From: Cliff S (mtnbikinssgt@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 07:02:08 PDT
List, lets take the politics someplace else...........the trash can.
The media will tell you whatever they are paid to support. If you even
remotely believe that politics and media are NOT connected..........then you
are NOT connected. That is a case closed.
........Steve if your so politically profound with all the insight, hows
about you run for President and do the right thing.............
Cliff Smith
SSgt USMC
M880 (4 sale)
M274A5
6K GenSet
From: Stephen Grammont <islander@midmaine.com>
To: "Cliff S" <mtnbikinssgt@hotmail.com>
CC: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Subject: Re: [MV] Iraq winning or losing
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 09:50:03 -0400
On Jul 1, 2005, at 9:15 AM, Cliff S wrote:
>if a tree falls in the woods with no one to film it, did it really
>fall...........................
if you conduct interviews with senior Iraqi officials, read 40 million pages
of documents and classified information, have unfettered access to any
suspected sites, and spend millions of Dollars in the process of forming a
1000 page report to Congress and the President... did Iraq really have WMD?
All experts and politicians, from both sides of the isle, now say that "no,
Iraq did not have WMD". It is an open and shut case.
The US Gov'ts leadership said Iraq had functioning WMD, functioning WMD
production capabilities, and were actively seeking out more capabilities and
materials. FACT... as many said before the war, these assertions simply
were not true. Even President George W. Bush has said this, publicly and
quite plainly. Anybody who wishes to disagree with all of this can, if they
like, but unless they have FIRST hand information to prove to the
contrary... disagreeing is rather silly (to be polite about it). This is
not an issue of "liberals" or the media trying to distort the record... it
*is* the record. There were no WMD or active WMD programs. Case closed.
As for Chris' comments about "funky stuff" found, all of this has been
explained as not being WMD. If ANY of it were even remotely related to the
question of WMD, it would have been noted as such. But none of it was, so
none of it is relevant. I saw a presentation by a battalion commander of
the 101st AAD, who was there on the ground for the entire 1st phase of the
war in Iraq, and he also noted finding all kinds of "funky stuff". He even
showed us some pictures he snapped of some big machinery that was stored in
a warehouse. As he put it "looked pretty suspicious to us, but for all I
know it made popcorn. Because we couldn't tell the difference we tagged it
and guarded it until someone came to asses it." (or something like that. A
great warrior with a great sense of humor).
Also, Chris stated:
"I don't want to wait until it meets the standards & definition above, would
you want you kids to wait?"
I agree with this logic, but unfortunately the logical conclusion in 2003
would have been to invaded Iran or North Korea, not Iraq. Unlike Iraq,
these other two countries are controlled buy nuts *and* it is proven fact
that they have WMD. Cripes, Iran looks to have just "elected" (I use that
term loosely) as President one of the guys behind the embassy hostage
crisis. Talk about a big slap in the face. But our country is now over
committed militarily and financially, and we've pissed off most of the world
so there isn't much we can do except saber rattle. That disturbs me.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:22:14 PDT