Iraq has WMDs that can hit US.....

12/15/03: (FLORIDA TODAY) U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities. 

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force. 

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing. 

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim. 

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones. 

This is fucking ridiculous.

Russia has that capability, too. So does Israel. And I've never trusted those British. And don't get me started on India and Pakistan.

I say we just launch nukes at every other country and if anyone is left alive, he is the winner.

another misleading title.
more like
Iraq has WMD's that can be DELIVERED to US

So....

Why was he re elected? We knew no WMD before election?

Why dont we love liberals?

another misleading title. more like Iraq has WMD's that can be DELIVERED to US

What were they delivering them in, some wrapping paper and a fancy bow?

"Why dont we love liberals?"

Because after LBJ we all suck at politics.

Why do we have to love Liberals??? I don't have to love anybody!

Sounds like Bush was right. Good Job W.!!!! Clinton was too afraid to take real action.

"Sounds like Bush was right. Good Job W.!!!! Clinton was too afraid to take real action."

Under Clinton, Saddam was contained. He was not a threat. No WMDs were found.

Same goes for Iran.

Under Bush, Saddam was a nuclear madman and we needed to invade to save our lives.

Under Bush, Iran is now a nation of nuclear madmen and something OMG something needs to be done.

Who was more sucessful in containing Iran and Iraq?

"Then why did Clinton advocate regime change?"

Jimmy just answered this. Because Saddam was contained doesn't mean he was a great leader that we loved.

Or is it that black and white for you?

Are you disputing Saddam was contained? Both Cheney and Powell said Clinton kept him in his box.

Then why did Clinton advocate regime change?

Huh?

Because someone advocates regime change does not mean they advocate an invasion and overthrow.

"If the threat is contained, it is obviously no longer a threat."

Ok, let's use a for instance. You have a pitbull that tries to bite everyone. But you keep him on a very short leash so he can't bite people.

Now the threat is contained. In your opinion, we should take the dog off the leash because the threat is contained? Does that really make sense to you?

 The Bush Administration Pushes "Regime Change" in Venezuela

so does that mean he advocates an invasion of Venezuela?

"Have they built a 100% failsafe leash yet? A 100% failsafe fence?"

Have they built failsafe cars yet? Or planes? Why do we tolerate risk on some things but not others?

Let's keep using the dog analogy for a minute. Say the dog has been on his leash and hasn't bitten anyone and the threat level is much reduced.

You still want to elimanate the threat altogether. Ok, fine.

So you start sending in men and women to go kill the dog. But the dog now starts fatally bites many of them until finally it's dead.

Was that smart? Was it worthwhile to actually have people die so the threat is TOTALLY eliminated? Or would it have been wise to continue to keep the dog on a leash where he was hurting nobody?

Ok, let's use a for instance. You have a pitbull that tries to bite everyone. But you keep him on a very short leash so he can't bite people.

Now the threat is contained. In your opinion, we should take the dog off the leash because the threat is contained? Does that really make sense to you?

No, I'd suggest putting the dog down. That completely eliminates the threat. No need to worry about him getting off the leash, or accidently getting to close to a person.

Timbo, even though the amount of people who will die totally eliminating the threat will surpass the amount that would have died from the threat itself?

damn hugo has me rolling

Timbo, even though the amount of people who will die totally eliminating the threat will surpass the amount that would have died from the threat itself?

Trust me, I'm a good shot. I'd probably only hit one or two bystanders. Three tops.

More people died under Saddam