26 Former U.S. Officials Oppose Bush

[The Duke]

Like super said, 20 of the 26 were ambassadors.  End of that discussion.

In any case, there are far more qualified people who didn;t join this idiot group who are critical of the administration.  There are far more qualified people who have a glowing view of the adminstration.  In spite of the fact that Lunar's logic is clearly better than Wakie's on this, I'll play a round on Wakie's field because I am a nice guy.

So, Wakie.  Who should I trust, a former ambassador to Great Britain who I've never heard of, or Former Secretary of State and Treasury George P. Schultz, who supports Bush?  Schultz is more qualified, and this by your own logic makes him right doesn't it?  Or I could ask former Defense Secretaries Casapr Weinberger, Frank Carlucci, Dick Cheney, William Cohen and Secretaries of State James Baker, Al Haig and Lawrence Eagleberger?  Or, the current Secretaries of State and Defense who they will vote for.  How about CIA Directors George Tenet, James Woolsey, and Bill Casey?  All will vote for Bush.

This parade of credentials is a lot more impressive than the washed up diplomat parade you've brought to our attention, but it will not sway your vote I think.  All you are trying to do is blind people by throwing fancy titles in their face, when in fact there are well educated, well qualified people on both sides of nearly every issue, and putting together a list of 26 semi-qualified people isn't that impressive when put into persepctive.

[opebo]

Big deal - bureaucrats don't like Bush.  Hah, they never like real Republicans.

[mddem2004]

I must say, after reading the comments of those from across the isle, you really are a bunch of fools....

If you folks would bother to read just who is on this list, and if you don't know who they are.....would look their records up, you might not dismiss this so carelessly.

These are career service Americans who have dedicated their lives in both the diplomatic corps and the military to advancing the goals of this nation for decades, from administrations of both parties. People that have made it their business.....because of their business, to not be partisan because they are advancing the security and national welfare of all americans no matter which party is in power.

People like Adm Crowe, whom your beloved Reagan had serving as his Chief of the JCS, Gen. Joe Hoar chief of CENTCOM under Bush the elder, Jack Matlock of Reagan's NSC. Not exactly your washed out diplomatic types....

They've avoided partisan politics that is until until now....

These folks obviously have had enough of the Bush "Vulcans", enough of watching decades worth of work to gain the trust and good will of the world all go up in smoke with 3 1/2 years of the arogant, short sighted, self serving and ultimately self destructive foreign policy of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al........

You know......I gotta say it is just too atypical of you on the other side of the aisle.....

Here we are, a country after 9/11 having the leading Paris newspaper with the headline "WE ARE ALL AMERICANS NOW", and two years after that the Rethuglican controlled House was actually debating on whether to rename the French Fries served in the Capital cafeteria "Freedom Fries" because the French woundn't sign on to Bush's notion of pre-emtive war. Only you ideolgues can't see it......and only ideolgues could blow such good will from the world in such a time.

Yet when we have 26 of the best military and diplomatic minds come together and say enough is enough....without explicitly endorsing Kerry I must add....
all you can come up with is trashing these people as washed up while you stick your heads in the sand with your Bush-Cheney stickers platered over your backsides.

Come Wednesday when this group goes offical, it will be real interesting to see how far the administration, and the Hannity's and Limbaugh's of the world go to discredit these true Americans.

Pathetic.....

[??????????]

Basically they are just old washed up bats who most of us really don't care about or for. It's time for America to stand up as AMERICA and to stop cowtowing to the UN and their criminial crew (IE Libya, China, Russia). Blame Bush if you wish but he is standing up for how a lot of Americans feel about the world right now. Their was no pre-emptive war as we never attacked a nation we were ever at peace with. We did go to the U.N. and of course the rejected the idea mostly because of the Oil for Palaces Food issue. We know who are true allies are and who the wishy washy American wannabes are (ie France, Germany and Russia). We are in this war to fight for our survival. Though the enemy is not as obvious as Nazi Germany or ToJo Japan they still wish to destroy us and remove our freedoms. These wishy washy fair weather pests are not gone forever. They will be back of course when things settle down. They've really barely stood by us in most of our history. It's time to get the US out of the UN and let us stand as the sovereign independent nation we are. These 26 washups I have basically no use for and they are in the gang of those who would rather sacrifice our freedoms for a few fair weather friends. As for the French, I say, damn them to hell.

[mddem2004]

I had hoped I wouldn't have had to remind StatesRats that if it were not for the French Fleet at Yorktown, we may still be speaking with a bit of a Brit accent....

Be that as it may, when we talk of those that would not sign on to "Bush's Premtive War with no real planning way of securing our future" why do we not mention Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Norway, yada, yada, yada..... they opposed the war just as much as the Frenchies....and when we even speak of the nations that do...oh, Britain, Italy, Spain come to mind....whose PEOPLE don't support this war and never did by wide margins. Look at Spains example. Yes there was a terrorist strike on th eeve of an election....but the people NEVER DID support the war. Its the populace around the world that Bush has turned against this country, not Americans per se, but our government, at a time we should have rallied the world behind us against al Quetta.

BUSH BLEW IT

[??????????]

I had hoped I wouldn't have had to remind StatesRats that if it were not for the French Fleet at Yorktown, we may still be speaking with a bit of a Brit accent....

Be that as it may, when we talk of those that would not sign on to "Bush's Premtive War with no real planning way of securing our future" why do we not mention Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Belgium, Holland, Norway, yada, yada, yada..... they opposed the war just as much as the Frenchies....and when we even speak of the nations that do...oh, Britain, Italy, Spain come to mind....whose PEOPLE don't support this war and never did by wide margins. Look at Spains example. Yes there was a terrorist strike on th eeve of an election....but the people NEVER DID support the war. Its the populace around the world that Bush has turned against this country, not Americans per se, but our government, at a time we should have rallied the world behind us against al Quetta.

BUSH BLEW IT

First off their was no "pre-emptive" war as you can not have a preemptive war with a nation you have no peace treaty with. Second. Americas' interests come FIRST whether many people like that fact or not its the truth. The world outside us comes second when it comes to our national defense. Would you rather have all nations on your side but be under constant attack or alienate a few fair weather friends and be free? Third, the nation of France when they won us our Revolution was not the same nation they are today. They were still a monarchy let me remind you and our revolution directly lead to their revolution in 1796. Lastly, the governments make the decisions in most of these so called "free" nations. Not the people. In the end our national security is far more important then what some Canadian or Italian or Spainard thinks is in our "best interest". They are jealous of our freedoms and they do try to emmulate us whether they admit to that fact or not.

[The Duke]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

[mddem2004]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

Agreed.....our security should not and never has depended upon the popular whims of europe or any where else. "Act in our own defence"? I take you have bought in to this Bush conceived notion that Iraq is the Central War on Terror. Please....Iraq has to date been a distraction and even a force multiplyer to our real enemies.

And StatesRats....yes France is different now than it was in 1783, I was humoring you...

But I do hope you are in the minority (and think you are) when you think that this War on Terror can be fought without the help of any and all nations we can get. And your notion of "no pre-emtive war without a peace treaty first"....I dare say I doubt we have a specific peace treaty or even a non agression pact with most nations of the world.

One more thing on the Frenchies, did it ever occur to you that they were acting in THEIR own security interests when they refused to sign onto Bush's PRE-EMTIVE WAR....what with having fought muslim extremists for decades and having 5 million muslim citizens and all. Bush has burned far too many bridges with those we will need in this war. If you don't think we need the French you are sadly mistaken....

[MAS117]

I had hoped I wouldn't have had to remind StatesRats that if it were not for the French Fleet at Yorktown, we may still be speaking with a bit of a Brit accent....

And if it wasnt for the Americans the French would be saying... ZIEG HEIL right now...

[mddem2004]

They are jealous of our freedoms and they do try to emmulate us whether they admit to that fact or not.

Lets us hope they do not stop trying to emulate us, the day the world doesn't look up to us as an example, as they have for over 200 years, is the day our sun will set....

[Lunar]

And if it wasnt for the Americans the French would be saying... ZIEG HEIL right now...

More like "Zdravstvujte!"

[The Duke]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

Agreed.....our security should not and never has depended upon the popular whims of europe or any where else. "Act in our own defence"? I take you have bought in to this Bush conceived notion that Iraq is the Central War on Terror. Please....Iraq has to date been a distraction and even a force multiplyer to our real enemies.

And StatesRats....yes France is different now than it was in 1783, I was humoring you...

But I do hope you are in the minority (and think you are) when you think that this War on Terror can be fought without the help of any and all nations we can get. And your notion of "no pre-emtive war without a peace treaty first"....I dare say I doubt we have a specific peace treaty or even a non agression pact with most nations of the world.

One more thing on the Frenchies, did it ever occur to you that they were acting in THEIR own security interests when they refused to sign onto Bush's PRE-EMTIVE WAR....what with having fought muslim extremists for decades and having 5 million muslim citizens and all. Bush has burned far too many bridges with those we will need in this war. If you don't think we need the French you are sadly mistaken....

If you agree that our security should not be subject to foreign veto, why are you complaining about a lack of international approval?  If you really mean what you say, lack of approval wouldn't bother you.

Has Iraq been a distraction?  No, it is only such is you consciously choose to ignore evidence of Iraqi links to various terrorist groups, including his proud declaration that he funds Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

Is calling StatesRights StatesRats a mature way to behave?  No, it is trollish.  The vorlon set up a special kiddie thread for people like you, go there and blow steam.

The difference with iraq and the rest of the world is that there was no commencement of hostilities with Guinea-Bissau.  There was with Iraq, and the war of 1991 never technically ended, it had a temporary cease-fire whose terms Iraq had failed to meet.

Were the Frenchies acting in their own security interests?  In a way, much as it could be argued that Germany in 1939 was only acting in its security interests by retaking the Rhine, or that Japan had no choice but to conquer East Asia and take its resources or to erect a defensive barrier against the Americans by seizing the Marianas.  In France's view, their prime strategic objective should be to work towards the weakening of the United States and the emergence of a continental EU Superpower, with France at the head.  I will let the readers decide if this is somethign we should just live and let live about.

[mddem2004]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

Agreed.....our security should not and never has depended upon the popular whims of europe or any where else. "Act in our own defence"? I take you have bought in to this Bush conceived notion that Iraq is the Central War on Terror. Please....Iraq has to date been a distraction and even a force multiplyer to our real enemies.

And StatesRats....yes France is different now than it was in 1783, I was humoring you...

But I do hope you are in the minority (and think you are) when you think that this War on Terror can be fought without the help of any and all nations we can get. And your notion of "no pre-emtive war without a peace treaty first"....I dare say I doubt we have a specific peace treaty or even a non agression pact with most nations of the world.

One more thing on the Frenchies, did it ever occur to you that they were acting in THEIR own security interests when they refused to sign onto Bush's PRE-EMTIVE WAR....what with having fought muslim extremists for decades and having 5 million muslim citizens and all. Bush has burned far too many bridges with those we will need in this war. If you don't think we need the French you are sadly mistaken....

If you agree that our security should not be subject to foreign veto, why are you complaining about a lack of international approval?  If you really mean what you say, lack of approval wouldn't bother you.

Has Iraq been a distraction?  No, it is only such is you consciously choose to ignore evidence of Iraqi links to various terrorist groups, including his proud declaration that he funds Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

Is calling StatesRights StatesRats a mature way to behave?  No, it is trollish.  The vorlon set up a special kiddie thread for people like you, go there and blow steam.

The difference with iraq and the rest of the world is that there was no commencement of hostilities with Guinea-Bissau.  There was with Iraq, and the war of 1991 never technically ended, it had a temporary cease-fire whose terms Iraq had failed to meet.

Were the Frenchies acting in their own security interests?  In a way, much as it could be argued that Germany in 1939 was only acting in its security interests by retaking the Rhine, or that Japan had no choice but to conquer East Asia and take its resources or to erect a defensive barrier against the Americans by seizing the Marianas.  In France's view, their prime strategic objective should be to work towards the weakening of the United States and the emergence of a continental EU Superpower, with France at the head.  I will let the readers decide if this is somethign we should just live and let live about.

First off .... chill out.... StatesRats should take no offence, none was meant. Its simply a means to convey a southern accent to the word "States Rights". Its actually a take from the 1993 movie Gettysburg and if there are any Civil War reenactors here they will know what I mean. No offence was meant but I'm sure States can defend himself. Enough of your kiddie talk.....

"If you agree that our security should not be subject to foreign veto, why are you complaining about a lack of international approval?  If you really mean what you say, lack of approval wouldn't bother you."

The real problem with you folks is that you just don't get it.

Did the world object to Afghanistan....no. Did we ask permission....no. The same could be said of Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya etc. etc.

Why did they object in the case of Iraq, countries from every continent in the world?

Because Bush has "bet the farm" on this pre-emptive war BS of a policy. The cost benefit ratio should we fail is far too high, not just for us but for OTHERS in the region as well. That includes Europe.

I hope we succeed, we have to succeed. But I ask you....Again.....where are the WMD, where is the evidence of links to Al Queda....our real enemy.....that warrents our GI's to die for??? You presume that I think it was the right policy to begin with therfore why should I care for international approval.

I can assure you, in my view this will be should we fail, the biggest strategic mistake we could have made at this time. I was against this since August 2002 when I saw it coming.

Just how many terrorists did we recruit by invading Iraq compared to the number we have killed? A war based solely on intelligence, without direct clear evidence of a threat, or even overt act will always illicit more hatred than defeat our enemy.

You might say f**k'em ....we'll bomb them too!

Well, that does seem to be the Bush doctrine...doesn't it?

Your comments on the Frenchies you should save for the Limbaugh show or Vorlorns thread for the seriously mis-informed....I won't give it credence by commenting.

[??????????]

The support of the world means nothing to me if it hamstrings our ability to act in our own defense.  If forced to choose between popularity in Europe and safety at home, I will choose the latter without fail.

Agreed.....our security should not and never has depended upon the popular whims of europe or any where else. "Act in our own defence"? I take you have bought in to this Bush conceived notion that Iraq is the Central War on Terror. Please....Iraq has to date been a distraction and even a force multiplyer to our real enemies.

And StatesRats....yes France is different now than it was in 1783, I was humoring you...

But I do hope you are in the minority (and think you are) when you think that this War on Terror can be fought without the help of any and all nations we can get. And your notion of "no pre-emtive war without a peace treaty first"....I dare say I doubt we have a specific peace treaty or even a non agression pact with most nations of the world.

One more thing on the Frenchies, did it ever occur to you that they were acting in THEIR own security interests when they refused to sign onto Bush's PRE-EMTIVE WAR....what with having fought muslim extremists for decades and having 5 million muslim citizens and all. Bush has burned far too many bridges with those we will need in this war. If you don't think we need the French you are sadly mistaken....

We were at ceasefire with Iraq. We were not bound to stay out of Saddams kingdom. We do have the help of many nations. We just do not need their help in every action we do. I hope next on the list is Syria and Iran as they are badly needing to be toppled as well. The french are so wishy washy and really haven't been engaged in a war that they actually win for decades. To me they are all talk and no action. And that's only half the time. We did not declare this war. This war was declared in Beirut in 1983. And yes our own security is far more important then that of the rest of the world.

[??????????]

I know what StatesRats was about. I found no offense to it. I am a reenactor myself. Talking about preemptive wars. (singing Yankee doodle)

[mddem2004]

I know what StatesRats was about. I found no offense to it. I am a reenactor myself. Talking about preemptive wars. (singing Yankee doodle)

StatesRights:
Company B, 9th Virginia Inf. (They were mostly Maryland Boys that went "South of the Border")

You're right....there was a cease fire....a UN Cease fire.

We operated under the auspices of the UN, as did the No Fly Zones.

And as for toppling the Syrian and Iranian Govts, I would support measures to change their regimes without invading to do so. However, I would fare a guess that most Americans forget the fact that the Syrians gave an Armored Div to the Coalition in the 1991 war.

Its (generally) not the people of these countries we need to concern ourselves with, its their governments and the extreme religious elements they harbor. But if we go attacking nations without due cause (as I believe Iraq was) we will only continue to fuel the very arguments the real terrorists have against us. Once we begin killing innocents without clear morale justification for the war, we've already ceeded the morale high ground.

Its my belief that history will show that the majority of the Iraqis that are now taking up arms against us are not connected to Al Queda, or any other terrorist group, but are fighting for their own sence of Iraqi Nationalism. What we don't need, in addition to the real war on terrorism, is to be confronted with an Iraqi civil war whose conditions were set forth by our occupation of that country.

[??????????]

I know what StatesRats was about. I found no offense to it. I am a reenactor myself. Talking about preemptive wars. (singing Yankee doodle)

StatesRights:
Company B, 9th Virginia Inf. (They were mostly Maryland Boys that went "South of the Border")

You're right....there was a cease fire....a UN Cease fire.

We operated under the auspices of the UN, as did the No Fly Zones.

And as for toppling the Syrian and Iranian Govts, I would support measures to change their regimes without invading to do so. However, I would fare a guess that most Americans forget the fact that the Syrians gave an Armored Div to the Coalition in the 1991 war.

Its (generally) not the people of these countries we need to concern ourselves with, its their governments and the extreme religious elements they harbor. But if we go attacking nations without due cause (as I believe Iraq was) we will only continue to fuel the very arguments the real terrorists have against us. Once we begin killing innocents without clear morale justification for the war, we've already ceeded the morale high ground.

Its my belief that history will show that the majority of the Iraqis that are now taking up arms against us are not connected to Al Queda, or any other terrorist group, but are fighting for their own sence of Iraqi Nationalism. What we don't need, in addition to the real war on terrorism, is to be confronted with an Iraqi civil war whose conditions were set forth by our occupation of that country.

I agree, but you must admit that the Iraqis are d*mn glad that Saddam is gone and most are actually glad we freed them. I can see how some could say we have over-extended our stay, but we will be out soon enough.

Co. D. 16th Virginia Infantry here Former, when I lived in Maryland Tidewater and Isle of Wight boys mostly. I was also in the 1st Minnesota USA. And I did civilian as well.

[The Duke]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

I suppose this is laso a vague movie reference that I shouldn't be bothered by?

The real problem with you folks is that you just don't get it.

Did the world object to Afghanistan....no. Did we ask permission....no. The same could be said of Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya etc. etc.

Why did they object in the case of Iraq, countries from every continent in the world?

Because Bush has "bet the farm" on this pre-emptive war BS of a policy. The cost benefit ratio should we fail is far too high, not just for us but for OTHERS in the region as well. That includes Europe.

I hope we succeed, we have to succeed. But I ask you....Again.....where are the WMD, where is the evidence of links to Al Queda....our real enemy.....that warrents our GI's to die for??? You presume that I think it was the right policy to begin with therfore why should I care for international approval.

I can assure you, in my view this will be should we fail, the biggest strategic mistake we could have made at this time. I was against this since August 2002 when I saw it coming.

Just how many terrorists did we recruit by invading Iraq compared to the number we have killed? A war based solely on intelligence, without direct clear evidence of a threat, or even overt act will always illicit more hatred than defeat our enemy.

You might say f**k'em ....we'll bomb them too!

Well, that does seem to be the Bush doctrine...doesn't it?

Your comments on the Frenchies you should save for the Limbaugh show or Vorlorns thread for the seriously mis-informed....I won't give it credence by commenting.

Funny that you mention how the whole world was behind us when we bombed Libya, since in reality, Mitterand denied us the use of French airspace for that mission.  So much for your theory.  France in fact view blocking American power to be a major goal of its foreign policy.

Where is the WMD?  The sarin shell, the bio-trailers, the assembly line for drone planes, the SCUDS that were fired at coalition forces, the scientists Saddam employed, none of this has convinced you.  You have simply made a decision that Bush is bad, and like a religious zealot, you cling to the ideal that he is always wrong.  How about Al Qaeda connections, well, I refer you to my thread on the topic, the the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, to the court ruling of Judge Harold Baer, etc.  Just type "Salman Pak" into Google and see what comes up.  Not that it will matter.  I'm sure there is a convenient explanation for everything you'll find, something tat lets you sleep soundly at night.

Whatever.  I'm over this thread.  Laaaaaaate.

[MAS117]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

I suppose this is laso a vague movie reference that I shouldn't be bothered by?

The real problem with you folks is that you just don't get it.

Did the world object to Afghanistan....no. Did we ask permission....no. The same could be said of Panama, Grenada, the bombing of Libya etc. etc.

Why did they object in the case of Iraq, countries from every continent in the world?

Because Bush has "bet the farm" on this pre-emptive war BS of a policy. The cost benefit ratio should we fail is far too high, not just for us but for OTHERS in the region as well. That includes Europe.

I hope we succeed, we have to succeed. But I ask you....Again.....where are the WMD, where is the evidence of links to Al Queda....our real enemy.....that warrents our GI's to die for??? You presume that I think it was the right policy to begin with therfore why should I care for international approval.

I can assure you, in my view this will be should we fail, the biggest strategic mistake we could have made at this time. I was against this since August 2002 when I saw it coming.

Just how many terrorists did we recruit by invading Iraq compared to the number we have killed? A war based solely on intelligence, without direct clear evidence of a threat, or even overt act will always illicit more hatred than defeat our enemy.

You might say f**k'em ....we'll bomb them too!

Well, that does seem to be the Bush doctrine...doesn't it?

Your comments on the Frenchies you should save for the Limbaugh show or Vorlorns thread for the seriously mis-informed....I won't give it credence by commenting.

Funny that you mention how the whole world was behind us when we bombed Libya, since in reality, Mitterand denied us the use of French airspace for that mission.  So much for your theory.  France in fact view blocking American power to be a major goal of its foreign policy.

Where is the WMD?  The sarin shell, the bio-trailers, the assembly line for drone planes, the SCUDS that were fired at coalition forces, the scientists Saddam employed, none of this has convinced you.  You have simply made a decision that Bush is bad, and like a religious zealot, you cling to the ideal that he is always wrong.  How about Al Qaeda connections, well, I refer you to my thread on the topic, the the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, to the court ruling of Judge Harold Baer, etc.  Just type "Salman Pak" into Google and see what comes up.  Not that it will matter.  I'm sure there is a convenient explanation for everything you'll find, something tat lets you sleep soundly at night.

Whatever.  I'm over this thread.  Laaaaaaate.

Lt. Gov. Ford, that didnt really convince me that Iraq had WMD. What that proves is that they tryed to have them. There's no doubt that they had some missiles when Saddam fired them on the Kurds back in the early ninetys, however times change. Saddam knew we were coming, he shipped them off or destroyed them, or possibly didnt have them at all. Frankly, I'm wondering if Bush lied to the country, or it was a personal vendetta against Saddam. Now we have men and women there dieing for a lost cause.

[Sk]

    26 former officials oppose Bush? Well, pack it in everyone, elections over.

[??????????]

   26 former officials oppose Bush? Well, pack it in everyone, elections over.

lol Sk, I really hope you're kidding.

[mddem2004]

Enough of your kiddie talk.....

I suppose this is laso a vague movie reference that I shouldn't be bothered by?

Funny that you mention how the whole world was behind us when we bombed Libya, since in reality, Mitterand denied us the use of French airspace for that mission.  So much for your theory.  France in fact view blocking American power to be a major goal of its foreign policy.

Where is the WMD?  The sarin shell, the bio-trailers, the assembly line for drone planes, the SCUDS that were fired at coalition forces, the scientists Saddam employed, none of this has convinced you.  You have simply made a decision that Bush is bad, and like a religious zealot, you cling to the ideal that he is always wrong.  How about Al Qaeda connections, well, I refer you to my thread on the topic, the the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, to the court ruling of Judge Harold Baer, etc.  Just type "Salman Pak" into Google and see what comes up.  Not that it will matter.  I'm sure there is a convenient explanation for everything you'll find, something tat lets you sleep soundly at night.

Whatever.  I'm over this thread.  Laaaaaaate.

Lt. Gov. Ford.....
I did your google search, read the article you referenced. Pretty convincing stuff. Except theres one problem...Thats all old stuff that has since been disproved. Look at the date the site was last modified...Dec 14, 2002.
Let me quote you from Bush's own hand picked head of the Iraq survey group testifying before Congress on pre war intel ..."We got it nearly all wrong".....

Yes Sadaam had Al Samud missles that were modified for longer ranges that were not allowed under the cease fire agreement. They themselves were not illegal, only there modified ranges. But as had been shown during the war they were extremely inaccurate and unreliable. Problem again was that before the war Hans Blix's group were actively destroying them before the war started.

The supposed bio trailers.....CIA now says most likely used for hydrogen production.

Hell even Sec State Powell publically stated he regrets making his presentation before the UN because it was so damn off the mark.

I'm not here to defend Sadaam, I hope Bush's policy works in Iraq because like I said earlier he's bet the next 50 years of US credability on it....it has to work. My point is that there were and are bigger fish to fry in the new dangers this country faces and Iraq has been a costly distraction in the real war on terror.

As for the French....your right our F-111's were denied fly over rights while ladened with bombs....so what ......didn't stop them did it.

[??????????]

MDDem,

And I'm sure if we did go after some of those "bigger fish" you would voice your opposition just as loudly as going after Iraq.

[MODU]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You forgot to add the squadron of newer MiGs (including a variant which was not yet know to the Western World) burried just outside of the Baghdad airport where US troops had marched 3 months before their discovery.  It took a windstorm to uncover one of the tail sections of one of the jets.  Now imagine that most of the chemical weapons we are looking for can be stored in just a few tanker trucks.  Much smaller than a MiG.  And yet it took chance to discover the planes, it will take even more to find these chemicals.  But, that's just one theory.  Here's another by the UN.

An interesting development by the UN regarding WMD finds:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_3985.shtml

"The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003."

[Wakie]

MODU, a quick review of michnews.com leaves me with a feeling that they are a conservative biased news source.  Note the Bush-Cheney '04 banner on their front page (no Kerry banner).  They also contain links to the Drudge Report and Limbaugh but none to any liberal commentators.

I'm not saying this news story is true or false, just pointing out that your source may be a bit biased.