RNC complains: folks want them to lose

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/31/...aint/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee launched a wide-ranging legal assault Wednesday on more than two dozen political groups working to defeat President Bush.

The committee says the groups are part of an "unprecedented criminal enterprise" to circumvent federal campaign laws and pour illegal soft money contributions into the 2004 race."

if you replace "unprecedented criminal enterprise" with "unprecedented grassroots movement" then it's pretty accurate. many people have tirelessly made video shorts and sent emails and made web pages and forums because of their outrage at and fear of the RNC and president.

if speaking out for such a worthy cause is illegal, then pass out the guns.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Its illegal by the new "campaign finance" laws Dobbs.

whatever. if i or someone wants to make a website that has political bearing that is their perogative, and is not necessarily related to a candidate.

What's distrubing is that Saddam was more honest about the WMD than Bush. The Republicans whine an awful lot when that is allegedly the role of the left.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Funny if Saddam were so honest why didn't he let the world in and the UN give him a clean bill and lift the sanctions?

Funny if Saddam were so honest how come the whole world prior to the war was CERTAIN saddam had WMD?

Funny how easily you take that mans word and not look at the rest of the story just because it would make using it to bash Bush harder.

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Funny if Saddam were so honest why didn't he let the world in and the UN give him a clean bill and lift the sanctions? Funny if Saddam were so honest how come the whole world prior to the war was CERTAIN saddam had WMD? Funny how easily you take that mans word and not look at the rest of the story just because it would make using it to bash Bush harder.

Sigh, the inspectors were in and were enjoying the best ever co-operation, until the invasion. And the world was not certain Saddam had WMD, that's your (WM)D lusion.

Funny, but I am not taking Saddam's word. I am taking the final Iraqi declaration and explanations for what was "not suitably accounted for" against Bush's claims which have all been verified by US inspection and sorry, but the WMD have not been found. Nor has any evidence of them. Kay commented on large and small caches and neither have been found.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Best ever, thats why they were speaking with teh Scientist right? right.. oh wait.. they weren't..

Thats why even that 15k page report saddam released, was called incomplete..

I am not the dellusional one.


You want stockpiles, they aren't there. You tell me in another thread to look for "other possiblilites" yet you REFUSE to look at the possiblity that:

1. The WMD stockpiles are buried out in the sand still? Possible.

2. That they are in Syria as a numebr of reports have suggested.

3. That the Kay report shows Iraq was clearly in violation of all sanctions, the Cease fire, and while no large "stock piles" were found, the Iraqi government was hard at work on fast deployment WMD.

You REFUSE to see, accept or ackowledge any of that.

Why?

Cause you wish to further your hate for Bush and get others to rally to your cause of seeing GW Bush out of office in 2004. Just admit that, and be upfront about it. Don't obsfucate the debates with subterfuge and spin.

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, Best ever, thats why they were speaking with teh Scientist right?  right.. oh wait.. they weren't.. Thats why even that 15k page report saddam released, was called incomplete.. I am not the dellusional one. You want stockpiles, they aren't there.  You tell me in another thread to look for "other possiblilites"  yet you REFUSE to look at the possiblity that: 1.  The WMD stockpiles are buried out in the sand still?  Possible. 2.  That they are in Syria as a numebr of reports have suggested. 3.  That the Kay report shows Iraq was clearly in violation of all sanctions, the Cease fire, and while no large "stock piles" were found, the Iraqi government was hard at work on fast deployment WMD. You REFUSE to see, accept or ackowledge any of that. Why? Cause you wish to further your hate for Bush and get others to rally to your cause of seeing GW Bush out of office in 2004.  Just admit that, and be upfront about it.  Don't obsfucate the debates with subterfuge and spin.

Sigh, you are using the chance of something being found to define truth, I am using the truth as facts currently show it. There is a difference. Do you care to dispute the facts, that the alleged WMD that were claimed and listed by Bush have not been found?

In violation of sanction doesn't consitutue possession of WMD. And feel free to quote Kay where he makes the claim of Iraq being in violation as you describe or show clearly where his reports clearly assert what you claim.

Why can you not deal with facts as they stand and reality, why must you use fantasy and a what if? That isn't reality. You are trying to contrue the possible as reality.

[Mr.Vicchio]

What the stockpiles? Yes those have nto been found. I will admit that. There have been no vast stockpiles of WMD found.

Will you admit there are serious violations none the less of the sanctions against Iraq and that there are WMD programs that were never "found" by the UN. But have now been found?

Also will you admit there the brewing food for oil scandle could very well undermine the UN's legitamicy? And that this scandle oculd very well nullify the French, German and Russian opposition to the war?

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, What the stockpiles? Yes those have nto been found. I will admit that. There have been no vast stockpiles of WMD found. Will you admit there are serious violations none the less of the sanctions against Iraq and that there are WMD programs that were never "found" by the UN. But have now been found? Also will you admit there the brewing food for oil scandle could very well undermine the UN's legitamicy? And that this scandle oculd very well nullify the French, German and Russian opposition to the war?

There have been no WMD found, period.

The programs you are claiming, goodness me, go and read about quite how tenuous those claims are. I mean read the details, don't read the simple "programs" description. They amount to sweet bugger all.

The Oil for Food scandal. Oh shades of Safire. The justifications for the invasion have already been proven false. You cannot change that unless some startling discoveries are made. BTW, the scam is alleged, and in any case, is nothing new in terms of abuse and you should really pay attention to the right scandal mongering on this issue, note I say scandal mongering. I have no doubt there was abuse, but don't be silly and simply buy the "Safirish" crap. Or are you happy to indulge in the game of guilt by allegation?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Kay and his team have "discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery . . . has come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that the Iraq Survey Group has discovered that should have been declared to the U.N."


-

Kay and his team have, however, found this: "A clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to U.N. monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW [chemical-biological weapons] research." They also discovered: "a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for U.N. inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the U.N."

The Kay Report confirms that our intelligence was correct to suspect the al-Kindi Co. of being involved in prohibited activity. Missile designers at al-Kindi told Kay and his team that Iraq had resumed work on converting SA-2 surface-to-air missiles into ballistic missiles with a range of about 250 kilometers, and that this work continued even while UNMOVIC inspectors were in Iraq. The U.N.-mandated limit for Iraq was a range of 150 kilometers.

--

What's more, he and his team found that elaborate efforts to shield illicit programs from inspection persisted even after the collapse of Hussein's regime. Key evidence was deliberately eliminated or dispersed during the postwar period. In a wide range of offices, laboratories and companies suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction, computer hard drives were destroyed, files were burned and equipment was carefully cleansed of all traces of use -- and done so in a pattern that was clearly deliberate and selective, rather than random.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/24966.htm

The CIA’s chief weapons inspector, David Kay, made an interim reporting recently on the search for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Kay’s inspection team has uncovered "dozens of WMD program activities and significant amounts of equipment" that Iraq had been concealing from United Nations inspections. Inspectors found traces of an Iraqi bio-warfare program and indications of continued interest in the production of chemical weapons as late as 2003.

And he openly acknowledged that his team hasn’t found "stockpiles" of WMD. It is still too early to "say definitively" that such stockpiles do not exist or that weapons might have been moved elsewhere.


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../21/13202.shtml

All of Iraq's WMD activities were highly compartmentalized ... with deception and denial built into each program. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation ... began pre-conflict and ran trans- to post-conflict. Post-war looting destroyed or dispersed important and easily collectible material and evidence ...

Significant elements of this looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the clear aim of concealing pre-war activities of Saddam's regime. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans-conflict period, and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them.

Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small ... and difficult to identify with normal search procedures. Even the bulkiest materials we are searching for ... can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two-car garage.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=35107

WMD-related program activities. Says it all doesn't it. And if you are reduced to quoting NewsMax, man, I have no time for your arguments. ANy *news* site that sells Bush and Coulter "Action Hero Dolls" from it's newspages is seriously questionable, and I certainly include Fox in that. State.gov? Lol, Spare me please, want to quote Powell's case to the UN as well?

You cannot prove what you claim is the bottom line, right?

[Mr.Vicchio]

You are ready to entertain "other possibilities" about Bergs death, but you won't read what these sites have to say and dismiss the information inside?

Why debate here? www.democraticunderground.com

A place for people like you that are ready to see the worst in America, the worst in Bush, the worst in the war, and the best part, no dissenting opinions allowed. You shoudl go over there, you won't run into people like me that read "dirty" websites.

For someone so ready to entertain so many ideas that Make Bush and america look bad, you certainly are closed minded to other sources of information.

Mr.Vicchio

Oh, I'm ready to entertain possibilities about the WMD as well, I am not however going to try to construe them as facts. Badluck, you are confusing possibilities with facts and what has been proven to date. Stop trying such inane tactics.

[Mr.Vicchio]

I am not using inane tactics, I am providing sources, and you refuse to look at these sources because they say things contrary to your opinions. I am not the one construing facts to fit my world views. Nor are my world views single issue nor narrow.

Mr.Vicchio

Um, dude, I am not new to this game and have read quite widely on the subject of Iraq, Hussein etc. I have actually read what you are quoting before, including NewsMax, which is why I have an opinion of it. While you provide sources, I don't find them particulalry good and you are also resoritng to blatantly agenda driven media. Bad luck, I have already read them, how else would I have formed an opinion? You think for example I formed an opnion of NewsMax based on hearsay? How else would i for example know what dolls they sell from their wesite and that Fox advertise on their site?

Get a clue eh. What you are trying to do is make the molehill into the mountain, and sadly, you cannot do that with fact, only tenuous evidence and exagerated claims by the likes of NewsMax.

[tusaki]

Mr V. you are just as guilty as PeterW is regarding the 'unacceptance of information contrary to your view'. You do not accept that perhaps there could be no WMD's and the motives for the war were more sinister. It could be that the WMD's are still hidden or they are shipped of to some other country, but is 'could be' a good justification for anything? Regardless of kay's findings, it is a fact that the threat to the western world, portrayed by the US government before the war, was seriously overestimated, to say it kindly. I do however, consider it a possibility that they [the US gov] didn't really have a sinister motive, but just wouldn't or couldn't accept anything which didn't point to WMD's in iraq. I also think that the hesistance of the UN prior to the war was more due to uncertainty than economic interests. If you think otherwise: if other countries are able to have such [more sinister] motives, what makes you think the US isn't capable to have the same? Or, to turn it around again, if the US really did invade just because they thought it was plausible Saddam could pose a threat, couldn't the motives of the UN be less sinister then as well?

But anyway, peterw, what would you consider unbiased media? since obviously, media portraying the opposite is blatant anti-bush propaganda -grin-.