leader of Al Qaeda in Afganistan.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wait a minute... Who's this Zarqawi guy? I thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for all of the ills of the world including 9/11 and we got him already. So Game Over! We won! USA! USA! USA! USA!

(Sorry, too much Karl Rove Kool-Aid this morning I guess.)[/QUOTE]

Sean Penn: Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']

1. The universe believed he had WMDs. You simply can't argue that anyone thought he didn't other than two discredited groups. A. Hans Brix: How long had he been out of the country? He was guessing. He had the luxury of being able to guess. B. US Peace activists. Are you really going to tell me that they had actual, credible intelligence that said Hussein didn't have WMDs? In fairness you can't. They were guessing beacuse that was the negative argument.

2. The burden to prove he no longer had WMD was Saddam's. He could have ended this by saying I open my country to inspectors. He didn't.

CTL[/QUOTE]


1. Colin Powell in Feb 2001

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm

Condy Rice in Apirl 2001.

"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.""

2.) as for inspections. Iraq did let the inspectors back in on Nov. 2002 and were kick out by George Bush when he launched the Iraq War.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/

from the article..

"Saddam agreed Wednesday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction after the Security Council approved a toughly worded resolution."


Now personally, I know that none of this amounts to a thing but be warned, if you are going to drag out bullcrap I am going to call you on it, every single time. You are going to have to raise your game, son.


p.s. you STILL haven't come clean about your goat f*cking addiction. Oh the silence!
 
[quote name='usickenme']1. Colin Powell in Feb 2001

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm

Condy Rice in Apirl 2001.

"Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.""

2.) as for inspections. Iraq did let the inspectors back in on Nov. 2002 and were kick out by George Bush when he launched the Iraq War.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/11/17/blix.iraq.cyprus/

from the article..

"Saddam agreed Wednesday to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to search for the alleged weapons of mass destruction after the Security Council approved a toughly worded resolution."


Now personally, I know that none of this amounts to a thing but be warned, if you are going to drag out bullcrap I am going to call you on it, every single time. You are going to have to raise your game, son.


p.s. you STILL haven't come clean about your goat f*cking addiction. Oh the silence![/QUOTE]

Keep quoting before 9/11. You have zero credibility.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Keep quoting before 9/11. You have zero credibility.[/QUOTE]

So somehow 9/11 cancels out the fact that Saddam wasn't making WMDs and that he didn't have any ties to al-Qaeda? That's crazy talk. If it was true before 9/11, it was still true after 9/11.

Iraq was a personal vendetta for Dubya not a national threat.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Sean Penn: Last year I went to Iraq. Before Team America showed up, it was a happy place. They had flowering meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles.[/QUOTE]

Oh, that makes your real credible when you bash liberals by quoting a movie about talking dolls.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']So somehow 9/11 cancels out the fact that Saddam wasn't making WMDs and that he didn't have any ties to al-Qaeda? That's crazy talk. If it was true before 9/11, it was still true after 9/11.

Iraq was a personal vendetta for Dubya not a national threat.[/QUOTE]

You are right 16 resolutions over 10 years was all Dubya.

Your revisionist view of this is disturbing.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']You are right 16 resolutions over 10 years was all Dubya.

Your revisionist view of this is disturbing.

CTL[/QUOTE]

The sanctions were working. He wasn't building weapons. He was in check. We pulled our best troops out of Afghanistan (where the terrorists were hiding) to invade Iraq. We shifted our resources from a real threat to an imaginary one. Dumb move.
 
CTL must be drinking too much of the kool-aid again. It's funny to see someone who still thinks that Commander Cucckoobananas wasn't lying to the American public about Saddam's WMD claim despite evidence that he was fabricating deception to mislead america (downing street memo).

So where's Osama? You know, the guy living in pakistan who originally planned the terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? It's great that we're hunting down al-zarqawi. Nevermind the thousands and thousands of insurgents who will continue the insurgency in the iraqi quagmire long after he's gone. But I want the man who killed thousands of american innocents on a calm, sleepy tuesday morning.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']

Oh where to begin? The Senate doens't authorize war. The Congress authorizes war. Both Houses voted to authorize war.

The senate was the later one, and the one mentioned in your article, that's why I mentioned it.

I fail to see what conditions weren't met. If Hussein didn't give up his WMD up then Bush was authorized to invade. I would point two things out.

1. The universe believed he had WMDs. You simply can't argue that anyone thought he didn't other than two discredited groups. A. Hans Brix: How long had he been out of the country? He was guessing. He had the luxury of being able to guess. B. US Peace activists. Are you really going to tell me that they had actual, credible intelligence that said Hussein didn't have WMDs? In fairness you can't. They were guessing beacuse that was the negative argument.

2. The burden to prove he no longer had WMD was Saddam's. He could have ended this by saying I open my country to inspectors. He didn't.

I would further point out that there were what? 16 UN resolutions against Iraq from 1991? The cease fire was signed with the US. Hussein violated that cease fire every time he fired at a US or British warplane enforcing the no-fly zone.

The intelligence community didn't seem all that certain, in fact their uncertainty is why many people say the evidence presidents by the president and british prime minister was lied about, or at least stretched. And as someone said, many knew the inspections were working (funny, your discredited guy got it right and your "credible" people were completely wrong), and many didn't believe he had wmd, including myself. There was no credible evidence that he did had WMD, now we why know why that was the case. Besides, if we really believed he had WMD why would we push him into a position to use them?

And the non war options were not exhausted.

You people COMPLETELY ignore France's selfish vow to veto the 17th UN res on Iraq. Chirac could have cared less about the intelligence. He cared about France's dying prestige.

You give no consideration to the fact that without Chirac there would have been a 17th Res.

Ya, I mean the overwhelming majority of the french public opposed the war, what idiot would think that had anything to do with their opposition. I mean, since when would a democracy ever listen to its people?

Based on the intelligence prior to the war, the belief terrorists would attack the US with WMD, and the concern that Hussein would provide them with those weapons I most certainly do have a case for self defense.

It's hard to find credible intelligent sources who would buy that, especially since those terrorists hated him and would be just as likely to use those weapons gainst him. Also, since he knew if he did he would be invaded.

But this entire argument is moot. We invaded. Really, you people need to get over this.

If we forget our mistakes, we may end up in Iran next.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Big man on the internet threatening someone else.

Yet, I still see no comments such as "this is good news".

Just attacking the messenger...

Do you support him? Your failure to greet this as positive news coupled with you loathing of America.

I will let the reader draw their own inferences.

CTL[/QUOTE]

The latest furor over al-Zarqawi began Tuesday when an Internet statement called on Muslims to pray for his life, followed by competing statements on his health and whereabouts.

The mystery deepened Wednesday after reports that two Arab doctors in another country were treating al-Zarqawi, chief of al-Qaida in Iraq and wanted for some of the deadliest attacks in the country.

None of the Internet postings and rumors have been confirmed, but the amount of speculation about the Jordanian-born militant is unusual both in size and scope.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6763163/

Wow, unconfirmed media reports that al-Zarqawi fled Iraq with gunshot wounds to the lung and an amputated leg.

Hey, CTL, if the media is wrong about al-Zarqawi being injured, will you be demanding an investigation & resignations? Maybe this is why "the left" didn't post this yet.
 
bread's done
Back
Top