BLOG PODCAST ARCHIVES LINKS

 

 

 

 

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

American Conservative Web Ring
Members List
Previous - Next
Random - Join
Previous 5 - Next 5

Site Meter

 

 

 

Powered by Blogger

 

Monday, January 30, 2006

It's Truth Time

I'm finally back posting after a nice long weekend of skiing at the mountains and boy did I miss a lot! Some of the biggest Liberal arguments have turned out to be false. Three arguments have finally been proven to be wrong and they have to do with Saddam's WMD's, the Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection, and the UN's inspection in Iran. Now of course Conservatives have been discussing these things for far too long, but now we can finally see who was right all along with the cold hard facts.

The first lie that I will put away is the "Saddam didn't have WMD's" one. For years Conservatives have had to respond to these arguments with things like "well if you can't find your remote you never had a remote, right," and a few other things that just didn't cut it. But the fact is, is that Liberals had nothing on their side either other than "well he obviously destroyed them." But now the facts have come out and it looks like the Conservatives come out right on this one.

A person called General Georges Sada has come out with a book called "Saddam's Secrets" and he has revealed all of the facts we've been waiting to know. But how is he legit you may be asking, just read the book description.

"He was Saddam Hussein's top military advisor . . . and a truth-teller in a regime where truth was relative. He was also a devout Christian in an anti-Christian country. For the first time, General Georges Sada shares his amazing journey and speaks of the military secrets he was asked to keep. Secrets that only those closest to Saddam would know. But God's work in General Sada's own life is no secret. From his years of covert military operations, to his dramatic conversations with Saddam and other world leaders, God has enabled Sada to make a difference, even when lives hung in the balance. In this exclusive book, the General paints a picture of Hussein, his regime, and his country that is at once personal and truthful, compelling and sobering . . . Guaranteed to draw national attention."
-Saddam's Secrets, book description

This man was closer to Saddam Hussein than many other people, and he knew more about his military actions and plans more than all other people. You can't tell me he's lying when he says what I'm about to tell you he says.

He says that Saddam transported his WMD's to Syria just before the Iraq war. Of course this has already been proven before, 2 years ago actually, now we have someone from the inside who can finally confirm this and make it common knowledge, not bigoted opinion.

The next lie that I'm going to expose and disprove is that of Saddam having no connection with Al-Qaeda. At this point the Liberals will most definitely spin this making it seem like I said something like Saddam having no connection with 9/11. It happens every time I try to discuss this, there is no 9/11 connection, but there is a connection with Al-Qaeda. Look at the following story.

Documents show Saddam trained terrorists

So what we've got is that Saddam had terrorist training camps in Iraq, and in there, thousands of terrorists were trained. 8,000 to be exact. This story is actually disproving a few lies here. First is the fact that Saddam did have connections with Al-Qaeda, next is the fact that the Iraq war was related to the war on terror, and the war in Iraq did not lure terrorists to Iraq to kill Americans, the terrorists were already there.

No longer can the Liberals tell you "Bush lied, people died," or "The real war on terror is in Afghanistan, not Iraq," and not break out in sweat, because they're wrong and they know it.

There is one last lie to be disproved today and this is the one that means the most to our future and it has to do with Iran. The Liberals believe the chief of IAEA; Mohammed El-Baradei, when he says Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Lets start from the top here. The UN is currently inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities and it is fact that Iran is keeping the UN out of certain areas. But Mr. El-Baradei the great, doesn't seem to care too much. He still wants to look at this investigation subjectively. Even when the UN finds hidden plutonium he is not concerned. Now don't forget this plutonium was not supposed to be visible to the UN, it was hidden by the Iranians. Surely if they were using it for energy like they say it wouldn't be hidden right? It's clearly fact that Iran is hiding materials from the UN because they know it's breaking UN seals, but now that the UN finds some hidden materials, they don't even care anymore. Mr. El-Baradei is not to be trusted when it comes to nuclear inspections. He knows Iran is hiding materials, he's even found some of the controversial materials, but he insists on trusting that the program is for energy.

There is no doubt that Iran is hiding materials and working on nuclear weapons, now it's just a matter of time before they finish making them and during that time we need to try everything we can diplomatically, because if we leave Iran alone as some Liberals suggest, our only option may be military action, and the Liberals don't want that.

For this very special occasion where three Liberal lies have been debunked I finally have the chance to use my new, and original word to associate Liberals with. I call them liemongers.

Links from-
Amazon.com (book: Saddam's Secrets)
worldnetdaily.com
news.telegraph.co.uk

52 Comments:

  • At 30/1/06 9:18 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Truth time??

    Cody Said... He says that Saddam transported his WMD's to Syria just before the Iraq war. Of course this has already been proven before, 2 years ago actually...

    From the article YOU linked to:

    So far, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell have rejected the prospect that Iraqi biological and chemical weapons or missiles were sent to Syria. They echoed U.S. assessments that Saddam would not have trusted Assad with Iraq's missile and WMD assets.

    "I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria," Powell said. "I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq". [Link]

    "Saddam's Secrets", Amazon customer review: This book is a conservative's fantasy of revisionist history. Gen. Sada alledges to have knowledge that three years of international investigations have not found, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Sada shows no evidence to counter the on-site U.N. inspectors who found no evidence of a reconsituted nuclear program in Iraq nor does he address the absence of any scientists who were knowingly working on the program. Sada does not addresss the obvious, that with the U.S. increasinly intolerant of Saddam and anyone who assist, why would a Syrian regime, already on thin ice with the Bush administration, risk their very existence by hiding nuclear weapons? Even with the fantasies written in this book, Sada adds no evidence to show that the U.S. "was under eminent threat" and thus the rush to war. This book will be found six months from now in libraries near Mother Goose's fairy tales, in the children's section. [Link]

    Yes, I saw the 9 other POSITIVE customer reviews on this page. This is to be expected with the publication of what is basically a conservative wet dream. The bushco Kool-aid drinkers probably had this novel preordered months in advance.

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:21 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    This is why I gave multiple areas of proof, to make it more believable. This General is not going to just lie about this. He was the military advisor to Saddam Hussein and he knew everything Saddam was ever going to do, he even stopped an attack on Israel by convincing Saddam it wasn't a good idea, and he didn't get killed. There is plenty more in the book proving this theory right, I plan on getting a copy soon.

    dkfz wrote...
    From the article YOU linked to:...

    Remember this story is 2 years old. A lot more proof has come out by now, like what this General is saying.

    We can keep playing this game but it's only going to be me giving facts and you denying them. Of course you could comment on the other two lies you got disproven too.

    I apologize if this article has made you depressed because you finally know how wrong you are, someone had to get the truth out.

     
  • At 31/1/06 9:42 AM, Blogger Gayle said…

    Beautiful, Cody. Good work! Glad you are posting again. I hope you are going to be able to keep your blog going.

     
  • At 31/1/06 2:33 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Why is it that everyone conservative has to automatically be part of a right wing conspericy to these dkfzish people? Look, amazon, dk, is not biased. Your site is. That's really all there is too it.

     
  • At 31/1/06 3:07 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Good to have you back.

     
  • At 31/1/06 3:58 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    DarkSaturos said... Why is it that everyone conservative has to automatically be part of a right wing conspericy to these dkfzish people? Look, amazon, dk, is not biased. Your site is. That's really all there is too it.

    My site is biased? That's all there is to it?? I posted two quotes -- BOTH of which came from the same sites Cody linked to! The first quote was from Colin Powell. Is he liberally biased? I don't want to hear any nonsense about how more "evidence" supporting the ridiculous assertation that Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria has come out since Colin Powell said "I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq".

    It wasn't in Syria's interest to do any favors for Iraq 2 years ago, and NOTHING has been revealed since Powell made that statement which proves him wrong.

    Cody Said... You can't tell me he's lying when he says what I'm about to tell you he says.

    Yes I can. HE'S LYING. Remember Ahmed Chalabi? Another Iraqi who was saying things the bush administration wanted to hear. Turns out he was lying too.

    Why are you so gullible?

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    I'm talking about the book review, as you well know, not the others.

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:38 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Why would he lie? He's not even from America so he has no place in American politics and Republicans and Democrats. He was the one who influenced Saddam's decisions, to say he's lying just shows your bigotry and how you could care less what the real truth is.

     
  • At 31/1/06 6:44 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    It wasn't in Syria's interest to do any favors for Iraq 2 years ago, and NOTHING has been revealed since Powell made that statement which proves him wrong.

    Nothing? So Saddam's military advisor was clueless to what Saddam was doing? And when he releases a book that reads like a screenplay, it means nothing, just a fabricated fairy tale? Sorry dkfz, but you're just a joke now. The truth has been exposed and you can accept it or deny it, but either way we know you were wrong.

     
  • At 31/1/06 7:44 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Nothing? So Saddam's military advisor was clueless to what Saddam was doing? And when he releases a book that reads like a screenplay, it means nothing, just a fabricated fairy tale? Sorry dkfz, but you're just a joke now. The truth has been exposed and you can accept it or deny it, but either way we know you were wrong.

    YOU are the one who is a joke. Still desperate to believe these old disproved fantasies! Even our lying scumbag leader isn't sticking with this story any longer:

    From The New York Sun: President Bush... in a televised prime-time address to Americans last month said, "It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong". [Link]

    From the New York Sun: Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says. By Ira Stoll, Staff Reporter of the Sun. January 26, 2006. The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. [Link]

    From The Daily Kos: First of all, in evaluating this claim, we have to take into account things that don't fit the facts. First of all, we don't even know what these WMD's supposedly were. How would we be able to fit them into a Boeing plane? If we are talking massive rockets or tubes, then it would be impossible to fit them into a commercial airliner, because the doors would simply not be wide enough for them to fit inside of a commercial airliner. Remember that Sada alleges that these were civilian aircraft.

    Secondly, there were only two aircraft being used and 56 total flights (supposedly) between the two of them. It defies reason to suggest that merely 56 flights would be enough to get a whole country's WMD program out of Iraq into Syria without detection of any kind. Given the massive nature of the WMD program that Bush and Powell so hyped up, it would be impossible for Saddam to smuggle all of the evidence for his programs in just 56 flights in aircraft not designed for that purpose.

    Thirdly, this tall tale defies the laws of physics. How could you smuggle these labs, alumunum tubes, rockets, and other such WMD's out of Iraq without weighing down the plane so much that it could not fly?

    This makes Sada's claim an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Let me see how his testimony stacks up against the standards required.

    Physical: None. All we have is Mr. Sada's word for it, as the Sun article lamely admits. There are plenty of people who are unhappy with the Syrian regime there; however, none have come forward to point out the locations of WMD's in Syria.

    Experts: According to the FR link and the Sun article, Mr. Sada served in the Iraqi Air Force and was the Number Two in command there. However, he had no direct involvement in the supposed activities, but bases his case on hearsay evidence. We cannot evaluate his testimony because he bases his word on the word of anonymous sources, not on his expertise.

    Eyewitnesses: None. As noted above, Mr. Sada had no direct involvement in this. Supposedly the smuggling was done in the Summer of 2002, right as the US and the UK were stepping up their bombing campaigns in advance of their invasion of Iraq in 2003. If our forces had detected convoys of trucks that large, they would have been bombed.

    It would stand to reason that if there had been such an attempt by Saddam, there would have been scores of eyewitnesses on both sides of the border who could come forward and verify that Mr. Sada's account is true. But the fact is, there are none. The burden of proof is on the right-wingers to come up with the evidence, not for us to disprove it. [Link]

    The book has been exposed as a lie and you can accept it or deny it, but either way we know you were wrong. Why ARE you so gullible??

     
  • At 31/1/06 8:40 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    WMD's don't have to be gigantic heavy missiles. Weapons have been known to be able to be built to the size of a basketball.

    That point alone makes your dailykrap link undoubtedly false. We have pictures and human witnesses of this transaction, what more do you need!?

    Physical[evidence of the WMD transportation]: None

    Did you read the WHOLE article about how we got sattilite images of this?

    Experts: According to the FR link and the Sun article, Mr. Sada served in the Iraqi Air Force and was the Number Two in command there. However, he had no direct involvement in the supposed activities

    That doesn't mean he didn't know about this just because he didn't have an involvement in it.

    Eyewitnesses: None

    Nah, just the pentagon and the CIA, but they don't count.

    The book has been exposed as a lie

    By what unbiased source? You and The Daily Krap don't mean anything. You're looking at this subjectively and you'll have this opinion on this subject no matter what. I gave specific facts from reliable sources, TDK commentators dont prove anything.

    Why ARE you so gullible??

    Who's gullible? The one who believes a side who actually has cold hard proof, or the whiney Liberal who will believe anything that is anti-Bush?

     
  • At 31/1/06 9:33 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Why would he lie? He's not even from America so he has no place in American politics and Republicans and Democrats. He was the one who influenced Saddam's decisions, to say he's lying just shows your bigotry and how you could care less what the real truth is.

    I don't know why he would lie. Maybe he is just mistaken. Just because I don't know why he is lying doesn't automatically mean he's telling the truth -- or that he knows with certainy what the whole truth is.

    Why would Hans Blix lie when he said he found no evidence of Iraq possessing WMDs? (he also wrote a book).

    From the editorial review of Disarming Iraq: "Containment had worked", Blix writes. "It has also become clear that national intelligence organizations and government hawks, but not the inspectors, had been wrong in their assessments".

    Blix blames "monumental" intelligence failures on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain for most of these errors. In particular, he questions America's reliance on Iraqi defectors over their own intelligence agencies. [Link]

    It sounds like what you (and Mr. Sada) are saying is that there were NO intelligence failures -- The bush administration was 100 percent correct about EVERYTHING.

    From what I read it appears that Sada has ZERO firsthand knowledge when it comes to the ridiculous story of moving WMDs to Syria.

    My not believing him has NOTHING to do with his ethnicity. I made ZERO racist remarks when disputing his claims, UNLIKE YOU who insulted Mr. El-Baradei by insinuating he would lie to cover up Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program for his "Muslim Brothers" (meaning all Muslims are not to be trusted). I think it is VERY clear who the bigot is.

    Cody Said... Did you read the WHOLE article about how we got sattilite images of this?

    So why has bush been saying (for several years now) that almost all the intelligence was wrong??!

    Cody Said... That point alone makes your dailykrap link undoubtedly false.

    It does? How?

    Cody Said... I gave specific facts from reliabl sources... what more do you need!? Who's gullible? The one who believes a side who actually has cold hard proof...

    You gave specific facts from reliable sources?? There are pictures?? What more do I need?? How about verifiable evidence? YOU ARE A JOKE. One man's work of fiction, non-existent satellite photos, and speculation do not equal "cold hard proof".

     
  • At 1/2/06 6:34 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Oh, so we're quoting Hans Blix now, the person who led the inspection, and was restricted from a few inspection areas, yeah, he's reliable. I guess you need more proof, some WMD's were sent to Syria, and those that couldn't be moved in time were hidden and we HAVE found some of it.

    Saddam's WMD in Iraq

    My not believing him has NOTHING to do with his ethnicity. I made ZERO racist remarks when disputing his claims, UNLIKE YOU who insulted Mr. El-Baradei by insinuating he would lie to cover up Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program for his "Muslim Brothers" (meaning all Muslims are not to be trusted). I think it is VERY clear who the bigot is.

    Oh now I get to be called a racist now, I see where this is going. Sorry, but when we're in a war with radical Islam and if a person with the name Mohammad is taking a position that agrees with our enemy, I don't trust them. Call it racism if you want, but it's just common sense to me. Not all Muslims are bad, but again, he's taking a suspicious side during a time of war.

    So why has bush been saying that almost all the intelligence was wrong??!

    Because he's been pushed by Liberals like you into a position like that. I seriously doubt he honestly believes that.

    It does? How?

    Pretty simple. He put the lightweight and small weapons on the planes and hid what he couldn't fit. Makes sense to me.

    You gave specific facts from reliable sources?? There are pictures?? What more do I need?? How about verifiable evidence? YOU ARE A JOKE. One man's work of fiction, non-existent satellite photos, and speculation do not equal "cold hard proof".

    You're just loosing it now. "It can't be true because that fact is supported by Republicans, I should make it into a conspiracy theory how the Iraqi general is a Republican spy and the images were photoshopped." So far I've givin 3 separate articles proving me right, you've givin me a book review and a dailykrap commentary, but of course all of the facts are jokes, and the conspiracy's are the real truth.

    Lets forget you lost here for a minute, I've noticed you sort of skimmed over the Saddam/Al-Qaeda connection peice, is it that you have no conspiracy theory to prove me wrong here?

     
  • At 1/2/06 6:46 PM, Blogger PlaidBaron said…

    Cody,
    sorry if this sounds a bit like spam but I have a post up about maybe changing my blog's name. If you don't I understand but please check it out.

     
  • At 2/2/06 8:37 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Don't worry about it PB, I'm okay with the occasional plug. I voted for Elephant Crossing by the way.

     
  • At 3/2/06 5:48 PM, Blogger Mary Ann said…

    Darksaturos and Plaidbaron, are you guys brothers?

     
  • At 3/2/06 8:12 PM, Blogger Robert M. said…

    Yes. Yes we are.

     
  • At 5/2/06 4:52 PM, Blogger Rebekah said…

    I agree that WMDs don't have to be huge missiles.
    Weapons are frequently found in Iraq. Some, I'm sure did come in after Saddam. But what about those mass graves in Iraq. How do you think Saddam killed 'em? Magic dust?

    So what if the Administration refutes that the WMDs went to Syria? Do we have to agree with them on everything?

    You liberals believe the claims by a radical left-wing money man's book, but a book by someone who was closer to Saddam than YOU will ever be you instantly dismiss as right-wing propaganda and a "work of fiction". (Never mind the fact that this man has no connections to the Bush admin.)

    Just because I don't know why he is lying doesn't automatically mean he's telling the truth

    Yeah, and just because you don't like what he's saying doesn't automatically mean he's lying.

    (BTW, Cody, I just noticed you have me linked. I'll link you up, too.)

     
  • At 6/2/06 7:34 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    (BTW, Cody, I just noticed you have me linked. I'll link you up, too."

    That will be appreciated.

     
  • At 12/2/06 7:31 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    This "dkfz" fellow really seems to know what he's talking about. I can see why this tread died after he stopped responding -- everybody else realizes how much of a JOKE your "truths" are.

    You are really quite pathetic. This one guy comes forward YEARS after this information would have been useful to the bush administration, and you say "Vindication! We were right all along!" What about VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE?! You can't produce it! Case closed!!

    I watched our scumbag President's State of the Union Address January 31st. I don't recall him ever mentioning this guy. He told a LOT of whoppers, but he didn't dredge up these old lies.

    If you care to debate this any further I DARE you to read the exhaustive report I just published on my blog. I doubt you have the guts. My report blows your "facts" out of the water.

    These are all LIES. EVERYONE knows they aren't true. EVERYONE except deluded fools with a burning desire to believe everything bush says is the truth.

    Cody Said... Oh now I get to be called a racist now, I see where this is going. Sorry, but when we're in a war with radical Islam and if a person with the name Mohammad is taking a position that agrees with our enemy, I don't trust them. Call it racism if you want, but it's just common sense to me.

    Obviously your irrational hatred applies to ANYONE who disagrees with George bush. Your first reaction is to disparage anyone who says anything contrary to the "truth" as bush sees it. Americans who don't support bush are "America haters" who hate our troups, sympathize with terrorists, and should move to France (Depending on how they voice their disagreement they may also be guilty of treason). Foreigners who disagree are cowards (French), or Jealous. Muslims who disagree are probable terrorists, or in colusion with terrorists. This blind devotion is, to me, a CLEAR sign of the SEVERE delusion you suffer from.

    However, saying things like "if a person with the name Mohammad is taking a position that agrees with our enemy, I don't trust them", makes it very clear to me that you are especially racist when it comes to people of Middle Eastern descent. Deny it all you like -- your words speak for themself.

     
  • At 13/2/06 6:18 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Racial profiling during a time of war is a very different from racial discrimination. As for the rest of your comment, the facts are in the post, there's nothing more to debate, you either believe it or you don't, and that's about it. You've chosent not to believe it, and just like all the other Liberals before you, you've got nothing to back that opinion up. The Daily Krap doesn't count as proof by the way.

     
  • At 13/2/06 6:35 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "This "dkfz" fellow really seems to know what he's talking about. I can see why this tread died after he stopped responding -- everybody else realizes how much of a JOKE your "truths" are."

    Yeah he really know what the truth is...Bush stole both elections, Bush is the anti-Christ, Bush knew about 9/11, I think that's all of his "facts" for you.

    "You are really quite pathetic. This one guy comes forward YEARS after this information would have been useful to the bush administration, and you say "Vindication! We were right all along!" What about VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE?! You can't produce it! Case closed!!"

    Georges Sada is not American so he has no political agenda writing this book, he's not trying to help Republicans, he's just trying to tell the truth. If you don't want to believe Saddams former military advisor (who actually disagreed with Saddam a lot, and is even a Christian) then the only true pathetic one is you.

    I watched our scumbag President's State of the Union Address January 31st. I don't recall him ever mentioning this guy. He told a LOT of whoppers, but he didn't dredge up these old lies."

    So what? His speech was about the future, not the past. Of course he knows these facts, it just wasn't the time to talk about them.

    "If you care to debate this any further I DARE you to read the exhaustive report I just published on my blog. I doubt you have the guts. My report blows your "facts" out of the water."

    To be honest I'd love to finish this debate right now because everything you've said I've heard two or three times by the other Liberal nut-jobs who comment here, and one carbon-copy-commenter is enough. I'm sure your report is great writing but I have no motivation to read something that is just wrong. I could go to your blog and debate you point to point (and totally own you), but I already know what the truth is, and it's written in my post. If I left out a little detail, then you can be sure I already straightened things out with the last liemongering commentator.

    "These are all LIES. EVERYONE knows they aren't true. EVERYONE except deluded fools with a burning desire to believe everything bush says is the truth."

    I've heard it all before, prove it. There's no way to prove these stories wrong, they are news stories, not editorials.

     
  • At 13/2/06 2:09 PM, Blogger Drew said…

    Cody.. not to be a party pooper.. but do you think that this guy might have written the book to MAKE MONEY? There's your agenda right there. Just like the guy who blew the whistle on Bush's wiretap program.. right before he relases a book. It's all about the $. It doesn't matter if it's factual or not.

    W-Dervish...

    Didn't you get the memo? Wingnuts NEVER visit progressive blogs. Read The Conservative Blogger's Manifesto.

     
  • At 14/2/06 6:55 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Drew Said... When backed into a corner by logic and are unable to argue their lying Liberal points, simply delete their comments. Who wants to read these whiney loser's comments anyway? You certainly don't. You're here to get high fives and golf claps from the two right-wing peers that sometimes read your blog (From The Conservative Blogger's Manifesto).

    Thanks for the link. All true. I'm pretty sure I successfully posted another reply to Cody's last post.... so where did it go?

    I mention the money motive on my blog. Also, Georges Sada has a position in the new Iraqi Government... does anyone think that would have happened if he disagreed with the bush administration?

    (He currently serves as Iraq's National Security Advisor).

     
  • At 15/2/06 4:15 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Georges Sada is not American so he has no political agenda writing this book, he's not trying to help Republicans, he's just trying to tell the truth. If you don't want to believe Saddams former military advisor (who actually disagreed with Saddam a lot, and is even a Christian) then the only true pathetic one is you.

    What does this response have to do with my demand for verifiable evidence??

    Absolutely nothing!

    I believe his agenda was securing a position in the new Iraqi government. His agreeing with, and "verifying" all the bush administrations reasons for going to war did the trick.

    Helping Republicans got him his new job. You think he'd still be in government if he had disagreed?

    I notice you make a big deal about his calling himself a Christian. Would he be less trustworthy if he were Muslim?

    Or is it because he agrees with all bushco's pre-war intel the reason you find him so trustworthy?? (this is the question I asked in my post that mysteriously disappeared.)

     
  • At 16/2/06 8:10 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    What does this response have to do with my demand for verifiable evidence??

    Absolutely nothing!


    The evidence is in the book, you can believe it or not. Again, if you read the post and go to the links these questions would be answered.

    I believe his agenda was securing a position in the new Iraqi government. His agreeing with, and "verifying" all the bush administrations reasons for going to war did the trick.

    It's a far-out conspiracy theory that is most likely false. How do you know his book has to do with the Bush administration? Do you really think Bush would send money to this guy to write this book? That's insanely rediculous. He wrote the book so he could get the truth out about all of Saddams secrets. It's not just about WMD you know.

    Helping Republicans got him his new job. You think he'd still be in government if he had disagreed?

    Yes. The majority of the Iraqi government will be Shi', and those aren't the people we were hoping for. Stop with this rediculous conspiracy theory already, just admit you're wrong.

    I notice you make a big deal about his calling himself a Christian. Would he be less trustworthy if he were Muslim?

    If he agreed with Saddam I would trust him less, but Mr. Sada did not have the same violent agenda. But not to say I wouldn't trust him if he was a Muslim, I don't know where that came from, I'm talking about Saddams ideas

    Or is it because he agrees with all bushco's pre-war intel the reason you find him so trustworthy?? (this is the question I asked in my post that mysteriously disappeared.)

     
  • At 16/2/06 9:57 AM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... The evidence is in the book, you can believe it or not. Again, if you read the post and go to the links these questions would be answered.

    This book is not VERIFIABLE evidence! It's ONE man's uncorroborated story based on hearsay from an unidentified source!

    Why do you think such a HUGE story (if it's so obvious that this is true) has got ZERO coverage by the press? Wait a minute... It's because the press is LIBERAL, right? Your DELUSION covers all the angles, doesn't it?

    Cody Said... Yes. The majority of the Iraqi government will be Shi', and those aren't the people we were hoping for. Stop with this rediculous conspiracy theory already, just admit you're wrong.

    I should admit I'm wrong just because YOU SAID SO?!!! Verifiable evidence???? Do you know what the word "verifiable" means??! It doesn't apply! Even YOU would have to admit that one point!

    Cody Said... It's a far-out conspiracy theory that is most likely false. How do you know his book has to do with the Bush administration? Do you really think Bush would send money to this guy to write this book? That's insanely rediculous. He wrote the book so he could get the truth out about all of Saddams secrets. It's not just about WMD you know.

    No, it is not a conspiracy theory, it's common sense. These claims were proven wrong a long time ago. Suddenly they're true again? I lay ALL the facts out in my article. I'd tell you again to read my blog, but you're obviously too chicken.

    Did I say bush sent him money to write his book?? I was talking about the money from the PUBLISHER. Do you think he wrote the book for free?

    Anyway, I'm sure he did receive some money courtesy of the US taxpayer. He is employed in the new Iraqi government -- Do you think he's doing that job for free? I heard that oil money was being used to bribe Iraqi government officials -- To get them to do what the US wants. It wouldn't surprise me if Sada received some of that bribe money. I'll look into it and post something on my blog.

    Cody Said... If he agreed with Saddam I would trust him less, but Mr. Sada did not have the same violent agenda. But not to say I wouldn't trust him if he was a Muslim, I don't know where that came from, I'm talking about Saddams ideas.

    The idea (that you are bigoted against Muslims) came directly from your posts.

     
  • At 16/2/06 4:39 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Some unimportant liemonger said...
    "The idea (that you are bigoted against Muslims) came directly from your posts."

    Oh really? Where?

    Again, if you check the links I have multiple stories proving me right. If you're so worried about "verifiable" evidence, then give me some that proves Saddam didn't have WMD's. I bet you can't do it.

     
  • At 16/2/06 10:07 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody, YOU are the liemonger. The claims made in this book are LIES.

    If you want evidence that Mr. Sada's claims are FALSE, check out my blog. It's all there. Curveball, Ahmed Chalabi, and Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi were the sources the bush Administration used to build their case against Iraq. The reliability of these sources was in question from the beginning. Now we know they were lying to, and misleading the CIA. Check my blog -- all the details are there. Of course you won't read my blog and you'll continue to lie about how you would "totally own me" by proving all my points wrong.

    Obviously you have some serious mental problems. Not uncommon for a Republican though.

    Anyway, I don't have to prove that Saddam didn't have WMDs. The burden of proof is on the party making the accusation. As I pointed out multiple times Mr. Sada's book is not VERIFIABLE evidence! It's ONE man's uncorroborated story based on hearsay from an unidentified source! It doesn't meet the burden of proof.

    Cody Said... Again, if you check the links I have multiple stories proving me right.

    No, your links "prove" nothing.

    Cody Said... Oh really? Where?

    You know damn well where you made racist comments.

    Cody Said... Sorry, but when we're in a war with radical Islam and if a person with the name Mohammad is taking a position that agrees with our enemy, I don't trust them.

    Cody Said... So you redicule anyone who isn't Democrat, becasue if you don't accept affirmative racism, you must hate yourself.

    "Affirmative racism"?? There's no such thing! It's an invention by bigoted white males. Like you.

     
  • At 17/2/06 7:57 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    w-dervish said...
    "Cody, YOU are the liemonger. The claims made in this book are LIES."

    prove it then, where is he lying. Prove me wrong or shut up.

    "If you want evidence that Mr. Sada's claims are FALSE, check out my blog. It's all there."

    Sorry but I have no reason to go to a website full of lies that I have already heard in this comment section enough.

    "Curveball, Ahmed Chalabi, and Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi were the sources the bush Administration used to build their case against Iraq. The reliability of these sources was in question from the beginning."

    And just about ever intelligence agency in the world, and they were right too. But my proof doesn't end at Mr. Sada. If my next link isn't "verifiable evidence" then you aren't even looking at it.

    http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48249

    "Now we know they were lying to, and misleading the CIA. Check my blog -- all the details are there. Of course you won't read my blog and you'll continue to lie about how you would "totally own me" by proving all my points wrong."

    The more you advertise your blog the less I want to go to it.

    "Obviously you have some serious mental problems. Not uncommon for a Republican though."

    Ah, personal attacks now. I could have predicted it would come to this. Maybe it would be best if you just admitted you are wrong about everything, because if this is how you're going to debate, then you've already lost.

    "Anyway, I don't have to prove that Saddam didn't have WMDs."

    You don't have to, or you can't?

    "The burden of proof is on the party making the accusation. As I pointed out multiple times Mr. Sada's book is not VERIFIABLE evidence! It's ONE man's uncorroborated story based on hearsay from an unidentified source! It doesn't meet the burden of proof."

    blah, blah, blah. You haven't proven anything I've said wrong yet.

    "Cody Said... Again, if you check the links I have multiple stories proving me right.

    No, your links "prove" nothing."


    Why not, tell me why not or shut up.

    "Cody Said... Oh really? Where?

    You know damn well where you made racist comments."


    Getting a little angry are we, Mr. Dervish?

    "Cody Said... Sorry, but when we're in a war with radical Islam and if a person with the name Mohammad is taking a position that agrees with our enemy, I don't trust them."

    So what? Someone who takes a position siding with an Islamic dictator is not to be trusted. Both people being Muslims only adds to my suspicion. Do you really think we can fight a PC war like this?

    "Cody Said... So you redicule anyone who isn't Democrat, becasue if you don't accept affirmative racism, you must hate yourself."

    What does this prove? That I'm against racism right? You're just proving me right here.

    ""Affirmative racism"?? There's no such thing! It's an invention by bigoted white males. Like you."

    Bigoted? Hardly. White? Very. But why does it matter? Is it that you yourself think racially? You look at the color of skin instead of the content of character? Mr. King would have a bone to pick with you.

     
  • At 17/2/06 3:53 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... prove it then, where is he lying. Prove me wrong or shut up.

    I already did. You're just to deluded to see the truth.

    Cody Said... Ah, personal attacks now. I could have predicted it would come to this. Maybe it would be best if you just admitted you are wrong about everything, because if this is how you're going to debate, then you've already lost.

    Calling me an "unimportant liemonger" isn't a personal attack? Looks like it is YOU who has already lost!

    My pointing out your mental problems wasn't a personal attack -- it was only an observation. Your insanity comes through very clearly in your posts. First you present an extremely WEAK case. Then you proclaim your feeble evidence definitive proof the lying bush Administration was right all along. Finally, when you are confronted with the cold hard facts which PROVE your claims are totally ridiculous, you call for me to surrender!

    I advise you to seek psychiatric help immediately.

    Cody Said... You look at the color of skin instead of the content of character? Mr. King would have a bone to pick with you.

    I think you have that backwards given Mr. King's stance on Affirmative Action...

    Martin Luther King, Jr. on Affirmative Action: "Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up".

     
  • At 17/2/06 4:23 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    You really have the Wing-nut playbook down to a T, don't you? If you really are as young as you claim to be I am impressed... that doesn't mean I'm still not very very disgusted with your horrible vile lies.

    At first I thought you were an innocent, but deluded kid. It appears I was wrong. Frankly, you make me sick.

    The Right Has a Dream. Martin Luther King as an Opponent of Affirmative Action. by Paul Rockwell.

    In the last years of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life, many mainstream journalists and conservative politicians treated him with fear and derision. In 1967, Life magazine (4/21/67) dubbed King's prophetic anti-war address "demagogic slander" and "a script for Radio Hanoi". Even years later, Ronald Reagan described King as a near-Communist.

    Today, however, a miracle is taking place: Suddenly, King is a conservative. By virtue of a snippit from one 1963 address--a single phrase about "the content of our character"--King is the most oft-quoted opponent of affirmative action in America today.

    "Martin Luther King, in my view, was a conservative", right-wing media critic David Horowitz declared on Crossfire (9/5/94), "because he stood up for, you know, belief in the content of your character -- the value that conservatives defend today".

    Politicians have been picking up on this rhetoric to justify rolling back civil rights legislation. When Gov. Mike Foster of Lousiana signed an executive order on Jan. 11 to abolish affirmative action, he presented the act as a fulfillment of King's dream. "I can't find anywhere in King's writings", Foster was quoted in the New York Times (1/12/96), "that King wanted reverse discrimination. He just wanted to end all discrimination based on color".

    Setting the Record Straight

    King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

    King supported affirmative action-type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

    In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action-style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war".

    In King's teachings, affirmative action approaches were not "reverse discrimination" or "racial preference." King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal oportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King's integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non-white alike. And contrary to Gingrich, King insisted that, along with individual efforts, collective problems require collective solutions.

     
  • At 17/2/06 4:25 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    As far as I'm concerned, you are dkfz with a different username. Oh, and feel free to attack me all you want, my insult counter hasn't changed in a while.

    "I already did. You're just to deluded to see the truth."

    The only link you gave me was your blog, and that doesn't count as proof.

    "My pointing out your mental problems wasn't a personal attack"

    Now you're sounding like the recliner. I'm starting to wonder if all three of these people are just one lonely person with no life...

    "Calling me an "unimportant liemonger" isn't a personal attack? Looks like it is YOU who has already lost!"

    So you would say getting called a liar is a personal attack, and getting called psyco isn't? You're messing with me.

    "I advise you to seek psychiatric help immediately."

    See what happens when Libs lose an argument? They insult you. Don't think you surprised me or anything Mr. Dervish, I've heard it before by at least two other libs, again, you're a carbon-copy Liberal.

    As for Mr. King, I was talking about your racism, not Mr. Kings view on affirmative racism.

    "It's an invention by bigoted white males. Like you."

    Now you can choose to stay and keep on insulting me rather than using actuall facts against my argument, or you can make me happy leave now. Please, choose the latter. I don't need to spend all day arguing with people who have no argument.

     
  • At 17/2/06 4:36 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Carbon-copies? Lets take a look...

    "How about verifiable evidence?"
    -dkfz

    "What about VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE?!"
    -W. Dervish

    "YOU ARE A JOKE."
    -dkfz

    "everybody else realized how much of a JOKE your "truths" are."
    -W. Dervish

    I rest my case. (lol)

     
  • At 17/2/06 4:53 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "At first I thought you were an innocent, but deluded kid."

    geez, I'm 16 (in 4 days anyways) not 7...

    "It appears I was wrong. Frankly, you make me sick."

    Yeah, how dare I have a different point of view. I'll go punish myself now...

     
  • At 17/2/06 10:17 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... As far as I'm concerned, you are dkfz with a different username.... I rest my case. (lol)

    Your powers of deduction are really quite amazing!

    LOL all you want. I'm not trying to hide anything. Look at my profile.

    Cody Said... See what happens when Libs lose an argument? They insult you.

    I haven't lost -- I kicked your a$$. You're just too stupid to realize it.

    FYI you are the one who is a carbon copy, as the article I posted CLEARLY illustrates. All you do is cut and paste from right-wing sites and articles and then add a bit of commentary. Pathetic.

    Cody Said... Yeah, how dare I have a different point of view. I'll go punish myself now...

    Sure, I guess you could say that as a bigoted, arrogant, deluded fool you have a "different point of view"... that doesn't mean I have to tolerate a$$holes like you.

    Cody Said... Oh, and feel free to attack me all you want, my insult counter hasn't changed in a while.

    Done. Now you can increase your counter... consider it a favor.

     
  • At 18/2/06 12:28 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    ZZZ...
    ZZZ...
    ZZZ...
    yawn...Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, Dervish might of talked, not important. Back to my nap.....

     
  • At 18/2/06 12:39 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    "I haven't lost -- I kicked your a$$. You're just too stupid to realize it."

    No you didn't, you haven't proved a single thing I said wrong. You just repeated the same line over and over again. It's not verifiable evidence, you can't verfy it, blah, blah, blah. But guess what, I haven't seen any "verifiable evidence" to support your claims. It's bad enough when you lie to me, but don't lie to yourself, your arguments are going nowhere.

    "All you do is cut and paste from right-wing sites and articles and then add a bit of commentary. Pathetic."

    Really? I'm copying and pasting stuff from right-wing sites and adding commentary? No. I give links to news stories, explain the news, and then give commentary. You on the other hand are in fact using dkfz arguments and even his lines. Real good job supporting your side...

    "that doesn't mean I have to tolerate a$$holes like you."

    Then for Christ's sake, leave! I've had just about enough with hostile Liberals such as yourself. I don't mind a reasonable debate, but I don't put up with real a-holes like yourself, who want to do nothing more than insult me.

     
  • At 18/2/06 12:43 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Oh and I like how you call me an a-hole when I am being reasonable and keeping insults to a bear minumum. You on the other hand are frequently angry and like to insult me in every post. Something just doesn't add up, huh?

    Here's your warning, stop being the real a-hole here or I will just delete your further posts, I'm not going to put up with with people like you anymore.

     
  • At 18/2/06 2:42 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... Oh and I like how you call me an a-hole when I am being reasonable and keeping insults to a bear minumum.

    You asked for insults so I obliged. I also provided a multitude of proof.

    I go into much more detail on my blog, but here's a summary of the people/groups who disagree with Mr. Sada's Claims:

    Iraqi weapons Scientists: According to James Risen, the New York Times Reporter who broke the story about the Government's use of illegal wiretapping and author of the new book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, The CIA was almost positive that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction before the war. Mr. Risen's book makes note of a CIA operation in which relatives of Iraqi weapons scientists (Iraqi expatriates living in the United States), were sent back to Iraq to ask their relatives if Iraq had an active WMD program. This program yielded ZERO evidence of an active WMD program. Also, when debriefed after bush declared "Mission Accomplished", Iraq's scientists still insisted that all work on WMDs had halted over 10 years prior. (The Daily Show, 1/9/2006)

    Regarding the Debriefings: The Iraq survey Group reported that the Iraqi scientists had been "cooperative", and that they "had no more information to share".

    Former Director General of the IAEA, Hans Blix: According to the book "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, "Containment had worked"... and "It has also become clear that national intelligence organizations and government hawks, but not the inspectors, had been wrong in their assessments". In his book Blix blames "monumental" intelligence failures on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain for most of these errors.

    Former aide to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson: In reference to his role in helping Colin Powell prepare for his February 2003 presentation at the UN Security Council, Wilkerson says, "I participated in a hoax".

    The Iraq Survey Group:, a 1,400-member international team headed by David Kay, which was organized by The Pentagon and the CIA to search for any evidence of an Iraqi weapons program.

    From CNN.com: "ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place", the report said. The report said that 12 years of international sanctions against Baghdad after the Gulf War had left Iraq's scientific community decimated and these experts' skills in a state of "natural decay" ...detainees interviewed by the group "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria".

    The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: On July 7, 2004 this committee published their findings in the report titled "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq". Please note the following relevant findings:

    The major key judgments in the NIE, particularly that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program", "has chemical and biological weapons", was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents", and that "all key aspects -- research & development (R&D), production, and weaponization -- of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War", either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting provided to the Committee.

    Following is a list of the REPUBLICAN members of the The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

    (Chairman) Pat Roberts of Kansas
    Orrin G. Hatch of Utah
    R. Michael DeWine of Ohio
    Christopher S. "Kit" Bond of Missouri
    C. Trent Lott of Mississippi
    Olympia Snowe of Maine
    Charles Hagel of Nebraska
    Saxby Chambliss of Georgia

    ----------

    Are they all un-American liars???! This is what makes me so mad. It's all there in black and white -- as plain as day! And yet you continue to deny the truth! WHY?! I'm not lying to myself -- YOU ARE!!

     
  • At 18/2/06 2:55 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... You on the other hand are frequently angry and like to insult me in every post. Something just doesn't add up, huh?

    What doesn't add up is how you can continue to deny the truth.

    And guess what -- all the proof I just provided? You'll deny it all. Republicans like you are the real LIEMONGERS. It's all they do: lie big, and lie constantly. So YES -- All this lying makes me EXTREMELY angry!!

     
  • At 19/2/06 10:03 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    How did that comment go? Oh, yeah. It's not verifiable evidence. Seriously. You've givin me people with opinions. With the exeption of Mr. Sada I've given you cold hard facts. First is the sattelite photos, and second is the tapes we recently found of Saddam himself talking about WMD's. But I still trust Mr. Sada nontheless because he was close to Saddam so he would have been told. Hans Blix on the other hand was sent to investigate Iraq and he wasn't allowed in certain areas. I don't know why you would trust HIM. And another thing is that most of these articles came out before all three of my articles of proof. Before those three articles came out, even I had doubts about WMD in Iraq. Sure the Daily show said that in '06, but are you really gonna' trust Jon Stewart of General Georges Sada? Stewart has already made up his mind on this subject and nothing can make him change it.

    "All this lying makes me EXTREMELY angry!!"

    Well don't get too angry, I don't want you to hurt that little terrior of yours.

     
  • At 19/2/06 12:23 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    What my sources said is ALL OPINION??!! All of these people were privy to clasified information, which is why I cited them as being credible sources!

    Even when members of your party say Saddam had no WMDs and didn't move any to Syria you still cling to lies?! What about the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence?? Are they liars?

    What about the Iraqi weapons scientists? All liars? Why would they lie?

    What the hell is wrong with you?! The reason I mentioned mental problems is that it is the only explaination that makes sense to me (or one of them).

    I'm angry at the people who know they are lying. My guess is you don't. You're just too deluded to see the truth. I feel a little sorry for you. Not too sorry though, as you are being willingly mislead. People like you are part of the problem -- you're screwing up this country for everyone!

    Oh, and I find your hatred and bigotry sickening. Of course you'll deny it -- but I think it's very clear to anyone who reads your comments. You're bigoted against anyone who disagrees with your neo-con philosophies, and are particularly racist when it comes to Muslims.

    You are one f'd up individual.

    Cody Said... but are you really gonna' trust Jon Stewart of General Georges Sada?

    Neither. I didn't give Jon Stewart as a source, so I don't understand why you're mentioning him.

    Cody Said.. sattelite photos, and second is the tapes we recently found of Saddam himself talking about WMD's.

    What satellite photos?? What tapes??!

    ----------

    The other possible explaination...

    The Coming of the Lawless One and Satan's Deception (2:9-10)

    2:9 The coming of the lawless one will be by Satan's working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, 2:10 and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved. (From Bible.org Deception, Delusion, and Divine Judgment in the Day of the Lord 2 Thes. 2:9-12)

     
  • At 19/2/06 8:18 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    To answer your main question, if someone thinks Saddam never had WMD they are lying, simple as that. Not to say they know they are lying because they do believe their side, but their side is wrong.

    "What satellite photos??"

    The ones talked about in the link I gave you that you dismissed before you looked at.

    "What tapes??!"

    Do you watch the news? The story
    broke last Wednesday I believe.

    "Oh, and I find your hatred and bigotry sickening. Of course you'll deny it -- but I think it's very clear to anyone who reads your comments. You're bigoted against anyone who disagrees with your neo-con philosophies, and are particularly racist when it comes to Muslims."

    I am not a racist neo-con. I SUPPORT moderate Muslims taking a stand against terrorists, and I SUPPORT Chuck Schumer when he says it's a bad idea to put the UAE in charge of 6 of our ports. I don't get upset when you lie about WMD, but I will not sit here and let you slander ME bud.

    "you're screwing up this country for everyone!"

    The feeling is mutual.

    "You are one f'd up individual."

    Again, the feeling is mutual.

    "What the hell is wrong with you?!"

    To answer your question, not much. Although I tend to be a little OCD, but otherwise I'm okay, but thanks for asking, I appreciate your concerns.

    This is your final warning, settle down and stop personally attacking me or I start using the delete button on everything you post, got it?

     
  • At 19/2/06 10:06 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... To answer your main question, if someone thinks Saddam never had WMD they are lying, simple as that. Not to say they know they are lying because they do believe their side, but their side is wrong.

    Alot of these people worked in the Bush Administration! They were NOT forming "opinions" based on information filtered through their "side". They saw the FACTS firsthand!!

    As for your "answering my main question" -- I don't have a clue what you think you're responding to. None of my sources said Saddam never had WMDs. I never said it. Something I pointed out on my blog:

    From the Council on Foreign Relations Website, Foreign Affairs: The greatest success of the UN disarmament mission was in the nuclear realm. IAEA inspectors found an alarmingly extensive nuclear weapons program when they entered Iraq in 1991, and they set out to destroy all known facilities related to the nuclear program and to account for Iraq's entire inventory of nuclear fuel. In 1997, the IAEA and UNSCOM concluded that there were no "indications that any weapon-useable nuclear material remained in Iraq" or "evidence in Iraq of prohibited materials, equipment or activities". After four months of resumed inspections in 2002-3, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that, according to all evidence, Iraq had no nuclear weapons and no program to redevelop them. He reported to the UN Security Council in March 2003 that inspectors had found "no indication of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites".

    Cody (referring to tapes of Saddam talking about WMDs) Said... Do you watch the news? The story
    broke last Wednesday I believe.

    I get most of my news from the Internet. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. But thanks for the link backing up your story. Is he talking about the WMDs he USED to have?

     
  • At 21/2/06 9:24 AM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    I could care less what the UN thinks. They are wrong nearly every time, not to mention when they inspect for weapons they always say there isn't any because they aren't allowed to inspect certain areas, and they don't seem to care too much either. But if you are ever worried that the UN will somehow make it into those places you can always pay them off and they'll do whatever you want them to.

    Just to put things into perspective for you, I hate the UN like you probably hate Haliburton.

    "I get most of my news from the Internet. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. But thanks for the link backing up your story. Is he talking about the WMDs he USED to have?"

    http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48249

    There's the story for you. What do mean by "the WMDs he USED to have?" He had WMD all the way up to right before the Iraq war when he sent them to Syria. Any stories saying different are cherrypicked to look like he never had WMD. That's right, all of your UN stories are wrong, because I've got more proof that shows he had WMD up until February and March 2003.

    First I'll give you this story.

    U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year

    "Evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys
    Posted: January 30, 2004
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

    The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer."

    That story fits right in with the next one.

    Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD

    (the story has way too much proof to post here)

     
  • At 21/2/06 6:51 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    It doesn't appear as though your source is very credible...

    John A. "Jack" Shaw served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for International Technology Security. Shaw became the subject of an FBI investigation when he conducted unauthorized investigations of Iraq reconstruction efforts, using the results of these unauthorized probes to direct multimillion dollar government contracts to his friends and associates. In one instance he impersonated a Halliburton employee in order to conduct the unauthorized investigation. Shaw was asked to resign for "exceeding his authority" in such probes. Among other unsubstantiated claims, Mr. Shaw accused Russian special forces of helping Saddam removed his WMD prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He was asked to resign shortly after these accusations, prompting him to call the accusations by the Pentagon "spurious". Shaw said he made the accusations as a political move to help candidate George W. Bush, who he felt was being "crucified" by the revelations that over 350 tons of explosives had gone missing in Iraq as a result of the U.S. invasion. Defense Department Chief of Staff Larry DiRita called Shaw's charges "absurd and without any foundation". DiRita noted that Shaw "has been directed on several occasions to produce evidence of his wide-ranging and fantastic charges and provide it to the DoD inspector general. To my knowledge, he has not done so". Senior Defense Department officials told the Washington Post that Shaw's claims regarding the al-Qa'qaa facility had "no basis in fact". Since the election, it has become clear that the explosives at al-Qa'qaa were removed after U.S. forces captured the facility.

    ==========

    You're really grasping at straws! When you repeat these lies do you break out in a sweat because you know you're wrong? Why don't you just admit it?

     
  • At 21/2/06 7:26 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    I forgot to note that John Shaw is the ex-official Cody is referring to.

    The first two stories you linked to "U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year", and "New evidence on Saddam's WMDs? Intelligence Summit to unveil secret recordings" are from World Net Daily!

    WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative online news site. The webpage links to mainstream media stories that are viewed as beneficial to conservatives and articles authored by the WND staff are generally of conservative political bent. The reliablity of facts appearing in the WND-authored stories has been repeatedly questioned by journalists in the mainstream media.

    The third story you linked to, "Ex-Official: Russia Moved Saddam's WMD", is from Newsmax, another BIASED conserviative site which has accusations of lying leveled against it!

    NewsMax is a conservative news website that was founded in September 1998 by journalist Christopher Ruddy, who is its current CEO, editor-in-chief, and runs the website in West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Christopher Ruddy is perhaps best known for his work on the Arkansas Project. Ruddy received funding for a conspiracy book surrounding the Presidency of Bill Clinton and Vincent Foster's suicide from Joseph Farah (the founder of World Net Daily.

    Consequently, NewsMax contains a right-wing viewpoint... After the Clinton Presidency, NewsMax still floats baseless conspiracies that Clinton was behind the Foster death and William Colby's death.

    NewsMax originated sales of the "Deck of Evil" playing cards and followed up with the "Deck of Weasels" lampooning prominent opponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as the "Deck of Hillary" and the "Deck of Reagan".

    Criticism of NewsMax has been over incorrect information about politics which specifically targeted liberal leaders and politicians. NewsMax has been accused of being a hub of conspiracy theories about Democrats, and Bill Clinton in particular.

    ==========

    Yes, they both sound like really reliable sources, not BIASED in any way! I'd call them NEO-CON LIEMONGERS. That's who you choose to believe! Not surprising. Maybe this is why I hadn't heard of any of these stories??

     
  • At 21/2/06 7:59 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody Said... But if you are ever worried that the UN will somehow make it into those places you can always pay them off and they'll do whatever you want them to.

    That is an outrageous unsubstantiated vile LIE. Where's your proof?! In the other thread about Saddam DarkSaturos said proof was needed before making accusations. That rule doesn't apply to Right-wingers?

    Cody Said... What do mean by "the WMDs he USED to have?" He had WMD all the way up to right before the Iraq war when he sent them to Syria. Any stories saying different are cherrypicked to look like he never had WMD. That's right, all of your UN stories are wrong...

    bullsh!t.

    You are right about me not liking Halliburton. You approve of companies who steal from taxpayers?!

    Bush Pays Halliburton For Services Never Rendered

    Civilians testify to Halliburton fraud, coercion

    Halliburton Accused of Fraud under Cheney

    Halliburton exec on fraud charges

    More Evidence of More Halliburton Fraud

    New Fuel To Halliburton Fraud Fire

     
  • At 23/2/06 6:16 PM, Blogger Cody O'Connor said…

    Say what you will, but do you have to use MY word, liemonger? I know it's a cool word, but it is MY word you know...

     
  • At 24/2/06 10:34 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    Cody O'Connor said... Say what you will, but do you have to use MY word, liemonger? I know it's a cool word, but it is MY word you know...

    How is it your word? The term existed before you "invented" it.

    I said... You are right about me not liking Halliburton. You approve of companies who steal from taxpayers?!

    So, your answer is yes?

    Also, what about that proof that the UN accepted bribes to look the other way?

     
  • At 1/3/06 9:03 PM, Blogger w-dervish said…

    w-dervish said... Also, what about that proof that the UN accepted bribes to look the other way?

    I think I've given you more than enough time to answer this question. But it WAS clear from the beginning that your slanderous accusations were total BS.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home