Curt Day: Just Another LYING LIBERAL

Additionally, there were a total of 23 paragraphs in the Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force in Iraq. They concerned Iraq's demonstrated connections to terrorism, Saddam's human rights violations, WMD, and other reasons. To claim that b/c there were no WMD, the war was fought for fraudulent reasons is to be either willfully ignorant, or painfully stupid.

Possibly a combination of the two!

It seems that you have stopped a bit early in examining Blix's views regarding WMDs in Iraq. In Sept of 2003, according to Reuters, Blix believed that Iraq had destroyed most if not all WMDs in 1991(http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/091803C.shtml --which shows the Reuters report). But it just wasn't my self or Blix who later concluded that there were no WMDs in Iraq that warranted an invasion, both the Congress and the President also came to that conclusion (http://www.politicspa.com/pressreleasedetailed.asp?id=3908).
In addition, Blix did not agree with the US and British use and interpretation of intelligence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3469821.stm)

Now the above reference did report that there were 4 sites that contained WMDs. The weapons found though did not warrant an invasions. Scott Ritter, former Marine and UN weapons inspector said that the weapons found were exactly what the UN inspectors expected: weapons whose shelf life had expired. This was restated in a House of Rep committee examining this matter by another American who was a weapons inspector. BTW, Weldon did not take kindly to this testimony. I would give you references for the last two items but the first was from a meeting I attended where Ritter spoke and the latter was a hearing I saw on C-Span.

Now what I cited above proves nothing either way. But what I cited does indicate that your hasty conclusion regarding my statements should be reexamined. Hasty here because you cited earlier documents in citing Blix but left out the later ones.

But since you are a conservative Catholic, let speak on a different level. In Galations 5, Paul compares traits which are labeled the fruit of the Spirit and traits that are associated with the works of the flesh. Regardless of whether you agree with my assessment of Bush's decision, is how you are criticizing me more reflective of the Spirit working in your life or the flesh? If you disagree with me, fine. But when you identify yourself as a Christian, conservative Catholic, are you showing the work of the Spirit in your life or the result of the flesh by how you are criticizing. You are the judge.

Curt Day
extrememoderate.townhall.com

You claimed Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses.

This is clealy a lie. Bush was clear and accurate regarding his rationale for the Iraq War.

Blix's statements six months after the war began are irrelevant to pre war decision making.

Saddam had 12 years to complay with UNSC sanctions. He failed. Bush sought and received unanimous consent to this fact(15-0) from the UNSC. He then waited six more months for Saddam to comply. How is that hasty? More importantly, we learned from both the Kay and Dulfuer investigations that Saddam planned to restart WMD production once sanctions were dropped.

You are LYING when you claim our invasion was hasty AND you know it.


My criticism of you is accurate. I posted the truth.

Feel free to apologize for your lies.

Blix also criticized Bush's use of intelligence at invasion time. What was needed was time for the UN inspectors to verify US claims. However, Bush not only said the invasion was necessary, he said it was urgent. Both claims proved to be false. Time verified who was right. Even the Bush Administration has admitted that the WMDs they claimed to be in Iraq were not there.

Yes, Iraq had 12 years to comply. But their failure to comply was in paperwork, not weapons. And at the same time, if you read Scott Ritter's book on this subject, you will find that at the same time, the US tried to sabotage the efforts of the UN inspection team because their goal was to see regime change in Iraq.

I hear the 12 years was enough argument from conservatives all of the time. And yet, it seems that it is more motivated by a passion to punish without regard to the full consequences of the war. The Bush administration ignored warnings about the insurgency and other impacts of the war. Now as a result, we have traded a ruthless dictator, whom we supported and supplied up until he invaded Kuwait, for the mass chaos of multiple wars. In addition, our debit has skyrocketed and we have increased both terrorism around the world and the number of terrorist recruits.

Finally, Bush did not receive UNSC permission to invade. In fact, if you compare the resolutions of both Gulf Wars, the one 43 received contained weaker wording. The Bush administration knew that they could never get a resolution to pass authorizing the invasion so they did not return to the UN. In addition, then secretary of state, Koffi Annan, has declared the war to be illegal as well as most of the other nations in the world.

The crux of the matter for you is your anger against legitimate dissent. Why not just agree to disagree. I have colleagues at work who disagree with me and yet we discuss this matter in a respectful manner.

(( What was needed was time for the UN inspectors to verify US claims.))

What US claims? Bush cited UN and other intelligence source claims. Blix reinforced Bush's position with his January 27th, 2003 address to the UN.

(((However, Bush not only said the invasion was necessary, he said it was urgent. ))

He said no such thing. He said it was a good idea and that waiting for the threat to become imminent was bad strategy.

MORE LIES from Curt Day. Hilarious!


(((The Bush administration ignored warnings about the insurgency and other impacts of the war.)))

Gibberish. You have no such knowledge. The fact that the insurgency has been more difficult to put down than expected doesn't mean anything was ignored. If you can prove the above speculation, feel free!

((Yes, Iraq had 12 years to comply. But their failure to comply was in paperwork, not weapons. ))

Gibberish. WMD were only one of the areas that Iraq failed to complay with UNSC resolutions. Others, like the release of some 600 Kuwaiti prisoners of war, were also not met. Hans Blix himself stated clearly that Iraq was not in compliance with UNSC resolutions and the UNSC voted 15-0 confirming as much. More lies, liberal?

((The crux of the matter for you is your anger against legitimate dissent. ))

I'm not angry, I enjoy pointing out the lies of idiot liberals like you.

This is fun!

You have yet to defend a SINGLE one of you lies, you just keep digging!

Yes, the Bush Administration said that the invasion of Iraq was urgent, that we could not wait for the UN inspection team to do further work. The Bush Administration could have put off the invasion--or not use an invasion to confront Iraq in this matter in the first place.

Actually, the Bush Administration's actions towards Iraq resembles a state that tries a man for murder based on testimony without running DNA tests. They get a conviction, sentence him to death, execute him, and then run the DNA tests only to find out that the person was innocent.

You are not interested in a discussion among equals. You are interested in domination--which fits an authoritarian mindset but not a Biblical one. This is just one reason why outside of their own community, conservatives are losing credibility. You attempt to be punitive in your remarks which if that does not imply anger, then it implies a trait that is worse.

So have your fun by ridiculing, it matters not to me. Realize though, that I have already provided ample documentation for much of what I have said and you refuse to acknowledge it. For example, it is not just myself, or Hans Blix who said that Iraq had no WMDs, it was Congress and the Bush Administration themselves. And again, since they said that Iraq did not have WMDs, then the only violation that Iraq could have had with regards to weapons was paperwork.

((Yes, the Bush Administration said that the invasion of Iraq was urgent, that we could not wait for the UN inspection team to do further work. The Bush Administration could have put off the invasion--or not use an invasion to confront Iraq in this matter in the first place))

Leaving Saddam in power would have not solved anything. Even the democrats knew this. Please provide a quote from Bush stating the urgency of invading Iraq. There is no such quote. Bush did lay out his rationale clearly and stated that further delays were not wise.

(((Actually, the Bush Administration's actions towards Iraq resembles a state that tries a man for murder based on testimony without running DNA tests. >>>

Which fact do you deny?

1) Saddam produced and used WMD in the past.
2) Saddam planned further WMD production.
3) Saddam came to power through murder and ruled through brutal oppression.
4) Saddam twice invaded neighboring nations.
5) Saddam regularly fired on US aircraft defending the no fly zones.
6) Saddam pledged to destroy Israel and unite the Arab world under his rule.
7) Saddam supported terrorists, including Islamic Jihad and Hamas. Saddam used the Al Qaeda affiliate Ansar al Islam, which was based in Northern Iraq, to assasinate opposition Kurdish leaders.s
8) Al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan and made his new base in Fallujah, a Baathist stronghold, BEFORE we invaded Iraq.

((You are not interested in a discussion among equals.))

I am interested in the truth. Exposing your lies is part of seeking the truth. You are incapable of defending your statements because they are lies. Lies are NOT equal to truth.

(((For example, it is not just myself, or Hans Blix who said that Iraq had no WMDs>>>

What Blix ACTUALLY said before the war:

Hans Blix addressing the UN, January, 2003.

Chemical Weapons

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.

The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.

Biological weapons

I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.

Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.

As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm