Here we see the true blogger, leafing through the internet, and linking unconsciously.

I'm sure that article has a grand depiction of the mainstream media bias. Advertisements for "I (heart) W" stickers (I assume that's what they were), Ann Coulter's new book, 3 conservative books for $1. Not biased in the least, I'm sure.

Reply #1 By: apdelong31 - 10/7/2004 6:09:00 PM Here we see the true blogger, leafing through the internet, and linking unconsciously. I'm sure that article has a grand depiction of the mainstream media bias. Advertisements for "I (heart) W" stickers (I assume that's what they were), Ann Coulter's new book, 3 conservative books for $1. Not biased in the least, I'm sure.

100% WRONG! You obviously did not read the article and if that is truly the case......Then stuff a sock in it! Just an FYI it's a link to an article on the "Duelfer report "

DR, just ignore him. The article says it all. Your post was not on what Iraq was going to do, but on what Dan Rather is going to hide!

And you nailed it! The NYT is a shell of itself. No one listens to it or reads it if they really want the news. just if they want to reinforce their hate.

So sad, so bad, so stupid.

apdelong just doesn't want to acknowledge that the article is based on the report itself, not some op/ed "facts" that Liberals love, and is pretty damning to those who regret that our nose isn't soundly up the behinds of past "allies". Kerry has built the foundation of his Iraq policy on the fact that sanctions were working and that we should have recieved help from these nations. Now we find out that not only were the sanctions an utter failure, the officials in the nations most vocal against the war were making millions, and businesses there were struggling to sell Iraq arms to use to defend against the US just weeks before we invaded/

The time for past alliances is over, frankly. If Kerry wants to taint himself with such, he'll deal with the loss of face between now and November.

Here we see the true blogger, leafing through the internet, and linking unconsciously. I'm sure that article has a grand depiction of the mainstream media bias. Advertisements for "I (heart) W" stickers (I assume that's what they were), Ann Coulter's new book, 3 conservative books for $1. Not biased in the least, I'm sure.

We don't want the truth, we want your tooth!!

- GX

Oh yes, the Vichy do have alot to answer for.

And they will answer for it.

For all those that thought Saddam was being good.

Who exactly are 'all those' purported to have said this?

No one is arguing that Saddam was "good" and you provide no evidence to the contrary. Secondly, unlike your article, which cites a link to a partisan website, other people's articles are based on the ISG report, the Senate Intelligence Committee report, the 9/11 Commission report, as well as mainstream news articles, all of which state that: 1. Iraq posed no imminent threat to the U.S.; 2. Iraq had no connection to 9/11; and 3. Iraq either had no ties or at best had "tenuous ties" with al Qaeda. Lastly, even Mr. Duelfer, the author of the ISG report, admitted that even though the ISG report concluded that Mr. Hussein “had intended to restart his [WMD] programs IF SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED,” the report's conclusion was BASED MORE ON INFERENCE than SOLID EVIDENCE. (emphasis added by me).

Thirdly, the sanctions would never have been lifted since lifting them would have required a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.S. would most certainly have vetoed. So, there was essentially NO CHANCE the sanctions would ever be lifted, therefore, there was NO CHANCE Iraq would be ABLE to recreate its WMD programs. Again, wanting something and having the capability to DO something are two entirely different things.

For further reading regarding Iraq’s alleged ties with al Qaeda, please see my article entitled, “Iraq War Diverting Troops From Real War on Terror” as well as the comments that follow.

"Thirdly, the sanctions would never have been lifted "

That's silly. There were already people ranting that they had been going for over a decade. France and Russia and the rest were quivering with expectation. They wouldn't have lasted another five years, and had they, they would have just started selling to him under the table anyway. The already had begun the process, actually...

Reply #8 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/12/2004 9:07:06 AM Thirdly, the sanctions would never have been lifted since lifting them would have required a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.S. would most certainly have vetoed. So, there was essentially NO CHANCE the sanctions would ever be lifted, therefore, there was NO CHANCE Iraq would be ABLE to recreate its WMD programs. Again, wanting something and having the capability to DO something are two entirely different things

And you KNOW this to be fact?

Thirdly, the sanctions would never have been lifted since lifting them would have required a U.N. Security Council resolution that the U.S. would most certainly have vetoed. So, there was essentially NO CHANCE the sanctions would ever be lifted, therefore, there was NO CHANCE Iraq would be ABLE to recreate its WMD programs. Again, wanting something and having the capability to DO something are two entirely different things.

Why even bother with worrying over lifting sanctions that weren't stopping anything since the Oil-for-Food program was being so badly abused by the French and others.

Whether sanctions were lifted or not, Saddam was doing just fine thanks to "a little help from his friends".

Unfortunately, the o.p. of the comment above misses out on the idea that the sanctions were also intented to some extent to help inspire regime change in Iraq, and that most certainly wasn't going to happen as long as Saddam and his regime were able to "game the system" as effectively as they did.

Maybe if you understood the Security Council process, you would know that the sanctions could not be lifted if the U.S. vetoed. It only takes one veto to kill a resolution no matter how much anyone else cries about it. End of story... And yes, I know that for a fact. Didn't you ever wonder why the Security Council has never been able to force Israel to adhere to the 60 odd resolutions they are in violation of? It's because the U.S. has either threatened to veto or actually vetoed every single resolution calling for Israel's compliance.

And by the way, the French weren't the only ones gaming the system, there were plenty of U.S. companies making a bundle from the oil-for-food program only those companies' names were redacted from the report for alleged "privacy concerns." I love it when certain Republicans say there is a right to privacy for corporations while Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and others run around saying no right to privacy exists in the Constitution whenever it suits them. Perhaps if Bush spent as much time and energy trying to strengthen the sanctions as he did convincing the world Iraqi had WMD, perhaps gaming the system could have been minimized? In any event, gaming the oil-for-food program didn't seem to get Saddam very far since the ISG report's essential findings says that Iraq did not have WMD and no capability to reproduce them. As far as "regime change" is concerned...if you recall, the President never mentioned "regime change" to the American public in the run-up to the war. Nor is "regime change" mentioned anywhere in any of the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.

Reply #12 By: T_Bone4Justice - 10/13/2004 6:24:56 AM there were plenty of U.S. companies making a bundle from the oil-for-food program only those companies' names were redacted from the report for alleged "privacy concerns." I love it when certain Republicans say there is a right to privacy for corporations while Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa) and others run around saying no right to privacy exists in the Constitution whenever it suits them. Perhaps if Bush spent as much time and energy trying to strengthen the sanctions as he did convincing the world Iraqi had WMD, perhaps gaming the system could have been minimized? In any event, gaming the oil-for-food program didn't seem to get Saddam very far since the ISG report's essential findings says that Iraq did not have WMD and no capability to reproduce them. As far as "regime change" is concerned...if you recall, the President never mentioned "regime change" to the American public in the run-up to the war. Nor is "regime change" mentioned anywhere in any of the U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.

Do you have proof of this? About the US companies that is. Far be it from me to say that you don't know what your talking about, but you seem to place a lot of faith on the ISG report. Your repeated use of it almost sounds like a mantra.

The ISG report was researched and written by some of the world's best weapons inspectors and the ISG was headed by a man appointed by President Bush. So, no..I don't have any reason to think it's findings are untrue. Yes, U.S. companies were making a buddle from the oil-for-food program. It was clearly stated in the ISG report, only the specific NAMES of the companies were redacted, and this was widely documented and confirmed in press reports who had done their own research and had their own sources in addition to the ISG report.