Sheehan arrested AGAIN!!!

[Gan]

CRAWFORD, Texas (CNN) -- Anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan was arrested Thursday afternoon outside President Bush's ranch, according to a law enforcement official.

Sheehan, who in the past has camped out for weeks in protest outside the ranch in Crawford, Texas, was arrested for blocking the road leading to the property, Texas Department of Public Safety's Tela Mange told CNN.

Four others were also arrested after law enforcement officials asked the group to move and they refused, Mange said.

"[Sheehan] told us if you want us to get out of the road, you're going to have to arrest us," Mange said. "So we did." [:lol:]

The protesters lay in the road about 20 minutes before being taken into custody, she said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/28/sheehan.arrest/index.html
__________________________________________

:deadhorse:

She seriously needs to find something more constructive to do with her time.

[Sean of the Thread]

Time for prison imo.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yeah, she's going to find out being a bitch doesn't exclude you from the law. Being a cunt to the president because she thinks she can personally harass the president because he's a the president... well that will eventually catch up to you through karma, IMO.

[Parkbandit]

Attention Whore Alert.

Sounds like someone is pissed her 15 minutes are up.

Boo fucking hoo.

[Some Rogue]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/attention-red.jpg

[Methais]

"[Sheehan] told us if you want us to get out of the road, you're going to have to arrest us," Mange said. "So we did."

Owned.

[RichardCranium]

Somebody should punch that bitch in the ovaries.

[Skeeter]

I thought this bitch was crazy when she first started this shit. time for her to go away now.

[Tsa`ah]

I thought this bitch was crazy when she first started this shit. time for her to go away now.

Lose a kid to an act of someone else's complete stupidity, personal ambition, and negligence ... then come back and say that.

I don't really agree or disagree with her actions ... but I admire her persistence.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lose a kid to an act of someone else's complete stupidity, personal ambition, and negligence ... then come back and say that.

I don't really agree or disagree with her actions ... but I admire her persistence.

That's why most people think you're an idiot too.

[Tsa`ah]

From a "man" that lacks conviction, any notable intelligent thought, and an ideology comparable to that of an adolescent ritalin baby raised on nintendo and mtv ... I can safely say that "most" people (like you) and their opinions of me are about as entertaining as spider monkeys fucking footballs.

I feel for any offspring you may have, but pity those that have to deal with them when they finally fly the coop.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lose a kid to an act of someone else's complete stupidity, personal ambition, and negligence ... then come back and say that.

I don't really agree or disagree with her actions ... but I admire her persistence.

From a "man" that lacks conviction, any notable intelligent thought, and an ideology comparable to that of an adolescent ritalin baby raised on nintendo and mtv ... I can safely say that "most" people (like you) and their opinions of me are about as entertaining as spider monkeys fucking footballs.

I feel for any offspring you may have, but pity those that have to deal with them when they finally fly the coop.




All your post did was simplemindedly take a shot at Bush on perhaps an eighth grade level. That statement could apply to the loss of almost any soldier. An example would be any American loss in WWII or almost any other U.S. war.

By admiring her "persistence" you are admiring an embarrassing show of asshattery and criminal activity that is being mocked by not just MOST of the citizens of the U.S. but the entire world.


Lose your (very lame although expected for your simpleton sort) playground insults and try to stay on topic.

[Celephais]

are about as entertaining as spider monkeys fucking footballs.

That sounds pretty fucking entertaining...

Plenty of people have lost loved ones, acting like an asshat isn't going to reverse it (hell that's what caused it).

[Sean of the Thread]

Her first statement and protest I gave 2 minutes of grief for the woman. She needs a 365 day stay in county orange at this point.

[Parkbandit]

Her son volunteered to join. He obviously knew the risks.

She's completely taking advantage of his sacrifice by pushing her own agenda, an agenda probably not shared by her dead son.

[RichardCranium]

Her son volunteered to join. He obviously knew the risks.

She's completely taking advantage of his sacrifice by pushing her own agenda, an agenda probably not shared by her dead son.

I read Tsa`ah's initial post and began thinking of a response but the above pretty much sums up what I was going to say better than I could have.

[Sean of the Thread]

I thought I summed it up with "Idiot" quite well.

[Tisket]

Because he said she was persistent? Seems that would be the ONE thing you guys could all agree on...

[RichardCranium]

Because he said she was persistent? Seems that would be the ONE thing you guys could all agree on...





Lose a kid to an act of someone else's complete stupidity, personal ambition, and negligence ... then come back and say that.

He commented on more than just her persistence.

The fact is her son is dead because he he made the decision to join the military. It comes with the territory.

[Celephais]

Because he said she was persistent? Seems that would be the ONE thing you guys could all agree on...

Difference between calling her persistent and admiring it. Unless Tsa'ah is willing to make that a blanket statement of admiration for persistence ie: I admire Bush's persistence in the war.

[Tisket]

He commented on more than just her persistence.

You're right. He also said:


I don't really agree or disagree with her actions ...

[RichardCranium]

Are you fucking retarded?

[Tisket]

Are you fucking retarded?

Possibly, but at least I'm not a knee-jerk reactionary like yourself...

[RichardCranium]

You're completely ignoring the parts of my posts you don't agree with.

[Tisket]

You're completely ignoring the parts of my posts you don't agree with.

Why do you make assumptions? I didn't say anything about my own personal views...

[Sean of the Thread]

Difference between calling her persistent and admiring it. Unless Tsa'ah is willing to make that a blanket statement of admiration for persistence ie: I admire Bush's persistence in the war.

QFT..

He clearly stated he admired her persistence of being an asshat and then he stance danced on if he agrees with her or not. My money is that he agrees with her asshattery.

[RichardCranium]

Why do you make assumptions? I didn't say anything about my own personal views...

You're right, I did assume.

But the fact of the matter is he asserted that it was Bush's fault her son was dead and you repeatedly ignore that when responding. Selective reading and all that.

[Sean of the Thread]

Don't you know everything is the fault of bush?

[Tisket]

You're right, I did assume.

Personally, I find her VERY easy to ignore entirely (not unlike certain posters here). When I do think about her at all it's with distaste and a vague desire to see her horsewhipped. I probably spent more time thinking about her for this post than I have all year. Thanks.

[Tsa`ah]

That sounds pretty fucking entertaining...

It is and one could compare it to a morbidly obese person making snide comments about another fat person ... or the mother of an ugly baby talking about someone else's ugly kid.

Idiots, morons ... slack jaws in general that take shots at me are equally entertaining.


Plenty of people have lost loved ones, acting like an asshat isn't going to reverse it (hell that's what caused it).

Never did I suggested otherwise.


Her son volunteered to join. He obviously knew the risks.

I'm sure he did. We don't know his motives, nor do we know what his political views were.


She's completely taking advantage of his sacrifice by pushing her own agenda, an agenda probably not shared by her dead son.

She would probably know best what her son's agendas were. You can look at it as her taking advantage, or you could look at her honoring the sacrifice. Either way, she has persisted in protest that most people would have given up on and went about their merry way.

This is civil disobedience not armed robbery. You can call it attention whoring, taking advantage of her son's death, or disagree with it in almost any manner you choose ... that does not change the validity of her protest.

Parents take all sorts of action when a child is lost in a horrible way. They protest, they vote, the solicit, they get laws changed. It's fine when a child is lost to a me th head driving under the influence and a parent does everything in their power to make sure that the person responsible his held accountable ... it seems to be taboo when it comes to a soldier.

I personally see no difference.


All your post did was simplemindedly take a shot at Bush on perhaps an eighth grade level. That statement could apply to the loss of almost any soldier. An example would be any American loss in WWII or almost any other U.S. war.

To a simple mind such as yourself, I'm sure that was the conclusion you took. However, your statement loses all validity when you compare this conflict to other conflicts in history.


By admiring her "persistence" you are admiring an embarrassing show of asshattery and criminal activity that is being mocked by not just MOST of the citizens of the U.S. but the entire world.

Another display of a simple mind trying to wrap itself around something complex.

How many times have you broken the law? Why are you not in prison? There are differences and citing criminal activity as the cornerstone to your argument amounts to a broad sweeping generalization.

Now, I can admire any attribute I want .. that doesn't translate into admiration of the person. I admire TO's athletic ability, I personally think he's a piece of shit. Admiring persistence, tenacity ... anything really, does not equate into personal admiration.


Lose your (very lame although expected for your simpleton sort) playground insults and try to stay on topic.

This is wholly laughable coming from you when you consider my response was specifically to your playground insult and inability to contribute to the topic.

Your entire posting career on these forums has come with a complete lack of substance. Honestly, there's more substance left over on used toilet paper than any 20 posts you can string together in your long lived teen angst posting style.

Your participation in any conversation amounts to a kid taking a kite to an aerial dog fight and claiming victory because his kite is still in the air. The problem with that is you pose no real threat outside of personal insults and stoking an ego disproportionate to your social and intellectual worth.

The drain you impose to the community collective is staggering. Nary a thread can go by without you squatting down and placing the only mark you are capable of making.

I'm actually finding a bit of admiration for drivel I'm responding to ... it only took you a little over 7,550 attempts to construct a post containing words consisting of more than 5 letters and 7 words in the entire post. That's not to say I admire you ... I think crack whores provide more social worth than you're capable of attaining.

[Back]

When she first made news I thought good for her. She took a huge loss, spoke her mind and through exposure raised awareness of the unpopularity of the war.

Now... well, its getting a bit overkill. She did her thing, people saw and listened, now just let it go and get on with your life.

[Sean of the Thread]

HOLY HELL I agree with Blacklash.. someone call the times.

[Tisket]

Between your and BL's cumulative post totals I'd say it was bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think anyone cares enough to notify the media though.

[Sean of the Thread]

To a simple mind such as yourself, I'm sure that was the conclusion you took. However, your statement loses all validity when you compare this conflict to other conflicts in history.


My statement is 100% correct no matter what conflict it is.

Also....yes she is a criminal.


As for your long winded idiotic response.. thanks for reaffirming that you're a dumb fuck to the rest of us. I know a couple people had doubts.

[Sean of the Thread]

Between your and BL's cumulative post totals I'd say it was bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think anyone cares enough to notify the media though.

Actually I agree with BL often enough.. just shocked one of the times it was on this topic.

[Parkbandit]

I'm sure he did. We don't know his motives, nor do we know what his political views were.



He signed up for not one but two tours of duty. Both were completely voluntary.

I'm pretty sure we can surmise he didn't have the same view of the war as his mom.


Like I said, she's taken his ultimate sacrifice and turned it into her own personal attention whore pulpit.

[Latrinsorm]

Tsa`ah, how is comparing a soldier dying in a war to a DUI-related death more intelligent than comparing two wars?

[Sean of the Thread]

Tsa`ah, how is comparing a soldier dying in a war to a DUI-related death more intelligent than comparing two wars?

You're talking about Tsa'ah here why do you even bother to ask.

[DeV]

Grats for making this dumb bitch news again? The media needs a life as much as Sheehan does.

[Gan]

Too bad we dont have a 3 strikes law in Texas... or wait, do we?

hmmm.

:thinking:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

HOLY HELL I agree with Blacklash.. someone call the times.

QFT, AND, I posted (TWICE NOW) in a political thread. I'm done for this year AND next year.

[Tsa`ah]

Tsa`ah, how is comparing a soldier dying in a war to a DUI-related death more intelligent than comparing two wars?

Let me draw you a little picture.

Protesting an executive that sent your child off to a war that ended up in the demise of said child and protesting, lobbying, voting against or for government that would make a meth head involved in an automotive fatality fully responsible for the death are not that different to me.

What steps a parent takes to seek justice in the death of their child is not for me, or anyone else, to judge that has not lost a child.

Were it my child killed by another person state side, and that was my only child ... I would be up on pre meditated charges depending on the outcome or release of the culprit after his/her time was up.

Were it my child sent to war on a shit stream of lies and incompetence, I would probably do everything in my power to make the people ultimately responsible for my child's death to pay. Be it through protest, campaigning, attempting legal action ... anything I could think of to encourage those with similar belief to incite change and encourage justice.

We can debate Iraq until it ends, but it doesn't change current history and the line of false reasoning, poor decision making, lack of planning ... and anything else you want to throw in that mix.

Iraq is not WWI, WWII, Korea, the Revolution, the Civil, or any other past war or armed conflict. Comparing the death of a soldier sent to war over lies and false intel for whatever reason to the death of a soldier in WW11 only holds 1 commonality ... death during war. Some conflicts are inevitable and to an extent just, some are not.

Pick whatever side of the fence you want to stand on, but don't delude yourself or anyone else into thinking this war is similar to past wars.

If a person wants to protest a war, or the person, merit, or reasoning for a war ... so be it. Civil disobedience comes at a price, but I'm not going to label the person a criminal and call for their imprisonment when I know that more than half the crowd calling for it are breaking laws on a regular basis.

The inbred dumbass is a prime example.

[Sean of the Thread]

Lose a kid to an act of someone else's complete stupidity, personal ambition, and negligence ...

Someone "else" like say Hitler? Jefferson Davis?

You're right that your childish remark at BUSH has nothing to do with all these wars.. if it wasn't a lame snap at bush it would apply to every war.

[Parkbandit]

Who lied again about Iraq?

Wall of text says otherwise:

PS - I'll post this up, each and everytime someone claims that George W. Bush lied about the intelligence from Iraq. As you can see, there are PLENTY of quotes prior to Bush even coming into power. So please, do yourself, myself and everyone else a favor and keep your bullshit conspiracy to yourself. No one likes the wall of text.




"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Celephais]

AAAAAAAhh the text! It burns!!!

[Parkbandit]

Blame Tsa'ah. He brought this pain to everyone.

He's a bad man.

[TheEschaton]

And every time you post those wall of quotes, we point out that 1) The ones before 1999 came before UNSCOM filed its final report saying Iraq was 99% disarmed, and didn't say 100% because nothing is ever absolute, but they were certain about it, 2) the ones after 9/11 come out of an atmosphere where the administration was practically certifying there were WMDs everywhere and 3) most of these quotes are taken out of context, which you have a remarkable aptitude for doing.

I suppose I could pull out quotes from Powell and Condi before 9/11 where they were on the record numerous times saying they didn't think Saddam was a threat, and that he had been disarmed. But then you'd just respond with the same quotes again.

-TheE-

[Latrinsorm]

Protesting an executive that sent your child off to a war that ended up in the demise of said child and protesting, lobbying, voting against or for government that would make a meth head involved in an automotive fatality fully responsible for the death are not that different to me.I recognize that you don't think they're too different to make a comparison. What I don't understand is how you're able to ignore the complexities of a war starting compared to getting methed up and driving a car but you're very quick to notice the differences between the war in Iraq and (for instance) World War II. Certainly the war in Iraq is different on many levels from World War II, but claiming that the responsibility for a soldier's death in a war is as simple to assign as the responsibility for a DUI is no better. The idea of Bush as the nefarious mastermind grows increasingly passé.

[Jesuit]

Come on PB, don't you know by now it was George Bush and his magical leprechauns manipulating everything back then.

[Methais]

Protesting an executive that sent your child off to a war that ended up in the demise of said child and protesting, lobbying, voting against or for government that would make a meth head involved in an automotive fatality fully responsible for the death are not that different to me.

Except nobody signed up to be in a car accident. Every soldier that's in Iraq enlisted voluntarily.

[Gan]

BUSH IS TEH NEFARIOUS MASTERMIND!!!

[Sean of the Thread]

BUSH IS TEH NEFARIOUS MASTERMIND!!!

WRONG.

HE IS TEH NEFARIOUS DECIDER!!!

[Parkbandit]

And every time you post those wall of quotes, we point out that 1) The ones before 1999 came before UNSCOM filed its final report saying Iraq was 99% disarmed, and didn't say 100% because nothing is ever absolute, but they were certain about it, 2) the ones after 9/11 come out of an atmosphere where the administration was practically certifying there were WMDs everywhere and 3) most of these quotes are taken out of context, which you have a remarkable aptitude for doing.

I suppose I could pull out quotes from Powell and Condi before 9/11 where they were on the record numerous times saying they didn't think Saddam was a threat, and that he had been disarmed. But then you'd just respond with the same quotes again.

-TheE-


So prior to 9-11, those quotes were just baseless guesses.. and after 9-11, it was a focused attempt to go to war.

Now.. was this in your little world or ours again? with you, I can never tell.

[Parkbandit]

Except nobody signed up to be in a car accident. Every soldier that's in Iraq enlisted voluntarily.


How dare you use that type of logic here! You fucker.

[TheEschaton]

Nope, in both situations, they were just going off the information they were given. Before 1999's final report, UNSCOM still had some questions of whether Saddam had fully disarmed. By 1999, they had decided they had.

Then, after 9/11, the Administration kept on touting (false) intelligence which talked about the possibility of Saddam's WMD arsenal, which those latter quotes were based on.

If you looked at the quotes between 1999 to late 2001, when the knowledge was that Saddam had no WMD according to UNSCOM, you'll see that most of the quotes by politicians would of said the same. Including high level Administration people, like Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

Didn't take him long to hide and distribute them now did it. You're an idiot if you think otherwise. Unless you think he used up his entire stock of chemical weapons on his own people and forgot to manufacture more.

[TheEschaton]

All the chemical weapons Saddam ever had were either A) given to him by the U.S. or Britain, or B) manufactured in factories provided and built by the U.S. or Britain. You can't exactly build a factory to make these things without being noticed, considering the scrutiny Iraq was under after it gassed the Kurds in the late 80s. So, when the U.S. destroyed all the munitions given to him, and then destroyed all the factories given to Saddam...they were pretty sure they got it all, because there was never any produced completely independent of Western complicity.

THERE WERE NO WMD. Accept it, move on. Besides, this war was about the promotion of democracy and the removal of tyranny. ;)

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

There were and are WMD from that regime. Accept it and move on.

I'm all about the removal of tyranny and spread of democracy as well. Kill em all I say! Let us get cracking.

[TheEschaton]

There WERE. I'll give you that. But here's the thing. In 1999, it was said that Iraq is effectively 100% disarmed. All intelligence since then that has claimed otherwise has proven false (and should of been disregarded as such from its first reading). Mobile weapons lab = weather balloon station. Botillium in a scientist's fridge? Been there since the 80s. Uranium from Niger? Blatantly false.

-TheE-

[Gan]

On one hand: Data indicating WMD's exist in Iraq = horribly inaccurate, misleading, and false!

On the other hand: Data indicating WMD's do not exist in Iraq = unequivocably accurate, clear and concise, and true!

I call shananagans! But hey, if it allows you to hold your torch up higher in despite for the reasons for the Iraq war, them more power to you.

Once things stabilize I bet we'll see more to the story than "poof! they just did not exist!". Resonably thinking that someone as twisted as Saddam was, would just up and destroy all these weapons simply because the Western influenced UN said so, is well, just not reasonable.

[Jesuit]

There WERE. I'll give you that. But here's the thing. In 1999, it was said that Iraq is effectively 100% disarmed. All intelligence since then that has claimed otherwise has proven false (and should of been disregarded as such from its first reading). Mobile weapons lab = weather balloon station. Botillium in a scientist's fridge? Been there since the 80s. Uranium from Niger? Blatantly false.

-TheE-

So when they said 100% disarmed, did that mean all over Iraq or just the places Saddam allowed the inspectors to visit?

[Back]

So when they said 100% disarmed, did that mean all over Iraq or just the places Saddam allowed the inspectors to visit?

I really try not to fight other poster’s battles on these boards. I don’t expect anyone of them to fight for mine...

But you are a complete asshat. You continue to ignore reality for whatever justification you seem to think is... well... justifiable.

Do you have facts to support your claims? Please, by all means, present them and quit your attacks.

[Jesuit]

I really try not to fight other poster’s battles on these boards. I don’t expect anyone of them to fight for mine...

But you are a complete asshat. You continue to ignore reality for whatever justification you seem to think is... well... justifiable.

Do you have facts to support your claims? Please, by all means, present them and quit your attacks.


So you can't answer that question? I thought you were one of the experts.

[Back]

So you can't answer that question? I thought you were one of the experts.

Sorry, man. You’re done.

[Jesuit]

Sorry, man. You’re done.


Here's something from 1998. If you want something else from later on you'll have to look on your own. I'm sure Saddam didn't change much over the years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html

[Jesuit]

This is actually my favorite part of the article.

"BILL RICHARDSON: What gets us closer is free, unfettered access, unconditional access to all sites, including these presidential sites, by qualified U.N. inspectors. If you start differentiating who's going to do the sites, Tariq Aziz also said they can come in for a certain period of time, a one-shot inspection deal; that they have to end within 60 days. These are additional unacceptable conditions that undermine the integrity of the U.N. inspection team and make a laughing stock of all these U.N. resolutions that we've passed that say that the U.N. inspection team's charter is to destroy some of these weapons, find out where they are. The Iraqis have a long history of finding ways to hide the chemical and biological weapons. And they're doing it once again. It's once again part of their shell game, their propaganda efforts that simply are not getting much support. "

[Back]

Here's something from 1998. If you want something else from later on you'll have to look on your own. I'm sure Saddam didn't change much over the years.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_2-11.html

You are such a fool I don’t even know how to start. Except by saying... get another game. Its been played and no one buys it.

[Sean of the Thread]

Blacklash you should start back peddling soon. You're looking more like an idiot with every post in this thread. Just some friendly advice from a friend.

[Back]

Blacklash you should start back peddling soon. You're looking more like an idiot with every post in this thread. Just some friendly advice from a friend.

Noted.

Friend = someone you talk about behind their back and surrey their name.

[Gan]

LOL @ "Youre done" (even though I cant defend why)

LOL @ "Youre such a fool, I dont know where to start" (even though I cant defend why you're a fool, its just that it sounds pretty good in my drunken stupor)

LOL @ "Youre a complete asshat..." (because yes, my [Backlash] reality is the only reality and if you dont agree then you are indeed a fool)

:clap: Grats Backlash, you're on a roll.

[Slider]

The Eschaton, I'm going to call BS on that. For one, IF UNSCOM and Richard Butler had stated that they where indeed 99% certain that Saddam had been completely disarmed, then why did the UN (This is important, notice I said the UN, NOT George Bush) decide that the job wasn't done. In fact, not only did they say the job was not done, they specifically created UNMOVIC to continue inspections and directed that agency and the IAEA to ensure that the work of disarming Saddam was completed.

This can be found in RESOLUTION 1284 (1999) of the UN Security Council, as well as the semi-annual report given to the UN Security Council on 8 October 1999 that covers the period from 12 April to 11 October 1999.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Keyresolutions/sres99-1284.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Semiannual/sres99-1037.htm

So obviously this was not some underhanded attempt by George Bush (who, might I point out, was not even the President at this time) to make up some bullshit excuse for an invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, Hans Blix himself stated in his report to the UN security Council on 25 November 2002 that "If the Iraqi side were to state - as it still did at our meeting - that there were no such programmes, it would need to provide convincing documentary or other evidence. What was found in FFCDs submitted to UNSCOM in many cases left it an open question whether some weapons remained."

And again in his report on 19 December 2002 after inspection had once again been started, he stated, "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.”

“Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added."

“As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's Declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified as unanswered in the Amorim report (S/1999/356) and in UNSCOM's report (S/1999/94) remain unresolved. In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq's account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Such supporting evidence, in the form of documentation, testimony by individuals who took part, or physical evidence, for example, destroyed warheads, is required to give confidence that Iraq's Declaration is indeed accurate, full and complete.”

So your statement that there where no concerns about Iraq’s WMD programs AFTER 1999 in completely untrue, as stated by Hans Blix himself.

[Back]

LOL @ "Youre done" (even though I cant defend why)

LOL @ "Youre such a fool, I dont know where to start" (even though I cant defend why you're a fool, its just that it sounds pretty good in my drunken stupor)

LOL @ "Youre a complete asshat..." (because yes, my [Backlash] reality is the only reality and if you dont agree then you are indeed a fool)

:clap: Grats Backlash, you're on a roll.

The day you make a rational argument, then you can leave me a message.

If I decide to respond to that message... well, that all depends on not only the logic of that message, but how politely you put it.

[Gan]

The day you make a rational argument, then you can leave me a message.

:lol: I R RATIONAL, U NOT KNOW BECAUSE YOU NOT RATIONAL, WHEN YOU GET RATIONAL THEN YOU CAN SAY I'M NOT RATIONAL...

LOLERSKATES. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Slider]

All the chemical weapons Saddam ever had were either A) given to him by the U.S. or Britain, or B) manufactured in factories provided and built by the U.S. or Britain. You can't exactly build a factory to make these things without being noticed, considering the scrutiny Iraq was under after it gassed the Kurds in the late 80s. So, when the U.S. destroyed all the munitions given to him, and then destroyed all the factories given to Saddam...they were pretty sure they got it all, because there was never any produced completely independent of Western complicity.

THERE WERE NO WMD. Accept it, move on. Besides, this war was about the promotion of democracy and the removal of tyranny. ;)

-TheE-

And wrong yet again.

In December 2002, Iraq's 1,200 page Weapons Declaration revealed a list of Eastern and Western corporations and countries, as well as individuals, that exported a total of 17,602 tons of chemical precursors to Iraq in the past two decades. By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and Federal Republic of Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.

Iraq's Chemical weapons program was mainly assisted by German companies such as Karl Kobe, which built a chemical weapons facility disguised as a pesticide plant. Iraq’s foreign contractors, including Karl Kolb with Massar for reinforcement, built five large research laboratories, an administrative building, eight large underground bunkers for the storage of chemical munitions, and the first production buildings. 150 tons of mustard were produced in 1983. About 60 tons of Tabun were produced in 1984. Pilot-scale production of Sarin began in 1984. Germany also supplied reactors, heat exchangers, condensors and vessels. France, Austria, Canada, and Spain provided similar equipment.

[Back]

:lol: I R RATIONAL, U NOT KNOW BECAUSE YOU NOT RATIONAL, WHEN YOU GET RATIONAL THEN YOU CAN SAY I'M NOT RATIONAL...

LOLERSKATES. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Way to make your case. No, really.

[Gan]

Make my case that WMD's were produced and posessed by Saddam up to the time when the US marched on him the second time?

Well, I cant exactly provide you GPS coordinates now can I?

However, I feel that given the fact that he has posessed them, made them, and used them before gives him motive, intent, and opportunity to use them again. Furthermore it is feasable to hide or move such inventories to neighboring nations (like Syria) so as to thwart any legitimacy of justifiable invasion by the US or UN. And lastly you can not say beyond a resonable doubt that WMD's do not exist anywhere within Iraq or did not exist up until the time of the US invasion/attack.

So, I dont have infallable proof that they exist (much the same as you dont have infallable proof that they do not exist), because I am a mere insignificant spectator relying on the intelligence, ability, and accuracy of others who are looking. However, I'm not going to be part of the near sighted political group looking at a static time frame and claiming that WMD's did not or never existed so the Iraq invasion was not justified because it fits their (your) political agenda.

Now if Saddam never had, made, or used chemical/biological weaponry then you might have a leg to stand on. But as it stands, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Then its a duck.

[Parkbandit]

The Eschaton, I'm going to call BS on that. For one, IF UNSCOM and Richard Butler had stated that they where indeed 99% certain that Saddam had been completely disarmed, then why did the UN (This is important, notice I said the UN, NOT George Bush) decide that the job wasn't done. In fact, not only did they say the job was not done, they specifically created UNMOVIC to continue inspections and directed that agency and the IAEA to ensure that the work of disarming Saddam was completed.

This can be found in RESOLUTION 1284 (1999) of the UN Security Council, as well as the semi-annual report given to the UN Security Council on 8 October 1999 that covers the period from 12 April to 11 October 1999.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Keyresolutions/sres99-1284.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Semiannual/sres99-1037.htm

So obviously this was not some underhanded attempt by George Bush (who, might I point out, was not even the President at this time) to make up some bullshit excuse for an invasion of Iraq.

Furthermore, Hans Blix himself stated in his report to the UN security Council on 25 November 2002 that "If the Iraqi side were to state - as it still did at our meeting - that there were no such programmes, it would need to provide convincing documentary or other evidence. What was found in FFCDs submitted to UNSCOM in many cases left it an open question whether some weapons remained."

And again in his report on 19 December 2002 after inspection had once again been started, he stated, "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated.”

“Such was the situation at the end of 1998, when inspectors left Iraq. The many question marks are documented in a report to the Council early in 1999 (S/1999/94) and in the so-called Amorim Report (S/1999/356). To these question marks, nearly four years without any inspection activity have been added."

“As there is little new substantive information in the weapons part of Iraq's Declaration, or new supporting documentation, the issues that were identified as unanswered in the Amorim report (S/1999/356) and in UNSCOM's report (S/1999/94) remain unresolved. In most cases, the issues are outstanding not because there is information that contradicts Iraq's account, but simply because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Such supporting evidence, in the form of documentation, testimony by individuals who took part, or physical evidence, for example, destroyed warheads, is required to give confidence that Iraq's Declaration is indeed accurate, full and complete.”

So your statement that there where no concerns about Iraq’s WMD programs AFTER 1999 in completely untrue, as stated by Hans Blix himself.


um..

/ignore


Bush lied.. people died. Stop trying to confuse us with facts since we know Bush lied about the war to get back at Hussein for threatening his Dad, to allow his oil friends to get rich off oil from Iraq and for his pals at Haliburton to get rich off supplying the US forces. Anything to the contrary is just speculation and lies and we will not listen to it!!

[TheEschaton]

Scott Ritter, one of UNSCOM's inspectors, and a chief inspector on almost half their inspections, on whether Saddam was disarmed:

"There’s no doubt Iraq hasn’t fully complied with its disarmament obligations as set forth by the Security Council in its resolution. But on the other hand, since 1998 Iraq has been fundamentally disarmed: 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capacity has been verifiably eliminated… We have to remember that this missing 5-10% doesn’t necessarily constitute a threat… It constitutes bits and pieces of a weapons program which in its totality doesn’t amount to much, but which is still prohibited… We can’t give Iraq a clean bill of health, therefore we can’t close the book on their weapons of mass destruction. But simultaneously, we can’t reasonably talk about Iraqi non-compliance as representing a de-facto retention of a prohibited capacity worthy of war.

We eliminated the nuclear program, and for Iraq to have reconstituted it would require undertaking activities that would have been eminently detectable by intelligence services.

If Iraq were producing [chemical] weapons today, we’d have proof, pure and simple.

[A]s of December 1998 we had no evidence Iraq had retained biological weapons, nor that they were working on any. In fact, we had a lot of evidence to suggest Iraq was in compliance."

Basically, what this says is, Iraq didn't comply with the inspections, but that doesn't mean they weren't disarmed. This is why there was a security resolution to continue Iraq's forced compliance.

OMG, BUT WHY WOULDN'T IRAQ COMPLY IF THEY WERE DISARMED?!?!?!?!?!1?

I'm glad you asked. The Iraqi government kicked the inspectors out because they thought they were spying on Iraqi matters of state unrelated to weapon production, at the behest of the CIA. UNSCOM was trying to inspect palaces, where no weapons facilities ever existed, and tried to demand documents which had nothing to do in any way with weapon production.

The best part? Mr. Ritter admits the CIA tampered with UNSCOM, and writes that he was frustrated because it was the CIA's agenda which forced the impasse and led to the kicking of UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq.

Oh, and Mr. Ritter: A registered Republican marine who voted for Bush in 2000. Yanno, before you go off on the whole "he's a crazy leftist" rant.


As for the munitions et al - the foundation was laid by the U.S. and Britain. If this has changed in the past 25 years, well, then, I'll be. As the Independent (http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/uscorpsiniraq.html) claims that most of the technical know how and equipment came from the West, including 24 major U.S. companies. Germans far outstrip others, but last I checked, Germany was part of the "Western World".

-TheE-

[Gan]

Scott Ritter - August 1998


I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measured in months, reconstitute chemical and biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

On September 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_3), 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998), several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services) and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relation s) and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq." [4] (http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm)

During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Biden) stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) later rebutted by stating that he "wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War). [Wikipedia]

And no, Ritter did not say the CIA was tampering, he was quoted in his book -The End Game - that allegedly the CIA attempted to infiltrate UNSCOM. Funny how you can change the wording to suit your needs eh?

The thing is, the more you read Ritter's comments either in his books or paid interviews, the more he seems to contradict himself. On one hand he's busy defending his inability as chief weapons inspector to full access and full cooperation of Iraq's weapons programs. And on the other he states that Iraq has been fully disarmed.

So using this guy as an 'expert' on the premise of WMD's existance in Iraq when on one hand he admits to not having full access and yet on the other stating that Iraq is fully disarmed tells me that either he's flip flopping on his story, for whatever reason, or he really does not know.

At best, his credibility is questionable, at worst he's intentionally misleading for personal gain.

[TheEschaton]

Well, when I've seen Scott Ritter speak, he has said out loud that the CIA was telling him where to go inspect, what to look for regarding state secrets, and things like that.

And he consistently says that they failed in carrying out the terms of the resolution, but what they did do was manage to effectively disarm Iraq to the point that any new weapons they made there would be verifiable, concrete proof of. These are not opposite, mutually exclusive, contradicting statements. It is entirely possible for Saddam to be not compliant, and yet still effectively disarm him.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

I just talked to Scott Ritter last night, and he said TheE is full of shit. Yes, he said it out loud too.

Wow, undocumented fact flying is FUN!

[TheEschaton]

Funny, I was referring to public speeches he's given where he's spoken to standing room only crowds. Not a personal, unverifiable speech.

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

Providing more evidence that his credibility is shit. Wasn't he also hawking a book at that time?

Weird.

[Gan]

Another interesting snippet about Ritter. [Wikipedia]



Ritter received $400,000 from Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji for the financing of his 2000 documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_film) In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=In_Shifting_Sands&action=edit)[15] (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm). According to a Washington Times article, Al-Khaffaji obtained the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions [16] (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm). Ritter denies any quid pro quo with Al-Khaffaji and according to a Financial Times article, when Ritter was asked “how he would characterise anyone suggesting that Mr Khafaji was offering allocations in his name, Mr Ritter replied: "I'd say that person's a fucking liar. Quote unquote. And tell him to come over here so I can kick his ass." [17] (http://www.mail-archive.com/sam11@erols.com/msg00286.html)

[Parkbandit]

Yea... that's someone I would pin all my faith upon. Anyone who doesn't believe him is a fucking liar.. and they should come over here so I can kick their fucking ass.

[RichardCranium]

I don't know, that's as good a response as any.

[Slider]

All the chemical weapons Saddam ever had were either A) given to him by the U.S. or Britain, or B) manufactured in factories provided and built by the U.S. or Britain.
-TheE-


funny, I see no mention of the "western world" in this statement you made. You said ALL of Saddam's WMD capability was supplied to him by the U.S. and Britain. This is patently false, and so you change it to claim that the "foundation" of all his programs where the result of the U.S. and Britain.

As for Mr. Ritter's statemements, I find it strange that his boss, the head of UNSCOM, does not seem to share his veiws. And as you pointed out, while Mr. Ritter was ONE of the weapon inspectors, he was hardly the only one involved in the disarmament process.

In his letter to the President of the UN Security Council Mr. Butler stated, and I quote "In conclusion, Iraq's decisions of 5 August and 31 October make it impossible for the Commission to implement its disarmament and monitoring rights and responsibilities. The Commission is not in a position to provide the Council with any level of assurance regarding Iraq's compliance with its obligations not to retain and not to re-establish proscribed activities. Although the Commission's monitoring cameras are permitted by Iraq to work, they are, by themselves, minor in terms of providing credible monitoring. This can be accomplished only with full, immediate access and the exercise of the full scope of the Commission's monitoring resources, in particular no-notice, on-the-spot inspections."

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98-1032.htm

Huh...soo...Mr. Ritter makes the claim that there is "no way" Saddam can manufacture new weapons, yet the head of the orginization he works for, in it's official report to the President of the UN Security Council, doesn't seem to share this certainty.

As far as the CIA's involvement, let me ask you how exactly do you think that UNSCOM developed the intelligence that lead them to all of the weapons that Saddam had hidden away? Did they just put up a map of Iraq on a wall and throw darts at it to choose where to inspect next? And if in fact the CIA did try to "infiltrate" UNSCOM, then they would have done so under the orders of President Clinton, because, last time I checked, a state governor has no authority to order the CIA to carry out operations in a foreign country. Thus, once again, shooting holes in your "President Bush did it!!!!" BS.

[sst]

we neglect the fact that her child "reupped" during wartime knowing he was going back to iraq.

Ive never seen a woman bite the curb before, but it might be amusing in this instance.

[Skirmisher]

Ah well.

I still feel for her as the death of her son seems to left her at a loss and then filled the hole with tremendous rage.

That being said, she still has since burned up the relatively large pool of sympathy that existed immediately after and someone in her family needs to jar her back to reality so she does not waste whats left of her life being used by one cause or another looking to capitalize on her blinding anger and name.

[HarmNone]

Looks to me like she needs some serious grief counselling. She can't seem to get herself out of the anger stage and get on with her life. While I empathize with her loss, I also realize that one can't spend the rest of one's life fighting demons from the past. Her son is gone. She needs to let it go.

[Sean of the Thread]

But then she wouldn't have an "excuse" to whore her political agenda. :shrug:

[HarmNone]

You may be right as to her cause, Sean2. I can't be that sure because I'm not walking in her shoes. I have, however, seen grief run amok turn someone into something they're not. I've seen it cause people to behave entirely out of character. If that's the case, grief counselling can be the answer. If you're right, then she's a kind of mother I simply cannot fathom - the kind who would use the death of her child for her own nefarious purposes.

[Nieninque]

It's easy to slag her off though. Lets not let any empathy or understanding get in the way of that.

[Gan]

It's easy to slag her off though. Lets not let any empathy or understanding get in the way of that.

If you look back to the various threads about Sheehan here on the PC you'll see lots of empathy and understanding. Its just that over time, and through repeated events, she's used that up. And that brings to mind other questions about why she's doing what she's doing. And as HN stated, it seems those questions could lead more nefarious answers.

And then there were some of us who said she was nefarious all along...

[Nieninque]

And there are the same ones of you that dont have a clue what you would feel like in similar circumstances and so are talking out of your ill-informed arses.

I dont think it's particularly bright to behave in the way that she is, but I dont think I can sit in judgement of her. I dont think you are qualified to do so either.

[Gan]

And there are the same ones of you that dont have a clue what you would feel like in similar circumstances and so are talking out of your ill-informed arses.

I dont think it's particularly bright to behave in the way that she is, but I dont think I can sit in judgement of her. I dont think you are qualified to do so either.

Much like you thinking you're qualified to judge those of us whom you say are judging her?


(not to mention its laughingly ironic that you are calling us ill-informed when what she's doing is not even local to your own soil)

[Nieninque]

Lame

[Back]

And then there were some of us who said she was nefarious all along...

??? Nefarious?

OHENOEZ SOCCORMOMZ R COMING 2 GET UZ

[Gan]

Lame

Just like your retort.

[Parkbandit]

And there are the same ones of you that dont have a clue what you would feel like in similar circumstances and so are talking out of your ill-informed arses.

I dont think it's particularly bright to behave in the way that she is, but I dont think I can sit in judgement of her. I dont think you are qualified to do so either.


Wait.. so I have to lose a son to criticize her now? Why is that the answer libs always give when something like this comes up.

I criticize her for being an attention whore, for breaking the law and for pushing a personal agenda which goes against that which her son sacrificed his life for.

[Gan]

??? Nefarious?

OHENOEZ SOCCORMOMZ R COMING 2 GET UZ

Not really, its just that some of us see with both eyes open. And the fact that Sheehan was first used by those who wanted her as an instrument to tout anti-war sentiment in the US.

Funny, where are the congressional members who stood so self-rightously behind her now?

She was used by the machine, plain and simple.

[CrystalTears]

It's funny when people come to the PC and tell them not to pass judgements on others. Especially when it comes from those who tend to pass judgements the most.

Sheehan needs to let it go. She's no longer making a stand against the war. She's made her life a mockery.

[Back]

Not really, its just that some of us see with both eyes open. And the fact that Sheehan was first used by those who wanted her as an instrument to tout anti-war sentiment in the US.

Funny, where are the congressional members who stood so self-rightously behind her now?

She was used by the machine, plain and simple.

Used as an instrument? By whom exactly and to what end that threatens you, or anyone for that matter, so much?

[Stanley Burrell]

I think there's a huge, huge difference in the manner of her protesting and jailing between Sheehan and, say, women's suffrage activists under Wilson.

I get tempted to draw comparisons to the aforementioned, as well as the infinitely more organized Vietnam protests and what it meant then vs. what it means now - And how cozy (comparatively) it is for Sheehan to protest using the constitution as a shield.

Then again, I admire not so much her as a person as I do the aforementioned ability to uphold the constitution and use its free speech clause to demonstrate that we still live in The United States.

I don't like the idea of figureheads shadowing the same pain felt by many other mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, cousins, nieces, nephews, etc.

That isn't to say that I shun certainty that there are those who agree with her by the thousandfulls, but I would much rather see American citizens protesting through their own voice and actions than that of someone else's.

I do, however, understand that strength in numbers = strength in numbers. I feel that if Sheehan's reason for protesting the war was based upon objective ideology as opposed to personal circumstance (albeit whether or not she did so using her son's death as a way of fueling her fire) then that would be a better encompassment to demonstrate under.

I would like to see a much more oligarchical leadership in protesting; one not so tremendously based on a single emotion or scoring college credit, especially when shepherded under someone else's psychological makeup. It would be better and stronger, IMHO, if the single unit of the demonstrator bore acute insight as to why they are chanting their slogans, first, before another's. Knowledge of self/Spartacus syndrome/yaddayadda.

[Back]

Wait.. so I have to lose a son to criticize her now? Why is that the answer libs always give when something like this comes up.

I criticize her for being an attention whore, for breaking the law and for pushing a personal agenda which goes against that which her son sacrificed his life for.

Huh. And here I thought that soldiers fought and died so we can enjoy the freedoms we have in this country. If anyone has a right to exercise those freedoms wouldn’t it be a mother who lost her son while defending them?

[Gan]

Used as an instrument? Yes, a political instrument in an attempt to sway public opinion.


By whom exactly
By those who do not support the war or the Bush administration. Not like you have to ask.


and to what end that threatens you, or anyone for that matter, so much?
By changing public policy. Same as influencing a change that you disagree with threatens you.

[Parkbandit]

Huh. And here I thought that soldiers fought and died so we can enjoy the freedoms we have in this country. If anyone has a right to exercise those freedoms wouldn’t it be a mother who lost her son while defending them?

You are confused as usual Backlash. Smoke another bowl and maybe it'll become more clear to you.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to LEGALLY proclaim her displeasure with the war, with Bush, with anything else that she wants... but I have just as much of a right to say she is an attention whore who has used her son's death to parade her views.

[Nieninque]

It's funny when people come to the PC and tell them not to pass judgements on others. Especially when it comes from those who tend to pass judgements the most.

Sheehan needs to let it go. She's no longer making a stand against the war. She's made her life a mockery.

As opposed to your own upstanding contribution to society?

I dont personally believe she is doing things in the best way possible...but isnt the USA the land of free speech? Where freedom of expression is upheld? Makes me laugh that so many of you are quick to put others down for what you claim to be so important.

So she gets arrested for trying to make her point? Big fucking deal. At least she has the fucking gumption to make a stand about something she believes in, for whatever reason, rather than being a fat useless cunt who lauds it up on a message board like Lady Muck from Shit Castle.

That is why, regardless of however many stupid stunts she pulls, Sheehan > You.

[Gan]

When words arent enough to describe Sheehan's purpose. You can always go back to this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/Sheehanchavez.jpg

Picture care of http://www.cindysheehanwatch.com/

[HarmNone]

If you look back to the various threads about Sheehan here on the PC you'll see lots of empathy and understanding. Its just that over time, and through repeated events, she's used that up. And that brings to mind other questions about why she's doing what she's doing. And as HN stated, it seems those questions could lead more nefarious answers.

And then there were some of us who said she was nefarious all along...

The answers to such questions could, indeed, lead to more nefarious answers. Then again, they could lead one back to my original premise: that she is suffering from grief gone awry and needs professional help ...

[Parkbandit]

As opposed to your own upstanding contribution to society?

I dont personally believe she is doing things in the best way possible...but isnt the USA the land of free speech? Where freedom of expression is upheld? Makes me laugh that so many of you are quick to put others down for what you claim to be so important.

So she gets arrested for trying to make her point? Big fucking deal. At least she has the fucking gumption to make a stand about something she believes in, for whatever reason, rather than being a fat useless cunt who lauds it up on a message board like Lady Muck from Shit Castle.

That is why, regardless of however many stupid stunts she pulls, Sheehan > You.

So in conclusion...


"US is the land of free speech, so those who are talking badly about Sheehan should STFU"

Seriously.. thanks for the continued contribution to Stupidville.

[Gan]

The answers to such questions could, indeed, lead to more nefarious answers. Then again, they could lead one back to my original premise: that she is suffering from grief gone awry and needs professional help ...

I definately wont argue the fact that she needs professional help. Nope, wont argue that point at all.

[CrystalTears]

As opposed to your own upstanding contribution to society?

I dont personally believe she is doing things in the best way possible...but isnt the USA the land of free speech? Where freedom of expression is upheld? Makes me laugh that so many of you are quick to put others down for what you claim to be so important.

So she gets arrested for trying to make her point? Big fucking deal. At least she has the fucking gumption to make a stand about something she believes in, for whatever reason, rather than being a fat useless cunt who lauds it up on a message board like Lady Muck from Shit Castle.

That is why, regardless of however many stupid stunts she pulls, Sheehan > You.
Wow, bitter much? :lol: I just don't appreciate someone telling others what they can or cannot pass judgement on. Let people state their opinion, just like you do on a daily basis.

[Nieninque]

Wow, bitter much? :lol: I just don't appreciate someone telling others what they can or cannot pass judgement on. Let people state their opinion, just like you do on a daily basis.

Whatever you say Klaive.

[Gan]

Wow, this almost sounds personal.

And CT is far from being a Klaive.

[CrystalTears]

My God, this is what this personal pissiness is about? Because of a forum for a guild you no longer belong to and I have the guild's support on your trolling there? Whatever Saia. Grow up.

[Gan]

But she trolls so well!

:lol:

[Nieninque]

My God, this is what this personal pissiness is about? Because of a forum for a guild you no longer belong to and I have the guild's support on your trolling there? Whatever Saia. Grow up.

Actually, this "personal pissiness" is about this: "It's funny when people come to the PC and tell them not to pass judgements on others. Especially when it comes from those who tend to pass judgements the most."

Fucking funny.

Funnier that you think it's about the HoR boards. But then your head is so far up your own arse you cant see that anything you say could ever have any flaws other than some imaginary psychotic grudge that wasnt even anything to do with you anyway. (Wasnt it Kagg that removed my access?)

My comments to you were based on your comments here. My reference to Klaive is because it needles you...and many a true word is said in jest of course.

And in actual fact, my point in this thread is that people who sit there and say "Oooh, she should be over it by now" are talking out of their arse (a talent you are proficient at of course). You can never know how you would react in those circumstances unless you have been there yourself.

Grief hits people in different ways and it could be that she got a wake up call to do something about her life after the loss of her son. Who knows...but at least she is doing something. Whether you agree with her or not, she isnt drinking herself into oblivion every day, so let her do what she wants. FREE SPEECH and all that.

Of course, if she is attention whoring, you monkeys are giving her just what she wants.

[CrystalTears]

You don't have to break the law to take a stand on an issue. That is my problem with her.

Sure, she can do what she wants, and I can say what I want too. See how that works?

I won't bother with the rest of your bullshit.

[Nieninque]

Wow, this almost sounds personal.

And CT is far from being a Klaive.

Its a matter of degree

[Nieninque]

You don't have to break the law to take a stand on an issue. That is my problem with her.

Sure, she can do what she wants, and I can say what I want too. See how that works?


So she broke the law by a breach of the peace (or the American equivalent).
BFD.

Politicians who send other people's kids to die should be held personally accountable for every single person that dies as a result of their decision to go to war. So she is giving Bush a bit of grief? Poor lamb.

[Skirmisher]

People, I know we can all get touchy about politics but keep the personal insults down please.

Just take a moment or two before responding at least and lets try to keep things civil.

Thanks everyone.

[Gan]

Its a matter of degree

You're right, the police should have just run over her instead of arresting her like she insisted.

You lie in the road, you get whats coming your way.

[Gan]

Politicians who send other people's kids to die should be held personally accountable for every single person that dies as a result of their decision to go to war.

So how are things in fantasy land? :lol:

Thats about as realistic as expecting to fight someone shooting at you with hugs and kisses.

[CrystalTears]

So she broke the law by a breach of the peace (or the American equivalent).
BFD.
BFD that she broke the law? I hate to break this to you, but here in America you can't pick and choose which law corresponds to you, since you will still be liable for breaking that law. You can protest quite a bit without breaking the law. She doesn't seem to grasp this concept.


Politicians who send other people's kids to die should be held personally accountable for every single person that dies as a result of their decision to go to war. :lol: Good luck with that one.

[Nieninque]

:lol: Good luck with that one.

I'm sure its a huge joke to you.
People who have lost someone in a war that should never happened might disagree.

I didnt say it's something that could or would happen. I said it's something that should. Politicians that send people to die in unethical/illegal wars really do need to be held to account for each and ever person whose lives are lost fighting for such a stupid fucking cause.

And the fact that they are not held accountable, makes me less sympathetic that Bush's home is protested by those that have lost children/loved ones.

Suck it up.

[CrystalTears]

It's unrealistic. It's like saying that the people who own the building up in flames should be held accountable for firefighters who happen to die trying to fight that fire. It's unfortunately an occupational hazard that people joining the services are aware of.

I'm not against people protesting at Bush's home. Picket his house every day for a month, for a year for all I care. Just don't break the law.

[Skirmisher]

I'm sure its a huge joke to you.
People who have lost someone in a war that should never happened might disagree.

While I can understand how to you it may feel that way I know that no one here has the intention to diminish her or your own losses.

Allow me to once more tender my deepest sympathies to you and your family.

Allow me also to make clear that this discussion and the criticism therein is not directed at everyone who has suffered such a loss but one individual in particular.

I do not criticize her because i want to hurt her but I criticize those groups that allow her to be a mouthpiece for them and utilize her anger and despair for their own ends.

I grieve for her and hope that she can someday soon find some sort of peace she can live with as she is not yet an old woman and to spend all her remaining years railing away would simply be heaping tragedy upon tragedy.


It's unrealistic. It's like saying that the people who own the building up in flames should be held accountable for firefighters who happen to die trying to fight that fire. It's unfortunately an occupational hazard that people joining the services are aware of.

I think that building owners who do not maintain their edifices in a safe manner and whose lack of maintenance and attention to safety regs may in fact be prosecuted if a firefighter is injurred trying to save that building.

In the same manner might some of the families of the fallen soldiers feel anger and resentment towards Bush and the current administration for sending an ill-prepared and undermanned force to do a job where at the least some of his own upper end brass had said it would take a larger force than Rumsfeld et al. decided was politically expedient.

[Parkbandit]

Holy shit.

Am I like the only one that lives in reality?

Seriously... either stop doing drugs, get out more or get educated.

WTF

[Daniel]

I'm sure its a huge joke to you.
People who have lost someone in a war that should never happened might disagree.

I didnt say it's something that could or would happen. I said it's something that should. Politicians that send people to die in unethical/illegal wars really do need to be held to account for each and ever person whose lives are lost fighting for such a stupid fucking cause.

And the fact that they are not held accountable, makes me less sympathetic that Bush's home is protested by those that have lost children/loved ones.

Suck it up.

Sorry. I've been there, done that and I still think it's bullshit.

People die in War. That's to be expected if nothing else. This isn't some dictatorship that Bush created. Like it or not, this COUNTRY went to war and not just one person.

[Loagan]

That's why most people think you're an idiot too.

That is an ignorant statement. What is wrong with respecting someones perseverence to do something? Even if it is a bit odd, and doesn't hold any real merit? It is interesting though, how the praise for charitable things done to help our men and women overseas (Which I am proud to say that I am one of) isn't as noteworthy or isn't as "front page" as someone who is an anti-war activist making a scene. For the people who are charitable, I respect their perseverence to do that day in and day out, so that our troops are able to feel the love and support of their country, when away from friends and family. Don't be so quick to judge next time.

[Sean of the Thread]

Read for content.

[sst]

It's funny when people come to the PC and tell them not to pass judgements on others. Especially when it comes from those who tend to pass judgements the most.

Sheehan needs to let it go. She's no longer making a stand against the war. She's made her life a mockery.

:clap:

[sst]

I'm sure its a huge joke to you.
People who have lost someone in a war that should never happened might disagree.

I didnt say it's something that could or would happen. I said it's something that should. Politicians that send people to die in unethical/illegal wars really do need to be held to account for each and ever person whose lives are lost fighting for such a stupid fucking cause.

And the fact that they are not held accountable, makes me less sympathetic that Bush's home is protested by those that have lost children/loved ones.

Suck it up.

Ive lost a few friends over here. It sucks, especialy when you manage to do all you can and get them in the back of the MEV alive only to find out 10 min after you get back from you mission that they died on the way to the hospital.
But guess what. Its not the politicians fault. Its the fucker who was on top of the roof with the sniper rifle who shot him in the head thats at fault.

[Latrinsorm]

What is wrong with respecting someones perseverence to do something?If someone you cared about decided to stay in an abusive relationship and was very perseverant (stubborn) [pigheaded] about it, would you say "well dang, I appreciate your perseverance!!!" Perseverance in a self-destructive (or other-destructive) activity isn't laudable, ever.

[Stanley Burrell]

Perseverance in a self-destructive (or other-destructive) activity isn't laudable, ever.

Neither are non-parenthesized brackets from a supposed math genius :nono:!

[Latrinsorm]

Humbly, I submit that Bobmuhthol references supersede all grammatical and mathematical considerations.

[Artha]

Humbly, I submit that Bobmuhthol references supersede all grammatical and mathematical considerations.
Cosine.