Guantanamo: the American Gulag

[STING2]

You are ridiculing yourself because we didn´t even mention the fucking resolutions, authorizations, who had to be removed and why and so on.

We are simply talking about the fact that the Bush and Blair administration lied. Do you have the ability to see that this is another issue. Or do I have to explain it to you like to a 5 y.o.

We ALL watched TV and we saw the pictures Rumsfeld showed us, some satellite photos with wishy washy trucks that were moving around. Apart from that, he could´ve painted them himself.

Please understand we are not discussing about the reasons and if they were right or not. The simple fact is that it was said there are huge stockpiles of WMDs, its a threat to all the world, we have to go and find´em. There WEREN´T any. So that´s why those BASTARDS were intentionally lying. This is not a particular viewpoint. That´s just plain fact. NOBODY bought it when they were BLAMING the intelligence for that (again, Bastards).

STING2, on a personal note I can´t believe you are too stupid to understand that. I think you want to turn the attention away from the fact that some of your favorite politicians were OPENLY BETRAYING the free and democratic world they "intend to spread".

Stop talking like Nixon. Your posts sound like one of his half-hearted dementis.

1. SADDAM's regime has still not Verifiably disarmed of all WMD. There are still thousands of stocks of WMD that are unaccounted for. That is a FACT that no one can dispute. There are many theory's as to what may have happened to the unaccounted for stockpiles, but that is all they are, theory's! Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of ALL WMD! Can you name one resolution that SADDAM complied with according to the United Nations? The UN inspectors in November of 1998 listed a large number of problems and failings by Saddam as far as verifiably disarming of all WMD. Saddam did NOTHING in the years since November 1998 to reverse the failures in disarmament listed by that UN inspectors report!


2. For someone to have lied, they must say something that they factually know to be false. No one in the administration has ever done that. Rumsfeld, as supporting evidence for the central case for war which was Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm, listed some intelligence that they had on Saddam's current WMD arsonal. Much of this intelligence was later proven to be wrong as often happens with intelligence on such matters that are difficult to probe. BUT, that did not change the fact, and the central case for war, that SADDAM failed to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and was in violation of 17 different UN resolutions past under chapter VII rules of the United Nations!

3. The AMERICAN PEOPLE have looked at all of this and decided to re-elect Bush because they supported the war and the central case made for it, despite the fact that various pieces of intelligence, used to support the central case for war, turned out to be inaccurate.


4. Read the "FAQ/RULES" of this forum and see what it says about refering to people as 5 y.o. , stupid, or saying their posts sound like Nixon's "half-hearted dementis"

 

[STING2]

Didn't Tony Blair have to go on national tv and apologise because he lied and said the resolutions gave them legal backing to invade Iraq, when his advise all along was that they didn't?

STING, do you really think the average Joe in Middle America supported the Iraq war because of UN resolutions, or because the Bush Administration did a great job of scaring the bejesus out of tens of millions people who probably can't even locate Iraq on a map?

The Average Joe in Middle America did support what was embodied in the UN resolutions which was that Saddam should not have thousands of stocks of Anthrax, Mustard Gas, Nerve Gas, Biological weapons or the capability to produce them just to name a few things. Few would say that it would be ok to take Saddam's at his word that he had disarmed of such things and most realized the need for VERIFIABLE DISARMAMENT. In fact, many would go further and say he should have just been removed in 1991.

 

[STING2]

Would the American people have supported going to war over broken resolutions and removal of Saddam without the US spoken threat that he had the capability to injure us and without the implied promise that this would be a piece of cake?

Maybe we would have, I don't know. Were we led by implication that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Were we so disappointed by our inability to get Osama that we were ready to kick some serious butt in a place we were pretty sure we could prevail?

Many Americans were disappointed when Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in 1991. These are not just "broken resolutions". What is embodied in them is very important. Americans were willing in 1991 to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait as well as require Saddam to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action. Saddam continued in power longer than anyone thought back then and the inspections failed in their goal of 100% verifiable disarmament of all WMD. The threat to the planets economy let alone the American economy with Saddam in power, with WMD, sitting along side the planets main energy reserves is an intolerable threat that most Americans understood.

No one promised it would be a "piece of Cake". Liberals falsly accused Republicans of implying that Saddam was responsible for 9/11. What the United States military has done in Afghanistan is amazing. The American people have not been disapointed by the success there and although Bin Ladin's status is unknown, most people understand that Al Quada is much bigger than simply one man.

 

[STING2]

No, Dubya, "disassemble" means to take apart.

"Dissemble" means to lie or to conceal the truth, yes.

But then again, those of us who had better than C averages in college already knew that.

I think a lot of us would be surprised how many similar mistakes we would make if we were always on camera all the time. Bush's father was NOT a C student but made many of the same mistakes when speaking.

 

[hiphop]

STING2:

1. But soldiers apperently haven´t found those huge piles of WMD. One thinks that by now the coalition troops must have searched all of Saddam´s palaces. There is enough technology to trace nuclear material.

2.
a. No, it is also a lie if you say "I am sure of something" "I guarantee you..." when you are not sure and can´t guarantee nothing at all.
b. Political leaders have to trust their intelligence reports when they are trying to manipulate public opinion.
c. Another lie is to make intelligence responsible for wrong informations. It is obvious those reports were constructed. if I would be an intelligence agent, I would be disgusted with that administration trying to blame the agency after the manipulations are uncovered. If I was an American citizen, such an administration would hurt my patriotic feelings.

3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.

4. In case you haven´t realized it, several people are worried about your mental state, and only for one reason. Generally you´re a nice guy and everyone likes you (that said so the truth doesn´t kick in too hard), but you always repeated the same lines like a robot for the last three years. Do not take this offensive (you will, but I am asking you not to), but allow me the question why you engage in that weird repetition of "verifiably disarming" and "UN resolutions"? Did someone brainwash you, or is it your personal mantra you meditate with (I could accept this, even if that would be a weird mantra, but maybe it just makes you feel good), or are you kinda unbalanced mentally?

 

[STING2]

Support for Iraq war down to 41%, according to a USA Today poll taken less than a month ago.

EDITED TO CLARIFY: Poll had a margin of error at plus or minus 5 points. Respondents were asked if the war was "worth it" or not.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20050504/1a_bottomstrip04.art.htm

A presidential election where 100 MILLION people voted is a far better guage of what America thinks than a random poll of a thousand people. A poll who's numbers change on a monthly basis.

 

[phanan]

What the United States military has done in Afghanistan is amazing. The American people have not been disapointed by the success there and although Bin Ladin's status is unknown, most people understand that Al Quada is much bigger than simply one man.

We discussed this in another thread before, and while most people know that Al Quaida is more than one man, the significance of not capturing or killing Osama bin Laden cannot be denied.

And I very much disagree with your assertion that the American people have not been disappointed by what has happened so far in Afghanistan. It is not considered a success at this point, and I don't think one can say it is until bin Laden is gone.

 

[pax]

And a poll whose numbers have been slipping steadily for, what, two years?

 

[hiphop]

pax, you got mail

 

[phanan]

A presidential election where 100 MILLION people voted is a far better guage of what America thinks than a random poll of a thousand people. A poll who's numbers change on a monthly basis.

Unfortunately, in a two-party system, sometimes the weaknesses of an opponent are more of a reason to vote for the other person.

And people seem to forget what happened in 2000, when the majority of people did not vote for Bush. When one goes down in history as one of the only presidents not to win the popular vote, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

[phanan]

Many Americans were disappointed when Bush Sr. did not remove Saddam in 1991.

Now this we all can agree on.

 

[STING2]

STING2:

1. But soldiers apperently haven´t found those huge piles of WMD. One thinks that by now the coalition troops must have searched all of Saddam´s palaces. There is enough technology to trace nuclear material.

2.
a. No, it is also a lie if you say "I am sure of something" "I guarantee you..." when you are not sure and can´t guarantee nothing at all.
b. Political leaders have to trust their intelligence reports when they are trying to manipulate public opinion.
c. Another lie is to make intelligence responsible for wrong informations. It is obvious those reports were constructed. if I would be an intelligence agent, I would be disgusted with that administration trying to blame the agency after the manipulations are uncovered. If I was an American citizen, such an administration would hurt my patriotic feelings.

3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.

4. In case you haven´t realized it, several people are worried about your mental state, and only for one reason. Generally you´re a nice guy and everyone likes you (that said so the truth doesn´t kick in too hard), but you always repeated the same lines like a robot for the last three years. Do not take this offensive (you will, but I am asking you not to), but allow me the question why you engage in that weird repetition of "verifiably disarming" and "UN resolutions"? Did someone brainwash you, or is it your personal mantra you meditate with (I could accept this, even if that would be a weird mantra, but maybe it just makes you feel good), or are you kinda unbalanced mentally?

1. The case for war was never conditioned on what would be found afterwards. It was based on Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm. It would be rather easy for Saddam to bury such materials hundreds of feet underground in the middle of Iraq some where so that no one would find the materials for thousands of years if ever.

2. a. It is not a lie to say "I am sure of something" based on the best intelligence we had as well as the intelligence of other organizations. The President was sure based #1 on the fact that SADDAM failed to verifiably disarm and #2 we had intelligence that showed he had WMD. Again, NO one lied!

b. The Bush administration was trying to defend the United States and the planet by removing Saddam. They made the best case they could for that action because they felt Saddam was an intolerable threat. The intelligence was not the central case for the war, but a supporting case. UN resolution 1441 lays out the administrations central case for war.

c. The intelligence information was the best we had at the time, but once again it was not the #1 case for war. The #1 case for war was the FACT that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of over 1,000 liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, hundreds of pounds of Sarin gas, and over 20,000 bio/chem capable artillery shells as well as other violations of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.

The intelligence community did the best it could on a matter that is very difficult to investigate. The administration used the intelligence information that the community had. That is not a lie.


3. Great, another conspiracy theory. Bush won and most people did not vote through a computer including myself. I understand that many Europeans having difficulty understanding and accepting the fact that the American people re-elected Bush, but they did and not conspiracy dreaming is going to change that.

4. Great, your now telling me that I'm mentally insane for stating my informed opinion on a particular point! You refer to me as being stupid and a 5 y.o..



Do you understand the RULES you agreed to when you became a member of this forum? Are the MODS reading this?

 

[STING2]

We discussed this in another thread before, and while most people know that Al Quaida is more than one man, the significance of not capturing or killing Osama bin Laden cannot be denied.

And I very much disagree with your assertion that the American people have not been disappointed by what has happened so far in Afghanistan. It is not considered a success at this point, and I don't think one can say it is until bin Laden is gone.

Afghanistan has been huge success by almost any measure. The United States has removed the Taliban/Al Quada government from power and installed a democracy in Afghanistan in just 3 years. If one understands the history of Afghanistan, one understands just how successful this operation has been. Afganistan has never had a democratically elected government in its 5,000 year history. The United States has succeeding in accomplishing this great goal with a very small number of cuasualites. So far less than 100 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan by hostile fire. Compare that to the Soviet Occupation at this point in the 1980s when the Soviets had suffered over 6,000 killled by hostile fire and not succeeded in their goals.

The American people indeed agreed and re-elected President Bush.

 

[phanan]

3. The last elections were regulated by a computer system. You are happy your President got so many votes, that´s fine. But I talked to a computer technician and he told me it´s easier than ever to manipulate an election. Just enter your favorite number on the screen. So, it is highly questionable that the American people re-elected Bush.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't care for President Bush, and I did not vote for him either time, but this statement is very much incorrect.

The computer system has been implemented in parts of the country, but most places still vote the old fashioned way - with a paper ballot. I have never voted on a computer.

As for the 2004 election itself, Bush won. It wasn't even as close. It's certainly not what I wanted, but that's what happened. There is no conspiracy.

 

[STING2]

Unfortunately, in a two-party system, sometimes the weaknesses of an opponent are more of a reason to vote for the other person.

And people seem to forget what happened in 2000, when the majority of people did not vote for Bush. When one goes down in history as one of the only presidents not to win the popular vote, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Bush's re-election after 4 years in office washes the 2000 election a way except for hardcore liberals.

Lets remember that the Majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton in 1996 or in 1992!

 

[Angela Harlem]

From what I can tell, it seems a few things are very factual.
-Saddam failed to verifiably disarm, as according to the resolutions set by the UN
-The UN though, then never actually said "OK, US, go ahead, he has breached them, we support you"
-The US went in, with the belief that the WMD would be found, but, for whatever reason, they were not.
-No one knows where the WMD are. Surely it would not be easy to hide either them or the remains. I know we are talking about a fair geographical region, but if they existed, they or the remnant would have to be somewhere, right?

So this leads us to the unknowns.
-Was the information the US had, on the existance of the WMD false or incomplete? Please lets avoid yet another argument on whether the US knew this or not.
-Has sheer bad luck prevented the weapons which Saddam never proved he got rid of, prevented them being found? Or did they never actually exist?

 

[phanan]

Afghanistan has been huge success by almost any measure. The United States has removed the Taliban/Al Quada government from power and installed a democracy in Afghanistan in just 3 years. If one understands the history of Afghanistan, one understands just how successful this operation has been. Afganistan has never had a democratically elected government in its 5,000 year history. The United States has succeeding in accomplishing this great goal with a very small number of cuasualites. So far less than 100 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan by hostile fire. Compare that to the Soviet Occupation at this point in the 1980s when the Soviets had suffered over 6,000 killled by hostile fire and not succeeded in their goals.

The American people indeed agreed and re-elected President Bush.

Yet the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was because they were harboring terrorists and would not cooperate. Let's say the Taliban had cooperated fully with the U.S. (I know it never would have happened, but let's just hypothesize) - the Taliban would still be running the country. Our main goal was Al Quaida - the Taliban only became a focus when it became very much apparent that they would not help us. So while the accomplishments of setting up a democratic country are commendable, we have failed so far in our primary objective for going there in the first place.

 

[phanan]

Bush's re-election after 4 years in office washes the 2000 election a way except for hardcore liberals.

Lets remember that the Majority of Americans did not vote for Clinton in 1996 or in 1992!

History does not wash away.

And yes, Clinton was a minority president. No argument there. But that is a bit different from a president who didn't even win the popular vote.

 

[hiphop]

1 and 2. I was not talking about the case for war, but about the lies. I will not reply to some of your misconceptions like "the Bush admin,. trying to defend .. the whole world". We were having the discussion about what an attack means compared to defense about two years ago, and obviously you still don´t get the point and I haven´t changed opinion. I recommend encyclopedias like the Oxford English one instead, where you will find definitions.

Needless to say the rest of the world, except of the coalition countries, did not see that kind of defense and did not feel threatened by Iraq at all.

Also, either you can be sure of something and guarantee it, or you can not. They said they were sure and guaranteed. Up to today there were no WMDs found. Those people in the administration have to take the responsibilities of what they were so sure of. To blame the intelligence later on is just chicken hearted. I can only wonder how you, coming from a military family, fail to see that total absence of guts and integrity.

4. I knew you´d take it personal. What a pity.

 

[trevster2k]

I have to back up whenhiphop here, Sting. I have seen you post that quote about verifiably disarming stuff so many times it should be your signature.

But you seem to be well-informed about your opinion which I disagree with almost 100% of the time.

But we need debate, not blind conformity in our society so keep it up except for the resolutions thing, we got the point.

 

[STING2]

From what I can tell, it seems a few things are very factual.
-Saddam failed to verifiably disarm, as according to the resolutions set by the UN
-The UN though, then never actually said "OK, US, go ahead, he has breached them, we support you"
-The US went in, with the belief that the WMD would be found, but, for whatever reason, they were not.
-No one knows where the WMD are. Surely it would not be easy to hide either them or the remains. I know we are talking about a fair geographical region, but if they existed, they or the remnant would have to be somewhere, right?

So this leads us to the unknowns.
-Was the information the US had, on the existance of the WMD false or incomplete? Please lets avoid yet another argument on whether the US knew this or not.
-Has sheer bad luck prevented the weapons which Saddam never proved he got rid of, prevented them being found? Or did they never actually exist?

In resolution 1441, authorization is given to use military force if Saddam failed to comply. The UN never explicitly said in 1991 for the coalition to remove Saddam from Kuwait with military force, yet everyone recoganizes that is what was meant. The United States authored resolution 1441 and it does authorize military force if Saddam failed his one last chance to comply which he did shortly after UN inspectors landed and he failed to roll out or show where his unaccounted for stockpiles were.

In addition the United Nations has passed 3 UN resolutions since the invasion of Iraq approving the occupation. That would be impossible if the UN felt the invasion that resulted in the occupation was illegal. I don't recall anyone in the UN trying to approve Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1991.

Also, it would have absurd to pass a resolution against someone like Saddam without the threat of military action if he failed to comply.



As far as the WMD and the remains go, most of it is very small in size with the exception of the artillery shells and it would be very easy to hide it anywhere so it could not be found.

It is a fact that Saddam had this WMD at some point, all the UN inspectors agree on that point. The only question is when did he dismantle them if in fact he did dismantle them and where are the remains or the intact materials.

Most of the information the USA had on Iraq's stockpiles came from the UN inspectors. Saddam could easily have hid the stockpiles so that no one would be able to find them. The alternative explanation is that Saddam dismantled the WMD without showing the UN inspectors and then neglected to record where they were dismantled. Hans Blix believes this theory.

It is simply impossible to find something that was either purposely(if as many believe Saddam was hiding his WMD) or randomly(if one believes Saddam would dismantle his own WMD without telling the UN and neglect to keep records on the dismantlement) buried several hundred feet underground in a country the size of Iraq. One cannot dig up every square foot of the entire country in order to find the WMD or the remains.

 

[STING2]

Yet the only reason we invaded Afghanistan was because they were harboring terrorists and would not cooperate. Let's say the Taliban had cooperated fully with the U.S. (I know it never would have happened, but let's just hypothesize) - the Taliban would still be running the country. Our main goal was Al Quaida - the Taliban only became a focus when it became very much apparent that they would not help us. So while the accomplishments of setting up a democratic country are commendable, we have failed so far in our primary objective for going there in the first place.

The Primary objective in invading Afghanistan was the dismantlement of the large Al Quada base in Afghanistan. The United States military has been successful in that task. In order to prevent Al Quada or the Taliban from regaining a base in Afghanistan, the development of a stable democratic government is an important component in preventing their return.

 

[Dreadsox]

Do you understand the RULES you agreed to when you became a member of this forum? Are the MODS reading this?

In general....I support and understand the decisions of the MOD team....I am wondering the same thing here.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.

 

[Dreadsox]

Can you get a little more concrete. I have the weird shadowy feeling you are finger pointing at me, but I am not sure. Could you please confirm.

The sentence is kind of.. unfinished, btw. If... then what?

pax, I don´t understand why you closed the thread started by me. Can you explain?

The current FYM mentality reminds me of a smeary eye-for-an-eye campaign. Shame on those who follow that mentality.

Dreadsox, I am waiting for your reply.

Shame on those who have to continuously ruin memorial threads.

If you fit the bill so be it.

 

[phanan]

The Primary objective in invading Afghanistan was the dismantlement of the large Al Quada base in Afghanistan. The United States military has been successful in that task. In order to prevent Al Quada or the Taliban from regaining a base in Afghanistan, the development of a stable democratic government is an important component in preventing their return.

Sting2, I admire your passion and knowledge for these types of things. Seriously, I do.

But nobody, not even you, will ever convince me that the war in Afghanistan has been a success when Al Quaida still thrives there along the Pakistan border, and when Osama bin Laden is still out there.

I am very proud of the United States military and special forces. I am NOT very proud of how our leaders have handled the situation. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise that we couldn't have captured bin Laden by now, despite the location and the ruggedness of the terrain.

 

[Dreadsox]

STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.

9/11 changed that...

People in this thread are quoting the US and British intelligence agencies as lying.

The French and German intelligence agencies also believed there were WMD. If my memory serves me correctlyu German intlelligence had him aquiring the bomb in 2006. Sting may have a better feel for this.

The other factor the Koffi (No scandals) Anon (SPELLING) would love us to forget is the NUMBER of nations on the security council willing to ignore the fact that resolutions were being viiolated because of the food for oil SCEME.

Now, my thinking....sorry, but the UN Security council is not who I elect to protect me. I elect the President, and unfortunately when the entire world believes there are WMD, and he has had a decade to comply.....time is UP. If they are there or not, I was not willing to take a chance that the UN was going to help protect my country.

 

[STING2]

1 and 2. I was not talking about the case for war, but about the lies. I will not reply to some of your misconceptions like "the Bush admin,. trying to defend .. the whole world". We were having the discussion about what an attack means compared to defense about two years ago, and obviously you still don´t get the point and I haven´t changed opinion. I recommend encyclopedias like the Oxford English one instead, where you will find definitions.

Needless to say the rest of the world, except of the coalition countries, did not see that kind of defense and did not feel threatened by Iraq at all.

Also, either you can be sure of something and guarantee it, or you can not. They said they were sure and guaranteed. Up to today there were no WMDs found. Those people in the administration have to take the responsibilities of what they were so sure of. To blame the intelligence later on is just chicken hearted. I can only wonder how you, coming from a military family, fail to see that total absence of guts and integrity.

4. I knew you´d take it personal. What a pity.

I understand why the United States and the coalition invaded Iraq and why the invasion was legal, a necessity for international security, and morally justified as well.

That you along with people in other countries do not understand that or agree with that is hardly surprising.

Based on the intelligence the administration had, they were sure that once US troops had taken Baghdad they would find the WMD in certain places. The intelligence turned out to be incorrect which often happens, but it was NOT the central case for war. The Central case for war was the resolutions and the verifiable disarmament of Saddam's WMD. The administration does take the responsiblitity for everything that happens and it made the best decision possible based Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm and the intelligence it had. The American people then approved this and re-elected the administration to another four years in office.



4. I'll ask this again, Have you read what the FAQ/RULES of this forum says about infering that someone is a 5 y.o., mentally insane, stupid, or any other similar comments?

Its a pity when any one suffers the consequences of failing to follow the clearly stated rules of the forum in regards to such matters.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I understand why the United States and the coalition invaded Iraq and why the invasion was legal, a necessity for international security, and morally justified as well.

That you along with people in other countries do not understand that or agree with that is hardly surprising.

I have always admired your steadfast dedication to this topic, but mainly because of the patience and tact you argue your points with. I have no doubt this thread has been reporte already and actions will be taken if they haven't already against the personal slights to you.

But without going into any personal attack, why do you state this, the quoted section? Do you think those opposing it are not seeing it, or do you feel they do not agree with the legal standpoint, the international security, and the moral justification?

 

[STING2]

STING, can you explain why only months before the 9/11 attacks, many members of the Bush Admin were telling everyone that Iraq was no threat, had no capability to do anything etc ?

I'd go and find the quotes but I'm at work and really should be doing something else I'm sure you know the ones I mean. Powell, Rice etc etc.

That is mistating what they said. It is true that so far at that point, US military forces in the region along with the sanctions and embargo had been enough up to that point to prevent Saddam from invading or attacking another country.

No one said that Iraq was not a threat. If that were the case, sanctions and the embargo would be lifted, and 20,000 US troops in the region would have been withdrawn.

In addition, no one claimed that SADDAM had complied with any of the resolutions. No one said Saddam did not have any WMD and that the disarmament process was no longer needed.

Its strange that people who often oppose the administration will use these quotes and then others who also oppose the administration will use other quotes to show that Bush from day 1 was interested in only one thing, invading Iraq.