Remember What NY Times Said of Saddam

**daveleau** · June 19th, 2003, 01:42 PM

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=816

Contrary to their current self-advertisements, it was liberals who were citing Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction—and with gusto—in order to argue against war with Iraq. Writing in the New York Times, Kerry said there was "no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction," but urged Bush to pursue "the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community." Having repeatedly warned that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, liberals’ important plan for action was: Don’t rush.

Interesting article. Some of Ann's stuff can be a bit over the top, but this one is pretty tame for her writings. This is commentary, with the usual political slant, as all commentaries have. This one is just the opposite view of everything else that has been posted here recently. Ann is good about using factual info in between her name-calling and comical writing.
Why are some now turning to calling President Bush a liar when both sides of American politics, the UN reports, other nations and other intelligence said WMD were there?

The real question is, what happened to the WMD. If Saddam destroyed them, why didn't he advertise the destruction so he could have the sanctions lifted on his oil sales? You know France, China and Russia would have asked him to advertise the destruction if it had occurred because they were slated to have 1/3 of Saddam's oil reserved for each of their nations. So where'd it all go? Are we just too busy with security to find them? Are we not looking in the right places? Did he move them to the transparent sieve of a border between Syria and Iraq or even better- to Iran like he did with much of his air force during Desert Storm (the jets were not returned)? Has the Coalition found them and are simply waiting for whatever reason to make a final report?

If people call President Bush a liar, then they should also call the rest of the US government liars along with the UN and a plethora of European nations' governments. As far as the whole situation, no one knows the answers but many are already passing judgment. I know a time-frame is difficult to set on when to say "there are no WMD in Iraq", but we can not jump to conclusions before we have at least some of the facts. The only facts that we know for sure are 1: that Saddam had WMD as late as 1998 and 2: the media and government are reporting nothing (no hard facts) on the findings or lack of findings of WMD.

shahani · June 19th, 2003, 01:48 PM

No, just emphasising that all politicians are liars.

**osprey4** · June 19th, 2003, 02:30 PM

Hey, c'mon, Shahani, you know as well as I do it's only 95% of the politicians that give the other 5% a bad name.

Of course, what does that say about the New Yawk Times?

shahani · June 19th, 2003, 04:08 PM

So, are you implying Bush is in the 5%?

God forbid.

**Redwolf** · June 19th, 2003, 05:47 PM

You're implying that there are only 20 people in politics?

**caddmannq** · June 19th, 2003, 05:58 PM

Yeah, it was those same liberals that said we'd be fighting that war for years, then complained when it was over in three weeks that we did it too fast to provide humanitarian aid.

You can't satisfy some people, because they just have a vested interest in criticizing things.

**sharder8** · June 19th, 2003, 06:13 PM

posted by Cadd
Yeah, it was those same liberals that said we'd be fighting that war for years, then complained when it was over in three weeks that we did it too fast to provide humanitarian aid.

Ah, a little correction to that statement . . . . . should read:

Yeah, it was those same liberals that said we'd be fighting that war for years, then complained when it was over in three weeks that we did it too fast to provide an economical stimulus for our country.

The liberals would like to see a stronger economy, so that they will have more money for pork barrel spending and humanitarian aid.

Harder

**daveleau** · June 19th, 2003, 06:18 PM

And don't forget huge social systems that enable the lazy and promote big government.

**originel** · June 19th, 2003, 07:17 PM

it's all politics. personally i think it's just kinda heat from the initial debate over the war that just hasn't burned itself out yet. kinda like "oh well...hmm...what do we argue about now?" it does show you that both side are really just arguing because it's their "job" if you will to argue with the other side.

as for where the WMDs went, i'm not sure. it is possible he actualyl didn't have them, but i don't think so. maybe he sold them off? maybe he saw that he was about to be thrown out of power and decided to cash in and sold them off to whoever was willing to buy them. just a theory. i'm sure we'll track some of them down everntually (prolly when the american public doesn't care about them anymore).

**caddmannq** · June 19th, 2003, 08:44 PM

Well, Sharder, what they complained about and what they actually wanted could well have been several different things.

I didn't hear that "economic stimulus through warfare" thing published by the liberal journalists.

But they were probably thinking it.

shahani · June 19th, 2003, 09:01 PM

I is outnumbered.

Good thing the Iron Duke is vacationing.

**Knothead** · June 19th, 2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by sharder8

The liberals would like to see a stronger economy, so that they will have more money for pork barrel spending and humanitarian aid.

Harder

Hmm? I don't see "pork barrel" spending as an exclusively liberal aberration....

Almost every politician I've ever seen would happily vote millions of $$$ to sponsor a working mechanical hemorrhoid, as long as the money was spent in their districts....

the art of vote-grabbing, 101...

shahani · June 19th, 2003, 09:27 PM

Okay, thats two to 17,987.

Still not good odds.

**Toddly** · June 19th, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Knothead

Hmm? I don't see "pork barrel" spending as an exclusively liberal aberration....

Almost every politician I've ever seen would happily vote millions of $$$ to sponsor a working mechanical hemorrhoid, as long as the money was spent in their districts....

the art of vote-grabbing, 101...

Knothead you should know better. Conservatives would never stoop to pork barrel politics.

**sharder8** · June 19th, 2003, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Toddly

Conservatives would never stoop to pork barrel politics.

TRUE, How true!!!

Now, what was the Conservative phase for their version of "Pork Barrel" politics????

Harder

**Knothead** · June 19th, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by sharder8

Now, what was the Conservative phase for their version of "Pork Barrel" politics????

Harder

AHA! I stand corrected.

Conservatives don't practice that.

Instead, they wage full-on WAR on insignificant middle eastern countries, helping the Military-Industrial complex to grow and prosper!

dang it, I meant to make this some kinda witty reply....

didn't work...

**daveleau** · June 19th, 2003, 11:11 PM

Well, pork barrel is unfortunately the way our gov't gets things accomplished. Without PB, our govt would run closer to party lines. I have to agree that both sides have PB projects that are equally worthless. That's one reason I liked McCain for president until I saw his more liberal side (he's the best democrat in the republican party).

PB is a way to get votes on things that you really need votes for. PB projects are often tagged onto larger bills that are thought to have a great chance at passing. I wish they would disallow piggy-backing of smaller projects on large bills. That would cut down on PB, but at the same time it would double the load on Congress...