itwill@happen.com wrote:

WH wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

But of course the Loony Liberals will insists that it just couldn't be
so.
Tony

Don't know about bunkers but there were plenty of de-bunkers.
They're the ones who have searched high and low, inspectors, including
your own yankie ones after the illegal invasion, and found absolute
zero. Zilch...not a fuckin' sossige! <=that's sausage in English in
case you didn't know!

Really? Hmmm, they just found this huge bunker measuring a few acres
underground, it took them over 2 years to do so. Anyone with a brain
should realise that it is them possibe that there are many more such
bunkers out there, maybe even some containing WMD.

If Bush knew where they were like he'd claimed, we'd have found them by
now.

itwill@happen.com wrote:

TM wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

Of course it's possible!

For sure there is a high possibility that there are more bunkers to be
found in Iraq, but the possibility of finding hidden WMD, I'm afraid is
remote!

Remote as it may be, all the Liberals who think that ever inch of Iraq
has been searched have once again been proven to be clueless.

Of course, that's a smokescreen, since the claims of Duhbya and crew
were that they knew exactly where the supposed WMDs were located ....

Every day new weapons caches are being found, more bunkers are being
found, even a couple of large sophisticated ones like this in the past
few months.

Um .... actually, it's coming out that what's really happening is that
more and more weapons caches are being looted under American noses.

That's a much bigger threat than having some self-absorbed meglomaniac
like Saddam sitting on them.

Of course, Bush was told that invading
Iraq would lead to weapons finding their way into the hands of
terrorists, and there are those of us here who have posted on it - but I
guess you deliberately ignore that, because then it would mean that your
hero, and you, were wrong, wrong, wrong.

People with brains understand there are likely many more out there,
some of which may yet be found to contain WMD.

Possibly, but it's quite obvious that Bush didn't know where they were
like he claimed.

But as Woods indicated, Liberals don't care, they only want to
continue to hate the President, this nation and it's military.

As usual, you are misrepresenting things,
Woods

Tony,
There are no aVVMD in Iraq

itwill@happen.com wrote:

Woods wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

But of course the Loony Liberals will insists that it just couldn't be
so.
Tony

Not at all.
Woods

First of all I'm gald to see that at least you know that you are a
Loony Liberal, secondly, do you think it is possible that there are
many more such bunkers out there?

Steven Douglas wrote:

Woodswun wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

But of course the Loony Liberals will insists that it just couldn't be
so.
Tony

Not at all. Indeed, I was very surprised that there were NO WMDs at all.

What you are failing to grasp, however, is that they were clearly never
the imminent threat that Bush claimed,

That's not what he claimed -- he said we must not wait until they
become an imminent threat.

so even if some are found at this late date, your hero still
stands a born, baldfaced liar.

From BBC:

Wednesday, 14 July, 2004
Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against
Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence
provided.

[excerpt] The former president told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that
before the war everyone had thought that Iraq still had chemical and
biological weapons stockpiles.
He said that while containment of Iraq was working the situation
regarding Saddam Hussein was different after the 11 September attacks.

"The issue was not whether he would use [weapons of mass destruction]
but whether he was likely to give them away or have them stolen," he
said. "That's why the world supported inspections."

UK intelligence presented more compelling reasons for action than US
intelligence, he said.

"The British intelligence, whatever Lord Butler says about it, was
clearly even more forward-leading than the American intelligence in
believing that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials, in believing
that Saddam had some kind of relationship with al-Qaeda," he said. [end
excerpt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3893501.stm

What exactly then was the whole point of packing up Hans Blix and Co.
and sending them off to Iraq for a brief 3 months?

Bush gave a great speech to the U.N. in Nov '02 to force Iraq to admit
U.N. weapons inspectors back into the country. Right after that the 'war
rhetoric' started to flow from Dubya.

Steven Douglas wrote:

Woodswun wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

But of course the Loony Liberals will insists that it just couldn't be
so.
Tony

Not at all. Indeed, I was very surprised that there were NO WMDs at all.

What you are failing to grasp, however, is that they were clearly never
the imminent threat that Bush claimed,

That's not what he claimed -- he said we must not wait until they
become an imminent threat.

No, he didn't say that, he let Britain say it for him, but he did craft
he words to indicate that even though he didn't use that exact phrase.

so even if some are found at this late date, your hero still
stands a born, baldfaced liar.

From BBC:

Wednesday, 14 July, 2004
Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against
Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence
provided.

[excerpt] The former president told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that
before the war everyone had thought that Iraq still had chemical and
biological weapons stockpiles.
He said that while containment of Iraq was working the situation
regarding Saddam Hussein was different after the 11 September attacks.

"The issue was not whether he would use [weapons of mass destruction]
but whether he was likely to give them away or have them stolen," he
said. "That's why the world supported inspections."

Um ... yeah, we all supported inspections to keep Saddam hamstrung.

UK intelligence presented more compelling reasons for action than US
intelligence, he said.

"The British intelligence, whatever Lord Butler says about it, was
clearly even more forward-leading than the American intelligence in
believing that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials, in believing
that Saddam had some kind of relationship with al-Qaeda," he said. [end
excerpt]

Yup, that's what they said in public. We now know that the information
was cherry-picked. Why on earth would Clinton bother to go out on a
limb to publicly point that out at this late date? As has been pointed
out, Clinton is an excellent statesman (in comparison to Bush, anyway).
No point in correcting someone in public when you've no choice but to
move forward.
Woods

Steven Douglas wrote:

Woodswun wrote:

tonyz2001@aol.com wrote:

Anyone with a brain should be able to figure out that if this huge
underground bunker too over 2 years to find, then it is quite possible
that there are many more such bunkers all over Iraq, possibly with
WMD hidden in them.

But of course the Loony Liberals will insists that it just couldn't be
so.
Tony

Not at all. Indeed, I was very surprised that there were NO WMDs at all.

What you are failing to grasp, however, is that they were clearly never
the imminent threat that Bush claimed,

That's not what he claimed -- he said we must not wait until they
become an imminent threat.

No, he didn't say that, he let Britain say it for him,

but he did craft he words to indicate that even though he didn't
use that exact phrase.

so even if some are found at this late date, your hero still
stands a born, baldfaced liar.

From BBC:

Wednesday, 14 July, 2004
Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against
Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence
provided.

[excerpt] The former president told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that
before the war everyone had thought that Iraq still had chemical and
biological weapons stockpiles.
He said that while containment of Iraq was working the situation
regarding Saddam Hussein was different after the 11 September attacks.

"The issue was not whether he would use [weapons of mass destruction]
but whether he was likely to give them away or have them stolen," he
said. "That's why the world supported inspections."

Um ... yeah, we all supported inspections to keep Saddam hamstrung.

UK intelligence presented more compelling reasons for action than US
intelligence, he said.

"The British intelligence, whatever Lord Butler says about it, was
clearly even more forward-leading than the American intelligence in
believing that Saddam was trying to get nuclear materials, in believing
that Saddam had some kind of relationship with al-Qaeda," he said. [end
excerpt]

Yup, that's what they said in public. We now know that the information
was cherry-picked. Why on earth would Clinton bother to go out on a
limb to publicly point that out at this late date?

As has been pointed out, Clinton is an excellent statesman
(in comparison to Bush, anyway).
No point in correcting someone in public when you've no choice but to
move forward.