🚀 go-pugleaf

>Subject: Re: John Kerry - Self Admitted War-Criminal...
>From: "rick etter" stop@stop.net 
>Date: 11/19/04 12:34 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <%Bfnd.29908$KJ6.27215@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>
>"V.Simkins" <nospamplease@sorrynoemail.com> wrote in message 
>news:_Gdnd.41402$Ho4.1554960@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> >
>>> > let's see..... the war was started under the accusation that Saddam had
>>> > WMDs, and was willing to use them against the U.S, right?
>>> ====================
>>> No.   Nice myth you've got going though...
>>
>> hmm... let's see... about Bush (and others) proclaiming that Saddam has
>> WMDs, and that they wanted to get rid of him for that reason, therefore
>> starting the war...........
>> ==========================
>He did.  Do you really belive that the people he had already used them on 
>died from the "lie" that he had them?   You really are that stupid too, 
>aren't you?  Besides, WMD wasn't given as THE reason to go to war.  That is 
>the myth, fool.   You really believe that Sadman didn't have WMD at any 
>time, and didn't want to have WMD in the future?   You truely are as 
>brainwashed as Ian St. Stupid here.
>
>So, to prove you stupidity you cite from sites that are in some cases highly 
>suspect, and they still do not say that WMD was THE reason for the war.

The original address of Shrub as copied from the PA GOP website before they
took it off. It was WMD and Saddams threat to use them.

Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio 

 

8:02 P.M. EDT 

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm
Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all
coming. 

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and
America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. 

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own
actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of
terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the
Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease
all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups.
The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has
given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own
people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
deception and bad faith. 

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September
the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather
on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to
confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and
suffering to America. 

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United
Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and
must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten
America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic
weapons. Since we all agree on this goal, the issues is : how can we best
achieve it? 

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the
threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link
between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These
are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And
tonight, I want to share those discussions with you. 

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also
have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat
from Iraq stands aloe -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age
in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous
tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This
same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally
occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds
an unrelenting hostility toward the United States. 

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the
merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons
inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the
nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is
addicted to weapons of mass destruction." 

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is
already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam
Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for
the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even
more dangerous weapons? 

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's
military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit
that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly
biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely
produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of
biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing
millions. 

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents,
including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has
experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran,
and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or
injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who
died in the attacks of September the 11th. 

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it
had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and
biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce
that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to
build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and
isolation from the civilized world. 

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles --
far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a
region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and
work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet
of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical
or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is
exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.
And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical
or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one
terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it. 

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to
international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to
terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than
90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people,
including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was
responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger.
And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to
groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace. 

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy --
the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had
high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled
Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who
received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated
with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has
trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we
know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully
celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. 

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon
to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could
allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints. 

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the
war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is
crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year
ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists
themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of
terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be
trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to
a terror network. 

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction are
different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both.
And the United States military is capable of confronting both. 

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear
weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem. Before the Gulf
War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to ten years away from
developing a nuclear weapon. After the war, international inspectors learned
that the regime has been much closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have
possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that
Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of
enriching uranium for a bomb. 

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency
dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three
uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi
nuclear engineer who had defected revealed that despite his public promises,
Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. 

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a
group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite
photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been
part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges,
which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. 

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly
enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a
nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible
line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail
anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the
Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein
would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists. 

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we
need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of
September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to
crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no
less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a
nuclear weapon. 

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against
us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the
smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President
Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the
world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive
threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a
world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a
sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." 

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of
the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an
urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring. 

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to
inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is
precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The U.N. inspections
program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms
and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next; they forged
documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep
a step ahead of inspectors. Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared
off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve
square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground,
where sensitive materials could be hidden. 

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use billions of
dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than
providing for the needs of the Iraqi people. 

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime
again denies they even exist. 

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people
-- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and
British pilots more than 750 times. 

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam
Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his
capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear
weapon. 

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or enforcement
mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an
effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging
the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate
requirements. Among those requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and
destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To
ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal
activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses must be
free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the reach of Saddam
Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have access to any site, at
any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions. 

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam
Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a
coalition to disarm him. 

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held
accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that
protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And that's why America is
challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council
seriously. 

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of
its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It
must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit
trade outside the Oil For Food program. It must release or account for all Gulf
War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown. 

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an
opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also change the nature
of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice.
Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. And that's
why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that
regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to
our nation. 

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict
could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel
and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals
would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must
understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished. If we have to
act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we
will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with
allies at our side, and we will prevail. (Applause.) 

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait
-- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because
the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We
could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop
a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I'm convinced that is a hope
against all evidence. As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for
peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims
of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American
life on trusting Saddam Hussein. 

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to new
weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature of world
events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove
irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United
States would resign itself to a future of fear. 

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to
live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in Cold War, has never
permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course. Now, as before, we
will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of
their own. 

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and
make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world
security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens would improve
dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of
Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. The dictator of Iraq is a
student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control, within his own
cabinet, within his own army, and even within his own family. 

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers
of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of
intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own
children being tortured. 

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the
non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to
slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and
torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed
only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are
met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children.
The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be
lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.


Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of
oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity
of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies
will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions
of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors. 

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have
asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves
necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution
does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution
will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one
voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean
something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq:
that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time
remaining for that choice is limited. 

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they will fully
consider the facts, and their duties. 

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer
protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al
Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are
far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly.
Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our
responsibilities. 

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other
generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human
liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength
to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. And by our actions, we
will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day. 

May God bless America. (Applause.) 

END 8:31 P.M. EDT 

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
>>
>> http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam/
>>
>> http://lunaville.org/WMD/billmon.aspx
>>
>> http://www.jrwhipple.com/war/wmd.html
>>
>> Need to see more?
>>
>> Now about the "big Lie, concerning WMDs."
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
>>
>> http://www.sundayherald.com/33628
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720/
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1321538,00.html
>>
>> http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0123-12.htm
>>
>> Now rick, you should ask yourself, since the evidence is right in front of
>> you, "fool"...... if the Bush administration, among others "lied" about
>> this...... could it be, ever so slightly POSSIBLE, that he lied about 
>> Saddam
>> himself? think for a few moments......... look at all the links i 
>> posted....
>> and tell me that everything  i posted was pure fiction. I Dare you to. no, 
>> i
>> pity your ignorance, and your inability to see what is right in front of
>> you. But i guess that's what you get, when you have blind faith in an 
>> idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "rick etter" <stop@stop.net> wrote in message
>> news:T34nd.2150$Tq6.818@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>> "V.Simkins" <nospamplease@sorrynoemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hK1nd.28502$Ho4.1375845@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> > rick said:
>>> >> Again, there is no illegal war, fool.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > let's see..... the war was started under the accusation that Saddam had
>>> > WMDs, and was willing to use them against the U.S, right?
>>> ====================
>>> No.   Nice myth you've got going though...
>>>
>>>
>>> there were no
>>> > WMD's found, right? doesn't that remove the justification? what's to
>> stop
>>> > you from thinking that the current reason for invasion of Iraq is also,
>> in
>>> > a
>>> > way, a big lie? the mass graves in iraq have already been confirmed to
>> be
>>> > false (at this point i have higher respect for Blair than Bush,
>> regardless
>>> > of how "bad" Blair is, and what his part was in the war)... so what's
>>> > stopping you from thinking otherwise?
>>> ==========================
>>> Since you have nothing, try again.   Like Yugo, Iraq was in violation of
>> at
>>> least a dozen UN resolutions.  resolutions that were not being enforced 
>>> by
>>> the UN.  So the US and much of the rest of the world took action on their
>>> own.   Too bad for you that it's the same as Yugo.  Let's look at the UN
>>> protection of people provided in Yugo.
>>> UNPROFOR was deployed into the city of Gorazde to protect the Muslim
>>> citizens there from Serbian military action. However, UNPROFOR did not
>>> intervene in 1995 when the Bosnian Serbs set up their artillery around 
>>> the
>>> city and began shelling it indiscriminately.
>>> The UN also failed to prevent Bosnian Serb troops from capturing the safe
>>> area set up in the city of Srebrenca, which resulted in a massacre.  The
>> UN
>>> Resolution 819 and 836 had designated Srebrenca "safe area" to be
>> protected
>>> using "all necessary means, including the use of force
>>>
>>> The UN is, and will remain just as ineffective as it was in Yugo as long
>> as
>>> it if rife with continued greed and coruption that goes all the way to 
>>> the
>>> top.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > plus, there are other people besides Ian here that believe this war is
>>> > illegal...... here's the proof:
>>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "rick etter" <stop@stop.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:eaWmd.1894$Tq6.1616@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> >>
>>> >> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote in message
>>> >> news:NsVmd.28353$Ho4.1310370@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>> >> > Mark Hickey wrote:
>>> >> >> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.usa> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> You have yet to show any perspective that wouldn't be more
>>> >> >>> appropriate to a colonoscopy.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Try to get a clue. You are almost up for the dumb troll of the 
>>> >> >>> year
>>> >> >>> award.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Isn't it cute the way "Ian" flounders when he doesn't have a point?
>>> >> >> Nice of him to point out that he's given up on his argument though,
>>> >> >> huh?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > No. Just given up on telling the truth to a bunch of yahoos. Despite
>>> >> > all
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > posts, you still haven't gotten the point that the U.N. had 
>>> >> > sanctions
>>> >> > on
>>> >> > Yugoslavia and in order prevent further actions, Yugoslavia 
>>> >> > *invited*
>>> > NATO
>>> >> > forces under a U.N. mandate to enter to help keep the peace in
>> Bosnia.
>>> > It
>>> >> > had nothing to do with the U.S. other than their contribution to the
>>> > U.N.
>>> >> > forces requested.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The comparison to the illegal invasion of Iraq, neither under U.N.
>>> >> > auspices
>>> >> > nor with any valid justification under international law is just too
>>> >> > too
>>> >> > dim.
>>> >> ==================
>>> >> Again, there is no illegal war, fool.
>>> >>
>>> >> besides, there were just as many or more UN resolutions on iraq as
>>> >> Yogoslavia.   And, just as in Yugo, the UN wasn't enforcing their
>>> >> resolutions and action without the UN had to be taken...   Too bad you
>>> > don't
>>> >> know recent history any better than history from 60 years ago.   Keep
>> up
>>> > the
>>> >> good work on displaying your ignorance, fool...
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But no matter - his status as a troll is rapidly moving away from
>> even
>>> >> >> moderately entertaining.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I haven't even gotten a chuckle from you, despite the fact that you
>> are
>>> > a
>>> >> > serious chucklehead.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


http://members.aol.com/hydratwo
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paenvironment/