WMD's Found in Kuwait?

[MereMere21]

just like how some people will hate Clinton forever no matter what

there will never be a president that 100% of the country would like and agree on

[James]

The Green M&M. Everyone loves him.

Originally posted by MereMere21
just like how some people will hate Clinton forever no matter what

there will never be a president that 100% of the country would like and agree on

Originally posted by MereMere21
there will never be a president that 100% of the country would like and agree on

which is why we need to elect Kitso and Arya to come in and run this country oligarchy-like.

Arya for the left-leaners, and Kitso for the right leaners.

It'll be perfect

Kitso
KS 361

[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by James
The Green M&M. Everyone loves him.

AHMMM!! You mean "HER",

Wow! Our first woman president!

[MereMere21]

I'd vote for a two-person presidency hell I would vote for the green M&M at this point

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
which is why we need to elect Kitso and Arya to come in and run this country oligarchy-like.

Arya for the left-leaners, and Kitso for the right leaners.

It'll be perfect

Kitso
KS 361

It's A Trap

[Kevin]

Kuwait Foils WMD's Being Smuggled Out of Iraq"

Posted by Wade Eyerly
Saturday, October 04, 2003


An article published Wednesday in the Indian newspaper, Hindustan Times, is reporting that the Kuwaiti government has stopped a smuggled shipment of $60 million dollars worth of CHEMICAL weapons and BIOLOGICAL warheads from IRAQ to an un-named European country. Why has no one picked up on this?

In a world so preoccupied with discovering the alleged WMD's that served as a major justification for the war in Iraq, it seems that Rush Limbaugh's comments that the media may have been giving too much credit to a very talented quarterback because he is black have taken over the media.

We have finally found what we've been looking for…some of the very evidence that will vindicate the President George W. Bush from the international and media flogging that he's been taking over the last few months, but…what is on your local news station? A conservative talk show host's verbal flap? Hmmm…So, which side of the fence did you say the media was on?

Kuwaiti operatives had been tailing a number of Iraqis since they entered the nation, but kept their distance, and kept a watchful eye on them--before arresting them. The Associated Press reports that the warheads and weapons will be handed over to the FBI at a news conference whose time is yet to be determined.

Let the vilification of George W. Bush cease. Not only did Saddam have weapons, but they are being smuggled out of country. That could mean only a few things. Those moving the weapons are terrorists, who reportedly ''may have connections inside Kuwait,'' and who continue to advance their plots. That particular plot has just been foiled, all hail be to George W. Bush's anti-terrorism measures, and the international processes now in place for that. Or, the ring is closing around Saddam and it has become clear that he will soon be caught, and he ordered that the weapons be moved from country to avoid their ''discovery'' in a new Iraqi democracy, from which we can believe that the establishment of an Iraqi democracy and the eminent capture of Saddam are not only necessary and justified, but also for the greater good. Hail George W. Bush's willingness to make a decision, and to take action when many in the world doubted the necessity of removing Saddam.

The fact is, Saddam was a terrorist. He was a terrorist with legitimization, because he had positioned himself as the leader of a nation. In doing so, he killed many of his own people. No one is out there saying he's a hero, but many people don't seem to recognize his threat. Hitler was the same, Stalin another--men who reigned by terror, killed whimsically, and who the world would, in fact, have been better off without. How many times have we looked back at the world and thought, what would have happened if Hitler was killed in his youth? How many people could we have back? We will never know how many lives were saved by the actions taken on the day our forces entered Iraq? We can be thankful we'll never know. George W. Bush, you saved lives, limited a threat, and took action when that is what was needed. You are exactly what America needed, and what we want in a president. Keep up the good work.

And of course, after the FBI is through, we could create a monument to decisiveness and leadership, the George W. Bush Monument, and display the weapons that we've come up with. You know, give Jacques Chirac something new to tour on his next visit, with his wife, the one that keeps saying how much she hopes Hillary Clinton becomes president.

http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/c...y.asp?aid=4498

[Optimist Prime]

Interesting (at least to me) point.

So what if Iraq had WMD? Israel has them. So does Cananda. So do we. If Iraq is wrong and support throwing out Saddam, because he's a mean dictator, then why not do the same thing in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That's totally hypocritcal. We can at least act like Ladies and Gentleman, and agree to play by the same set of rules, and not change them like whiney little kids when the game starts to not go our way.

Also, on a side note, Bush fell off a scooter the other day. I have no confidence in him at all anymore. This is worse than that pretzel thing.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
Interesting (at least to me) point.

So what if Iraq had WMD? Israel has them. So does Cananda. So do we. If Iraq is wrong and support throwing out Saddam, because he's a mean dictator, then why not do the same thing in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That's totally hypocritcal. We can at least act like Ladies and Gentleman, and agree to play by the same set of rules, and not change them like whiney little kids when the game starts to not go our way.

Also, on a side note, Bush fell off a scooter the other day. I have no confidence in him at all anymore. This is worse than that pretzel thing.

Well.. I don't see Israel giving WMD's to groups like Al Qaeda that want to use them on US civilian targets. I believe the Government had reason to believe that Saddamm would.

[MereMere21]

I thought Bush said there was no known link between Saddam and Bin Laden?

Back to Kitso's question though - I'm taking this latest report as a verification Saddam did have WMD, but to be honest, my biggest problem with Bush's presidency is that he is putting other country's needs above the United States. We still have millions in poverty, we still have one of the highest unemployment rates in history, our roads are falling apart, people are still starving, and our budget defecit worsens by the day. Bush is building a highway in Afghanistan, and re-building Iraq.

also, does anyone know why isn't there more news coverage about this? All I've heard the past two days has been about the California recall. You would think this would be front page stuff.

On another note - I did hear that Turkey would be sending peace-keeping troops to Iraq.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by MereMere21
I thought Bush said there was no known link between Saddam and Bin Laden?

also, does anyone knowwhy isn't there more news coverage about this? All I've heard the past two days has been about the California recall. You would think this would be front page stuff.

You bring up an interesting question about the lack of media coverage on this story. Perhaps it does not fit their agenda. U.S. Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay was interviewed recently and said that most media outlets are not presenting the whole story. Who knows why...

[damasa]

Originally posted by bethany1982
Good thread AggieSigmaNu361, but Iraq could have attacked U.S. territory and some would still hate Bush.

Horrible analogy because it never happened and as of right now "the threat" of it to take place was never really there. Now if these "so-called WMDs" are real and we find out they did come from Iraq it could be a little different.

It's also very hard to judge what people would feel if we were attacked like that.


Take 9/11 for example, I think that most, if not all of America backed Bush. I say this because our country was attacked an 1,000s of people died. IT had nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. It had nothing to do with a Democratic president or a Republican president. It had only to do with America and how the people came together to grieve and support eachother during such a terrible time.

In any event, that's what this great country is about - not having to agree with a president for any reason, you can like him for the sake of not even liking him if you so desire.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by damasa
Horrible analogy because it never happened and as of right now "the threat" of it to take place was never really there. Now if these "so-called WMDs" are real and we find out they did come from Iraq it could be a little different.

It's also very hard to judge what people would feel if we were attacked like that.


Take 9/11 for example, I think that most, if not all of America backed Bush. I say this because our country was attacked an 1,000s of people died. IT had nothing to do with the Democrats or Republicans. It had nothing to do with a Democratic president or a Republican president. It had only to do with America and how the people came together to grieve and support eachother during such a terrible time.

In any event, that's what this great country is about - not having to agree with a president for any reason, you can like him for the sake of not even liking him if you so desire.

The key word here is "SOME." No matter what this President does, some will always hate him. The analogy is fine, and your opinion is respected.

[damasa]

Originally posted by bethany1982
The key word here is "SOME." No matter what this President does, some will always hate him. The analogy is fine, and your opinion is respected.

Like I said, it's a bad analogy because it didn't happen. And if it did happen **EDITED** we wouldn't know the extent of a future attack on our country as of right now, therefore we wouldn't be able to measure the support our country would hold for the president at that certain time in the future.

There is no key word in my post

This is no argument and I respect your opinion also.

[bethany1982]

Originally posted by damasa
Like I said, it's a bad analogy because it didn't happen. And if it did happen we wouldnt know the extent of the attack therefore we wouldn't be able to measure the kind of support our country would hold for the president at the time.

There is no key word in my post

This is no argument and I respect your opinion also.

LOL...