"Bush's Illegal War" Questionnaire

[Didaskomenos]

I got this from boortz.com. I can't wait for all the answers from the "anti-war activist" types. Then again, I probably shouldn't even bother.

'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire



Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.





1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.



2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?



3. Further, please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.



4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?



5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?



6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?



7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?



8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you before you kicked him out for not paying the rent he owes?



9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?



10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?



11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?



12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?



13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?



14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?



15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?



16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?



17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?



18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?



19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?



20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?



21. Would Hillary?



22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?



23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?




Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?


​

 

[datan]

that the best you can come up with? How about you actually think through them before cutting and pasting from some source on the web? Are you looking for a debate or on just rhetoric? Are your best arguments strawmen, out right lies and logical fallacies?

1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.

seriously, I've never heard anyone ever use that argument that 'Bush is more dangerous than Saddam', except of course by the Bush apologists claiming that. This is a strawman argument, and deserves to be given no consideration.

4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?

Quiz: Spot the outright lie in this 'question'

5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?

Ans: he didn't !

6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?

inspectors inspect, and that's what they were doing until Bush kicked them out.

7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?

well...looks like he did comply didn't he? He had disarmed before the war, so what's the point here?

8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you before you kicked him out for not paying the rent he owes?

Fallacious analogy. Seriously, how many logical fallacies are we going to have?

9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?

so everyone was wrong. So what?
Even the police are wrong sometimes; they don't break into someone's place until they get a search warrant from a judge based on sufficient evidence; not "I thought you thought he said she said"

10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?

Strawman argument again. No one claims anything like that.

11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?

um...incompetence?

12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?

Yes.

13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?

where's the aircraft fuselage now?

14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?

how about to build bunkers in case America decided to go another "Wag the Dog" round?

15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?

dunno. why did the Pentagon have the "office of strategic importance" whose designated purpose was to plant misleading stories in the news media?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?

where's your source?

17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?

everyone was wrong?

18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?

when they decided that the only way out of sanctions was to destroy their WMDs.

19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?

no--they were hydrogen generators for balloons for obervation posts for artillery as the following have concluded:
1. British intelligence
2. the British company who sold them the system
3. American defence and state intelligence agencies

20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?

depends. did he have any reason to suspect? did the FBI/CIA have any information indicating such an attack was on the horizon?

21. Would Hillary?

would she what? Run for president? I don't think so.

22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?

is it New York state being attacked? If so, maybe 10 minutes.

23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?

dumb question.



Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?


​

[/QUOTE]

 

[troodon]

Quiz: Spot the outright lie in this 'question'

**bzzzt** It wasn't a scud

 

[Lotar]

They admitted it wasn't a scud the same day it was launched

 

[troodon]

They admitted it wasn't a scud the same day it was launched

Silk Worm (I think that's what it was) is still a beast though. A legal beast, but one nonetheless

 

[Lotar]

"It has been rumored that we have fired Scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any Scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
-Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf

The only true thing he said during the war


"We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) "and they are condemned."
-Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf

I love that guy.

 

[R.E.Taet]

If we fought this whole war over oil, why haven't the gas prices dropped? I WANT CHEAP GAS.

And isn't the cost of the war enough to buy a whole lot of oil? Wouldn't that be a little easier than a war? Maybe Bush could have done it with one of those tax cuts he loves.

or maybe this wasn't a war over oil... hmm...

 

[ThePhoenix]

If we fought this whole war over oil, why haven't the gas prices dropped? I WANT CHEAP GAS.

And isn't the cost of the war enough to buy a whole lot of oil? Wouldn't that be a little easier than a war? Maybe Bush could have done it with one of those tax cuts he loves.

or maybe this wasn't a war over oil... hmm...

Oil for you? No. Oil for Halliburton? Yes.

Was that quiz one of the dumbest things I've ever seen? Yes. Did it consist of nothing besides falsehoods and strawmen? Yes. Was it a waste of time? Yes.

 

[troodon]

If we fought this whole war over oil, why haven't the gas prices dropped? I WANT CHEAP GAS.

And isn't the cost of the war enough to buy a whole lot of oil? Wouldn't that be a little easier than a war? Maybe Bush could have done it with one of those tax cuts he loves.

or maybe this wasn't a war over oil... hmm...

The war for oil thing never struck me as plausable because at about the same time as the buildup to Iraq, Venezuela (the number 3 exporter of oil to the US in 2002, just behind Mexico) had that big general strike which virtually stopped all oil exports. If the Bush administration were really only concerned about oil, it seems much more logical that they would have at least condemned the strike and if not sent in a few battalions to ensure peace for their precoius oil.

Then again, no one ever said Bush had to adhere to logic; so I could be wrong.

 

[datan]

well, if all things go well, in maybe 5-10 years time, we have a US-friendly government in Iraq, which just happens to control the world's second largest oil reserves, which will allow the US to tell the House of Saud to go screw themselves the next time they pull any of the "none of the hijackers were Saudis/our ambassador's wife absolutely did not know she was giving money to a terrorist" stunts...

so yes, in the short term, oil prices won't fall; but in the long term, the US (which just happens to be the highest energy consumption per capita economy) has long-term control over oil prices, not to some oil cartel like OPEC (who knows, Iraq might be "persuaded" to get out of OPEC). It's all about who controls the oil - some Islamic fundamentalists countries (basically the whole Middle East) or some quasi-democratic country where the US just happens to have a huge military presence, which has contributed significantly to its reconstruction, and where said reconstruction will be undertaken largely by American companies.

 

[Susan]

Agreed with datan, troodon, Lotar, and ThePhoenix. I won't bother to address the quiz specifically since they have done so very well and I would only be repeating what they said.

Nevertheless, this quiz is a fine example of flawed logic and an insult to anyone who thinks this war was a bad idea. . .

One more note, for those who say that we fought the Iraq war for human rights, there is a country that has even more blood on its hands than Iraq ever did. There is a country that is ruled by a brutal dictatorship that has killed its own citizens for political dissent or even practicing their own religious beliefs.

Anyone know what that country is?

America's biggest trading partner, A.K.A The People's Republic Of China.

 

[Didaskomenos]

seriously, I've never heard anyone ever use that argument that 'Bush is more dangerous than Saddam', except of course by the Bush apologists claiming that. This is a strawman argument, and deserves to be given no consideration.

I guess you haven't heard that charge, and I'm glad you realize it's ridiculous. But rest assured, this quote is from Mandela in January: "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings." His remarks were in the context of criticizing the war in Iraq.

Quiz: Spot the outright lie in this 'question'

Ans: he didn't

I am truly sorry I didn't catch this. It is a specious argument.

inspectors inspect, and that's what they were doing until Bush kicked them out.

Come on now. The deal was that Iraq showed them what they needed to see. Even Blix (!) was critical of how his teams were given grudging access but were not shown what they needed to see. That could have happened in a matter of days. Instead...how long were Blix and co. "inspecting"?

well...looks like he did comply didn't he? He had disarmed before the war, so what's the point here?

On the assumption that he actually did destroy all his weapons, do you really think he would have complied if the U.S. hadn't shown the balls to back up the U.N. resolutions?

so everyone was wrong. So what?

Even the police are wrong sometimes; they don't break into someone's place until they get a search warrant from a judge based on sufficient evidence; not "I thought you thought he said she said"

So if everyone was wrong, why is the U.S. made to be the bad guys - because we actually acted on what we believed? And the implication that the U.S. needed the "Hon. Kofi Annan" to "authorize" the U.S. to act to protect our country is outright insane. Besides, that's what the last U.N. resolution promised - dire consequences.

Strawman argument again. No one claims anything like that.

Do all anti-war people believe this? No. Were there a number of people all around the world who expected that to happen? Go to umdfacultyagainstwar.com, for instance.

um...incompetence?

Because you are not an American, I will overlook this inflammatory remark.

Yes.

Good answer. The point of this is whether or not Iraq had nukes or anthrax, they fostered the ill will that made them a danger, especially given the intelligence that said they had a nukes program and thousands of liters of anthrax spores.

where's the aircraft fuselage now?

What's your point?

how about to build bunkers in case America decided to go another "Wag the Dog" round?

That's ridiculous. They were planning during Clinton's administration for him to come over there and pick a fight for no reason? Hmm... seems they shouldn't have kicked the inspectors out if they didn't want that to happen.

dunno. why did the Pentagon have the "office of strategic importance" whose designated purpose was to plant misleading stories in the news media?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1830500.stm

The funniest part about that is that you would believe the BBC on this issue. Do you remember how anti-war the BBC let everyone know it was? Do you see one source for the information in the article? You could have written the article, for all I know.

where's your source?

Try this, for starters. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue1/jv7n1a5.html

everyone was wrong?

Is that a question? You seem to be suggesting that not only was the United Nations wrong, but that maybe Iraq was mistaken about its own anthrax arsenal.

when they decided that the only way out of sanctions was to destroy their WMDs.

Again, Saddam just woke up one morning and thought, "Shoot! I completely forgot - 17 is my unlucky number, so I better go ahead and get rid of my nerve gas and anthrax spores. They might send inspectors over here!" Or did the U.S. lend necessary muscle to back up the U.N., which prompted Saddam to go about losing all his WMD's (provided that there are none to be found in Iraq)? If he did ditch the weapons, he did it too late, and that's not our fault.

no--they were hydrogen generators for balloons for obervation posts for artillery as the following have concluded:

1. British intelligence

2. the British company who sold them the system

3. American defence and state intelligence agencies

Once again, I'm sorry about that bad argument - this was an old document I took this from. Please don't dismiss the good arguments in overcompensation, though.

depends. did he have any reason to suspect? did the FBI/CIA have any information indicating such an attack was on the horizon?

Datan, you know darned well that a large constituency of far leftists would be assuming from the get-go that Bush had reason to suspect, that the FBI/CIA knew all along, etc. Or are you out of touch with your fellow idealogues?

would she what? Run for president? I don't think so.

Nice dodge.

is it New York state being attacked? If so, maybe 10 minutes.

Yes, but like she did with the NY blackouts, she's be blaming Bush straight out of the chute.

 

[datan]

I guess you haven't heard that charge, and I'm glad you realize it's ridiculous. But rest assured, this quote is from Mandela in January: "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings." His remarks were in the context of criticizing the war in Iraq.

well let's see...the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon on civilians; using chemical weapons and napalm--yeah that pretty much qualifies for "unspeakable atrocities". Just because you use a high tech way not AK-47s doesn't make it less of an atrocity.

I am truly sorry I didn't catch this. It is a specious argument.

the question was how did Iraq use a banned Scud missile. My answer was--they didn't.

Come on now. The deal was that Iraq showed them what they needed to see. Even Blix (!) was critical of how his teams were given grudging access but were not shown what they needed to see. That could have happened in a matter of days. Instead...how long were Blix and co. "inspecting"?

WHERE were the inspectors kept out from? Show me one single place where they said "we want to go here" and the Iraqis said "No". They even inspected the presidential palace -- which IS a public humiliation to the president. If you cannot show me a single place where the inspectors were refused access, then your point is moot.

On the assumption that he actually did destroy all his weapons, do you really think he would have complied if the U.S. hadn't shown the balls to back up the U.N. resolutions?

I'm thinking (and so did Blix--since you quoted him) that the WMDs were destroyed long ago. Why weren't sanctions lifted? Because the US would never have allowed that as long as Saddam was in office--regardless of whether Iraq had fulfilled its obligations. That's why Saddam kicked out those inspectors--because they were basically playing a charade. David Kay was on the team wasn't he?

So if everyone was wrong, why is the U.S. made to be the bad guys - because we actually acted on what we believed?

because you were wrong and went to war over it. I might think you are a child abuser but if I don't act on my beliefs, no one gives a hoot what I think. But if I punch you or beat up based on my false beliefs, then I'm clearly in the wrong.

And the implication that the U.S. needed the "Hon. Kofi Annan" to "authorize" the U.S. to act to protect our country is outright insane. Besides, that's what the last U.N. resolution promised - dire consequences.

Under the UN charter (which the US signed and has not abrogated to the best of my knowledge--but maybe they should get kicked out of the UN for violating its charter):
1. Self-defense in the face of eminent attack is the right of every country
2. Beyond that, any use of force requires UN support. Go read the charter. So how is Iraq--a third world country which was beaten in three weeks--a threat to the United States again?

3. "dire consequences" -- the resolution explicitly states that the UN Security Council would decide what to do--not some renegade cowboy state. The US ambassador explicitly stated "this resolution does not contain any automacity of use of force". Was the US acting in good faith when it sought the resolution, or did they just want the UN to rubberstamp its invasion.
4. The resolution asked Iraq to disarm. Looks like they did didn't they? So how can there be "dire consequences" for them if they in fact complied with the resolution?

Do all anti-war people believe this? No. Were there a number of people all around the world who expected that to happen? Go to umdfacultyagainstwar.com, for instance.

honestly, I don't believe that the administration would do it (fake evidence), but I can understand why perfectly rational people could believe that--not because they are blinded or paranoiac, but due to this administration's total disregard for the truth. Your government has lied before--the Pentagon papers, Gulf of Tonkin resolution; I cannot rule out the remote possibility that they might fake evidence or take great liberties with the truth. In fact, they have already done so, claiming that some hydrogen truck found were bio labs. So, its not as farfetched as you might wish to pretend.

Because you are not an American, I will overlook this inflammatory remark.

that was a rebuttal to your fallacious and totally illogical question.

Good answer. The point of this is whether or not Iraq had nukes or anthrax, they fostered the ill will that made them a danger, especially given the intelligence that said they had a nukes program and thousands of liters of anthrax spores.

So your intelligence was wrong. So dozens of country hate Americans. Are you going to invade them? You know, its a pretty sad day when the United nations secretary general in his speech to the UN General Assembly accused America of being the greatest threat to world peace and stability now. That's what unilaterialism "taking matters into your own hands" get you into. You don't have a right to invade any country you please simply because of what "you think she thought he said they saw"

What's your point?

How come we don't hear anything about those airline fuselages anymore? If they exist and were used for the purposed claimed, why hasn't the Bush administration brought reporters and shown them around the "terrorist training facility" I mean they are pretty much grasping as straws right now trying to find proof of terrorist links or WMDs.

That's ridiculous. They were planning during Clinton's administration for him to come over there and pick a fight for no reason? Hmm... seems they shouldn't have kicked the inspectors out if they didn't want that to happen.

huh? Look at the reports of the bunkers that Saddam built. How do you think he built them? WIth those fancy tunnelling machines you mentioned. Is that illegal? Saddam thought that the US was a threat to him. Looks like he was right wasn't he?

The funniest part about that is that you would believe the BBC on this issue. Do you remember how anti-war the BBC let everyone know it was? Do you see one source for the information in the article? You could have written the article, for all I know.

1. how does being anti-war discredit anyone?
2. Is that how you argue against points you cannot discredit? By trying to claim such things don't exist? Why don't you do a simple google search and see how many other sources other than the BBC have reported on this. Or are they all part of the same left-wing conspiracy?
3. Your assertion that I wrote the article is insulting and belittling.

Is that a question? You seem to be suggesting that not only was the United Nations wrong, but that maybe Iraq was mistaken about its own anthrax arsenal.

Iraq declared they had fully disarmed, and no longer had those anthrax. I would like to ask you in what way were they mistaken?

Even Blix acknowledges that he thinks he was wrong; that Iraq had already disarmed.

Again, Saddam just woke up one morning and thought, "Shoot! I completely forgot - 17 is my unlucky number, so I better go ahead and get rid of my nerve gas and anthrax spores. They might send inspectors over here!" Or did the U.S. lend necessary muscle to back up the U.N., which prompted Saddam to go about losing all his WMD's (provided that there are none to be found in Iraq)? If he did ditch the weapons, he did it too late, and that's not our fault.

look at the just-released CIA report. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq either possessed those WMDs recently, or had destroyed them just before the war. Why would Saddam destroy them IF he had them, if a war was inevitable? The US lending muscle to back up the UN had nothing to do with there being no WMDs found today. Iraq had disarmed prior to resolution 1441, and to assert that those WMDs were destroyed in the period between 1441 and the war is baseless (and maybe an easy excuse for dodging the hard question of why the US went to war on false premises).

Datan, you know darned well that a large constituency of far leftists would be assuming from the get-go that Bush had reason to suspect, that the FBI/CIA knew all along, etc. Or are you out of touch with your fellow idealogues?

this is insulting and belittling. I refer you to the forum rules.
http://www.christianforums.com/rules.html
I have not made any assumptions about your background or where you're coming from; I'm trying to debate with you on your opinions and facts, rather than indulging in personal attacks. I respectfully request that you reciprocate or I would find no reason to continue this discussion.

Nice dodge.

that's an answer to a non-question. Would Hillary WHAT? See--you're assuming that I'm liberal and that I actually care what Hillary would or would not do. Do you assume that anyone who is anti-war or anti-Bush must be a leftwing fringe radical, since rational people would have no problems with Bush? That's very poor reasoning. Are you able to accept that a rational person who doesn't care hoot about the whole conservative-liberal divide in America (and why should I? It seems to be that no one actually discusses issues (other than abortion of course) which traditionally defined the liberal/conservative divide such as big government, deficit spending etc.--except how they are conservative and they'll always support Republicans or they are liberal and will always support Democrats). This whole politically-poisoned atmosphere is just amusing to me (sometimes infuriating when parties stretch or misrepresent facts to try to twist their policies).

Yes, but like she did with the NY blackouts, she's be blaming Bush straight out of the chute.

anyway, what does Hillary have to do with anything? Except of course that you're assuming I'm liberal because I attack Bush's policies. That's really poor reasoning. I couldn't care less what Hillary does or says--beyond my opinion of her as a politican. There are some politicans I admire--who have integrity and smart--like Powell (who happens to be a republican); some I despise -- who lie and are petty and arrogant -- like Bush and Rumsfeld (two other Republicans).

 

[john crawford]

I got this from boortz.com. I can't wait for all the answers from the "anti-war activist" types. Then again, I probably shouldn't even bother.

'Bush's Illegal War' Questionnaire



Please answer as many of the following questions as you can, and as many with a straight face as possible. Please answer quickly as you already have all of the answers.





1. Since George W. Bush is evil, and thought by some to be far more dangerous than Saddam Hussein, could you please list the instances you are aware of where George W. Bush has ordered the murder, torture and rape of American citizens, like yourself, who oppose his presidency.



2. Could you list any sites of mass graves of American citizens ordered to be killed by the Bush administration?



3. Further, please list the instances you are aware of when George W. Bush has ordered the murder of members of his own family.



4. Do you feel that Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons he was specifically forbidden to have by the UN; for example, the Scud missiles he fired into Kuwait during the first two weeks of the war?



5. How do you think Saddam was able to fire weapons that he didn't have?



6. Are inspectors inspectors, or are inspectors detectives?



7. How many more months would you have given Saddam Hussein to comply with the 17 UN resolutions, passed over 12 years?



8. If you owned an apartment building, for how many months would you allow a tenant to defy you before you kicked him out for not paying the rent he owes?



9. If the UN, and the previous administration, were convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and used that as a basis for their actions against Iraq, how do those reasons evaporate when applied by the Bush administration?



10. If the Bush administration, led by the evil GWB, lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to go to war, why haven't we found any WMD secretly planted by the Bush administration?



11. If you feel it would be too difficult to plant WMD in Iraq, because there are too many people watching, such that no one can do anything sneaky in Iraq, then why can't we find Saddam?



12. Do you disagree with the statement..."The weapons of mass destruction used in the 9/11 attacks were box-cutters"?



13. Do you think finding an airplane fuselage in a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq means terrorists were practicing hijackings? If not, for what purpose do you think they were using the airplane?



14. Knowing what little you may know about spy satellites, what do you think Iraq was hiding using the tunnel-digging equipment they bought from the French some 5 years ago?



15. Why do you think Iraq had a 'Higher Committee for Monitoring the Inspection Teams' headed by Hussein's Vice-President, and son, Qusay?



16. The fact that Iraq trained experts to foil UN weapons inspectors is documented not just by U.S. intelligence organizations, but by those of many other countries. Why do you think Iraq needed to use these tactics, if George W. Bush is lying?



17. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had biological weapons. They declared they had, for example, 8500 liters of anthrax. Where did they all go? If Iraq destroyed them, why would there be any need for more UN resolutions after that?



18. When do you think Iraq abandoned their existing Weapons of Mass Destruction program? What do you think was their motivation for abandoning it- the 17th time the UN said 'pretty please', or the fact that it was spending too much money that could used for social programs to improve the lives of Iraqi citizens?



19. Do you think the bio-weapons lab vehicles found in Iraq were being used as lunch wagons, or as mobile auto detail trucks?



20. If a terrorist organization attacked America tomorrow by spraying anthrax over a large city, would you blame George W. Bush for not doing enough?



21. Would Hillary?



22. How many minutes after the attack do you think it would take for Hillary to appear on CNN?



23. If an illegal U.S. president declares an illegal war, wouldn't the two cancel each other out?




Bonus Question: Do you think O.J. killed Ron and Nicole, or was he the victim of a massive conspiracy to plant evidence by many separate divisions of the LAPD?


​

What is this? Another inquisition?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Datan,

Do you consider yourself an "anti-war activist type"? So many of your comments are based on taking the questionnaire personally, when in fact, it is directly aimed at the "anti-war activist types", a category of people I somewhat unwisely assumed would be construed here as liberal American Democrats. Insofar as you don't fit that profile, the questions aren't meant for you to get indignant about. Did I say anywhere that everyone who thought the Iraq war was wrongheaded was ipso facto an "anti-war activist type" liberal American Democrat? Of course you are free to discuss the questions that do apply to you, but pardon me for assuming with my "idealogues" comment that you were actually the target of the questionnaire. I apologize.

Note that there are still no takers among the "leftwing fringe radicals".

 

[Edge]

Strawmen, Didaskomenos. The questionnaire is addressed to strawmen, not "leftwing fringe radicals". If you're waiting for someone to defend a position that no one has ever advocated, you're wasting everyone's time.

Datan has comprehensively answered the article's aborted attempts at rational argument. The dross he's rightfully ignored.

Okay. I'm am a self-proclaimed "leftwing fringe radical", and I will answer your questions.
1-3: Strawmen.
4,5: False. Iraq didn't fire Scuds in the opening days of the war.
6: The inspectors carried out their purpose whenever the US would let them. They found no WMDs because there were no WMDs.
7: Iraq complied with all the resolutions I'm aware of. If you disagree, you might consider providing both the resolution's number and proof of Iraq's violation.
8: Irrelevent, as Iraq did comply.
9-11: Strawmen.
12: Disagree. Weapons of mass destruction are fairly narrowly defined. Box cutters don't qualify.
13-17: Begging the question.
18: Iraq destroyed its WMDs and WMD program shortly after the end of the Gulf War, according to numerous defectors, including the general in charge of the weapons program. Their motivation was probably the sanctions.
19: The "mobile labs" served the purpose that both the British and American intelligence agencies concluded they did: providing hydrogen for artillery balloons.
20: Yes. While the administration is wasting lives and money fighting a war against a government that had nothing to do with terrorism against the US, curtailing Constitutionally-protected rights, and destablizing the delicate checks and balances of our government, it is ignoring the real issue of homeland security and excabating the problems overseas.
21,22: Irrelevent.
23: Irrelevent, stupid, and not particuarly funny.

 

[TheBear]

Let me add one more question....

Why did all those Democrats in Congress, give Bush the authorization to use military force in Iraq, in that 2002 Congressional vote?

 

[Edge]

TheBear: For the same reasons all those Republicans authorized military force: they were misled.

 

[TheBear]

And, was Clinton misled when he ordered those 1998 air strikes in Iraq?

 

[Didaskomenos]

Who misled them?

• "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
• "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
• "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
• "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
• "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
• "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
• "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
• "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
• "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
• "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
• "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
• "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
• "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
• I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
• "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,
• "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
• "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,
• "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
• "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003. (http://boortz.com/nuze/200309/09222003.html)

It's truly amazing how George W. Bush, Don Rumsfeld, and their Halliburton buddies got to all those people.