WMD Mega-Thread


PDA






Pages : [1] 2 3

SkunkApe
May 8, 2003, 06:21 PM
The Missing WMD





By Gwynne Dyer

THE FAVOURITE fantasy headline of British comedian Spike Milligan was: 'Archduke Franz Ferdinand Found Alive! First World War a Mistake!' We are unlikely to see a similar headline in any American paper soon, but in the rest of the world the continued failure of theUS and British occupation forces in Iraq to find any of the 'weapons of mass destruction' that were the alleged reason for their invasion is both a diplomatic disaster and a joke in very bad taste.

Tony Blair ran into both phenomena and came away severely shaken when he visited Moscow last Tuesday. The British prime minister thought he had a good personal relationship with the Russian president, but Vladimir Putin is a former intelligence officer, and like his American and British counterparts he was outraged at the way the US and British governments misrepresented the intelligence they got from their own agencies in order to justify their war. Unlike the people at the Central Intelligence Agency and MI5, however, Putin was free to speak -- and did he ever.

Putin openly mocked Blair for the failure of the 'coalition' to find any of the fabled WMD even weeks after the end of the war: "Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed? Perhaps Saddam is still hiding in an undergroundbunker somewhere, sitting on cases of weapons of mass destruction, and is preparing to blow the whole thing up and destroy the lives of thousands of Iraqis." The Russian journalists at the press conference roared with laughter -- maybe it loses something in translation -- but Blair looked distinctly grim. He is going to have lots more practice at that.

Two months ago, Blair talked a reluctant parliament into supporting the attack on Iraq bywarning of Iraqi WMD ready to strike on 45 minutes' notice, and President George W. Bush warned of "mushroom clouds" if the US didn't invade Iraq. It was all so desperately urgent, so hair-trigger dangerous, that Washington and London couldn't wait for the United Nations arms inspectors to finish their job; they had to bypass the UN and invade right away. So many thousands of Iraqis (2,500 civilians and perhaps 10,000 soldiers) were killed, 137 US and British soldiers died, looters destroyed most of Iraq's cultural heritage while 'coalition'troops stood idly by -- and nobody has found any WMD.

The rest of the world never really believed the White House's justification for war anyway. As UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said in late April, Washington and London built their case for going to war on "very, very shaky" evidence, including documents that subsequently turned out to have been faked -- and with the war now over, Washington isn't even bothering to insist that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States any more. "We were not lying," a Bush administration official told ABC News on April 28. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

The real reason for the war, according to the ABC report, was that the administration "wanted to make a statement" (presumably about what happens to countries that defy US power). Iraq was not invaded because it threatened America, but because "Saddam had all the requirements to make him, from (the administration's) standpoint, the perfect target.". The assumption, at the White House and the Pentagon, was that everybody else could be bulliedinto forgetting the lies about WMD and accepting the fact of American control of Iraq.

They probably could be if the occupation turned out to be a brilliant success that produced a happy, prosperous, united and independent Iraq, but that does not seem likely. Instead, it is going sour very fast, with US troops shooting civilian demonstrators, the Shia majority seeking an Islamic state, and the beginnings of a guerrilla resistance to the foreign occupiers. Even if the US were willing to let the United Nations have a role in occupied Iraq, the desire of other powers to get involved in any way in this proto-Vietnam is waning from day to day. Washington continues to insist that the UN weapons inspectors will not be allowed back in, which means that the rest of the world is unlikely to believe the US and British forces even if they do claim to have found something. And frankly, hardly anyone in Britain believes in Iraqi WMD any more either -- not even former cabinet ministers.

On 22 April 22, former foreign secretary Robin Cook said he doubted that there was a single person in the intelligence services who believed that a weapon of mass destruction in working order would be found in Iraq, and accused the White House of trying to bridge the credibility gap by "re-inventing the term 'weapon of mass destruction' to cover any artillery shell with a chemical content, or any biological toxin, even if it had not been fitted to a weapon.". Even on that preposterous definition, they have not found any WMD in Iraq yet --and as former British defence secretary Doug Henderson said on 18 April 18: "If by the turn ofthe year there is no WMD then the basis on which this (war) was executed was illegal."

The post-9/11 patriotic chill still prevents any senior American politician from questioning the existence of Iraqi WMD in public, but this issue is not going to go away. As the situation in Iraq deteriorates and the American body count rises, questions about how America got talked into this mess will keep coming back, and sooner or later they will have to be answered.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45countries

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/May/4/opinion3.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "WMD Mega-Thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
blades67
May 8, 2003, 06:35 PM
We took out a terrorist and his regime. If the rest of the world doesn't like that fact I invite them to demand that their governments return all International Aid received from the United States and make due for themselves. :scrutiny:

Soap
May 8, 2003, 07:36 PM
I see it like Blades. We took down a man who tortures and murders his people. Not to mention thievery... I can't understand why people are so opposed to taking out the trash like that.

Meow
May 8, 2003, 08:00 PM
www.debka.com

The have stuff WAY before all the other media

SkunkApe
May 8, 2003, 08:16 PM
Daniel Flory,

Its not that I'm necessarily opposed to "taking out the trash". Its that I'm opposed to my own government lying to me.

The United States government lied about:

1) The Iraqis taking Kuwaiti babies off of respirators during the first Gulf War.

2) The one million Iraqi troops on the border poised to invade Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War.

3) April Glaspie's conversation with Hussein prior to the first Gulf War.

4) Hussein's collabaration with the perpatrators of the 9/11 attacks.

5) Husseins "weapons of mass destruction".

If the United States lied about all of those things, why should I believe anything I'm told by them? How can I be sure that Hussein is as evil as they say?

Reminds me of boxing promoter Bob Arums reply when caught in an obvious contradiction: "

Yesterday, I was lying. Today, I'm telling the truth."

I'm old enough to remember when I trusted my government.

cordex
May 8, 2003, 08:27 PM
The United States government lied about:

1) The Iraqis taking Kuwaiti babies off of respirators during the first Gulf War.
That particular lie was told by a Kuwaiti. Perhaps it was repeated by the gov't, but it didn't originate with them.
3) April Glaspie's conversation with Hussein prior to the first Gulf War.
I'm sorry, what lie were you told about this?
4) Hussein's collabaration with the perpatrators of the 9/11 attacks.
As yet unproven. Can you offer concrete evidence disproving it? After all, you are claiming the gov't is lying ...
5) Husseins "weapons of mass destruction".
See above.
Hasn't been proven either way. We know he used to have 'em. We know he's used 'em.

Shaggy
May 8, 2003, 08:46 PM
I think just today, the pentagon CONFIRMED a mobile weapons lab. The one they found a few days ago. It's pretty clear chemicals were dumped into the Euphretis(sp) river. It's pretty clear they continued to try to develop this stuff no matter what any inspectors said. It's pretty clear they are terrorists and harbor terrorist because we have found a few there. And now....what's this??? A direct link to good ole Usama and the Brits say they have the documentation.

It's pretty clear Russia, Germany and France are in deep with ole Saddam. They were in direct violation of restrictions on the oil for food program. These countries have NO credibility what-so-ever. If they don't like it, then maybe they should do something about it. Bring it bitches!!!!!

Bottom line, we picked out an @sshole and made an example out of him.

Art Eatman
May 8, 2003, 09:20 PM
About ten days into the rout of Hussein's troops, an Army captain reported finding evidence of highly radioactive material.

He had investigated a basement complex of a building previously searched by UN inspectors. The inspectors admitted ignorance of the underground complex. It was dug below water table, and therefore unsuspected. There were pumps to keep water out of this basement.

The captain found several rooms where any exposure of his radiation meter "ran it off the scale," he said.

I note the absence of a murderer's pistol in his rooms doesn't mean it was never there. Nothing prevented Hussein's people from removing various Bad Things before our attack. He had some four years both to build Bad Things, and hide Bad Things.

And it's factual that no evidence exists as to the destruction of some twenty-five tons of poison (nerve?) gases known to exist as of the end of Desert Storm. No paper, no video, no nada.

During the third week of the war, a reporter showed video of what was alleged to be a mobile "bug lab". That truck's interior did indeed look like some sort of medical laboratory, as opposed to an ambulance or other equivalent medical facility.

So far, I have no particular feeling of having been lied to. I'll wait a few months, until we get something more than biased, anti-Bush, anti-Administration political self-serving mouth-music.

Art

Derek Zeanah
May 8, 2003, 09:34 PM
That particular lie was told by a Kuwaiti. Perhaps it was repeated by the gov't, but it didn't originate with them.Actually, I believe it was the daughter of our ambassador to Kuwait, dressed in traditional arab garb...

I'm old enough to remember when I trusted my government.Sadly, I am too. :(

45cal Suppository
May 8, 2003, 10:15 PM
So, what have we accomplished in Iraq?

1)Saddam's out of power but still alive plus he looted the country of ONE BILLION DOLLARS in cash and gold the day before we started bombing. Nice coincedence, huh?

2)We've killed innocent citizens and conscripted soldiers (along with the suicide bombers and Hussiens private army soldiers).

3)We've reduced the government infrastructure (and a lot of regular citezens houses and businesses) to rubble. Power and water service is still disrupted in places.

What's next?

1)Food and medical aid to Iraq AT OUR EXPENSE while many people here at home in America could use this aid.

2)Rebuild the country (at America's expense) using companies that made inside deals with our government before the war even started.

3)Wait for Saddam (along with Bib Laden, remember him Mr Bush, you were going to hunt him down to the end of the earth to "bring him to justice"? Seems like we convienently forgot about him during the last 9 months of beating the war drum over Iraq) to pop up somewhere else and start funding more terrorist groups with his ONE BILLION DOLLARS in cash.


Why, oh why couldn't we just have sent in a hit squad and offed Saddam sometime during the last 12 years? Were we worried that it wasn't "right" and that the rest of the world would hate us? Well, that's what's happened anyway and Saddam's still alive and MIA along with ONE BILLION dollars in cash.

Spark
May 8, 2003, 11:02 PM
*sniff* *sniiiiiiffff* *sniiiiiiiffffff sniff snifff*

I smell trolls

Soap
May 8, 2003, 11:18 PM
SkunkApe- I agree completely. If indeed the .gov was knowingly lying, I would be highly irate. Not surprised...but irate. If the information was simply bad, the government didn't really lie. Also, I agree with what cordex said, a genuine lie has neither been proven or disproven yet. Time will tell.

Monkeyleg
May 8, 2003, 11:37 PM
45 Cal Suppository: with a username like that, you may have some "splainin'" to do.

And with just two posts here on THR, your comments may be taken with more than just a grain of salt. Heaping teaspoons may be required.

I disagree with our president on a host of ideas; however, I think he acted on the best intel available, and that in time we will find the WMD materials, even if we have to go digging in Syria

Drjones
May 9, 2003, 12:28 AM
"Where are those arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, if indeed they ever existed?
(Emphasis mine)

Nobody should pay attention to a single syllable this moron utters. Run away before he steals your oxygen!

That statement right there discredits that entire article.

To whomever agrees with the article:

-Why did the UN pass 14 resolutions pertaining to Iraq?

-What EXACTLY was the purpose of those 14 resolutions?


There's your answer as to the existance of the WMD.

And guys, give me a friggin' break: we've been there barely a month and a half. :rolleyes:

Talk about your instant gratification culture. :rolleyes:

Oh, and I guess the underground nuclear facility we've uncovered doesn't count for anything, right? Courtesy of the french, of course...

Nor the 3,000 chemical protection suits?

Drjones
May 9, 2003, 12:31 AM
It's pretty clear Russia, Germany and France are in deep with ole Saddam.

I don't know WHAT you are talking about, you psycho war-mongerer. [/sarcasm]

Drjones
May 9, 2003, 12:35 AM
I see it like Blades. We took down a man who tortures and murders his people. Not to mention thievery... I can't understand why people are so opposed to taking out the trash like that.

Because the US has propped up and supported other less than savory governments and characters in the past.

Not to mention all the other atrocities being committed right now that we aren't intervening in.

You see, the US can either fight all the evil in the world, or fight none.

[/liberal mode]

Soap
May 9, 2003, 01:30 AM
Okay Leftist, then we can do away with the police. After all, they should only fight all of the evil or none of it. We'll start with your neighborhood.

Also, less than savory is a product of 20/20 hindsight.

Drjones
May 9, 2003, 01:37 AM
Okay Leftist, then we can do away with the police. After all, they should only fight all of the evil or none of it. We'll start with your neighborhood.

Also, less than savory is a product of 20/20 hindsight.

Uh, you didn't see the [/liberal mode] in my post, did ya? :D

MicroBalrog
May 9, 2003, 08:12 AM
The United States government lied about :
1) The Iraqis taking Kuwaiti babies off of respirators during the first Gulf War


Wasn't there some video footage documenting that?

Khornet
May 9, 2003, 08:25 AM
is not evidence of absence.

As I say again and again, it's where you start from. If you believe from the start that Bush=Bad, then the glass is always half-empty.

Soap
May 9, 2003, 10:54 AM
No I saw it, that's why I addressed you as Leftist instead of Doc Jones. ;)

D.W. Drang
May 9, 2003, 12:21 PM
The byline was al I needed to see.

After Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist... they should have added "Who, after being run out of the UK and Canadian Armies, has made a career of bashing them and the US military."
I am told he was an ossifer, and heard a rumor he spent some time in the US Army as well, but doubt it, although I doubt it. (Although citizenship was not a requirement even for officers until the latye 80s. One of the infantry units in the 7th ID (L) had a captain who still held his Rhodeisan citizenship--quite an asset in a light infantry unit, what with his service in Grey's Scouts...)

Topgun
May 9, 2003, 02:38 PM
They also took out the heinous criminals at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

RAH RAH RAH.

They can do no wrong.

cordex
May 9, 2003, 03:42 PM
Actually, I believe it was the daughter of our ambassador to Kuwait, dressed in traditional arab garb...
Look again. I'm pretty sure it was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.
They also took out the heinous criminals at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

RAH RAH RAH.

They can do no wrong.
I've got no problem criticising the US gov't. I have a problem with doing it mindlessly.

Derek Zeanah
May 9, 2003, 04:49 PM
Look again. I'm pretty sure it was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.Did a google search, and this was the first hit:

The incubator story was part of a pro-Kuwait campaign handled by Hill & Knowlton (H&K), then the largest PR firm in the world. H&K had close inside connections to the highest levels of government, both Republican and Democrat. Its Washington office was run by Craig Fuller, a close friend and political advisor of President Bush....

But, as Stauber and Rampton point out, "Hill & Knowlton and Congressman Lantos had failed to reveal that Nayirah was a member of the Kuwaiti Royal Family. Her father, in fact, was Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the U.S., who sat listening in the hearing room during her testimony. The Caucus also failed to reveal that H&K vice-president Lauri Fitz-Pegado had coached Nayirah in what even the Kuwaitis' own investigators later confirmed was false testimony."

You're right. But it still looks as if she wasn't working alone on it...

twoblink
May 9, 2003, 08:25 PM
You don't think there are chemicals?

Bring a cup, scoop a nice cold one from the Euphraties River, and take a big gulp. No? Yeah, that's the way I see it as well...

PLEASE PLEASE don't say you are for Saddem.. He's the rash and we just rubbed a bit of cream on him.. That's all.

TexasVet
May 9, 2003, 08:31 PM
more than one of the "Top 55" that have been captured have stated that orders went out (and were carried out) to destroy the WMDs just two days before the attack. They didn't want to get caught with them.
Does this matter to the bunch of you arguing whether they may or may not have existed? Seems kinda silly to order the destruction of things you DON'T HAVE, doesn't it.
Never mind, go back to the "we don't listen to the facts (because the .gov ALWAYS lies) and don't care about them anyway" arguements.

:rolleyes:

Drjones
May 9, 2003, 11:29 PM
Texas:

Shhhh!!!

Liberals don't like facts!!!

They scare them! :D

Cactus
May 10, 2003, 12:15 AM
From the Philadelphia Inquirer

Posted on Fri, May. 09, 2003

Phila. lawyer sees chance of collecting on terror suit
By L. Stuart Ditzen
Inquirer Staff Writer

Winning a $104 million damage award against Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein was hard. Collecting the money is likely to be harder.

But James E. Beasley, the Philadelphia lawyer who won the damage award Wednesday for the families of two men killed in the World Trade Center attacks, said yesterday he has a reasonable chance of success.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr., who made the award after a nonjury proceeding in New York at which the accused terrorists did not show up, also concluded from the evidence that Iraq had provided "material support" to bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network.(emphasis added)

That dramatic finding, the first to come from an American court, was based partly on testimony of former CIA director James Woolsey Jr. and on a photograph that Beasley obtained from a commercial satellite company showing an apparent terrorist training camp 20 miles from Baghdad.

"We have that piece of evidence now," Beasley said. "It's absolutely remarkable."

The photograph, taken a year before the 2001 terrorist attacks, shows a large airliner at a facility called Salman Pak in an area of Iraq where there is no landing strip. Beasley contended that the aircraft was hauled in sections to the Salman Pak camp, assembled there, and used to train hijackers.

Woolsey, who headed the CIA from 1993 to 1995, testified as an expert witness in March that Salman Pak was used to train non-Iraqi fundamentalists in techniques of hijacking and other terrorist acts.

An Iraqi-bin Laden connection was cited by President Bush as partial justification for the war on Iraq, but the government has not as yet made public any conclusive proof of such a link.

Judge Baer said Beasley, whose other witnesses included three Iraqi defectors, did prove it, but only "barely."

Beasley observed yesterday: "It was a hell of a hurdle to get over."

To collect the $104 million award, Beasley said, he will seek to tap assets of Iraq, the Taliban and bin Laden that are accessible in the United States and other nations.

Since 1999, the federal government has frozen more than $300 million in assets of the Taliban and bin Laden-related organizations. About $1.7 billion in Iraqi assets also are frozen, dating to 1990.

Much of that funding has been, or is likely to be, released by the Bush administration for postwar recovery efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Beasley said he plans to ask Pennsylvania's U.S. senators to seek legislation to mandate payment of his court award.

The award was rendered by Baer in connection with a lawsuit Beasley, his son, James Jr., and Slade McLaughlin, a lawyer in their firm, filed shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, seeking to make terrorists pay for their crimes.

Of the $104 million, Baer awarded $93 million to the family of Timothy Soulas, 35, senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, who worked on the 105th floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Soulas, a New Jersey resident, was married and had five children. His wife was pregnant.

The judge awarded $11 million to the family of George Eric Smith, 38, of West Chester, who was on the 97th floor of the South Tower. Smith, a senior business analyst for Wayne-based SunGard Asset Management, was single and had no children.

The disparity in the awards relates largely to differences in the lifetime earning expectancy of the two men. Soulas was making $850,000 a year; Smith, $70,000.


Apparently one Federal District judge feels that there is already enough evidence to link Saddam Hussain to Osama bin Laden and to Iraq's role in the 9-11 terror attacks!

Give it time. We will learn MUCH more about the WMD's and Saddams ties to terrorists as time goes on.

DonQatU
May 10, 2003, 12:58 AM
more than one of the "Top 55" that have been captured have stated that orders went out (and were carried out) to destroy the WMDs just two days before the attack. They didn't want to get caught with them.

OH???? Who were "they", Texas Vet?!!! Source for your mis-information?

Don

DonQatU
May 10, 2003, 01:03 AM
And the newest mobile bio-warfare lab was captured WHERE?!!! Turned over to us by WHOM????!!! AND THE THE BIO-WARFARE AGENTS FOUND WERE??!!!

Please, waiting to hear the straight story! :D

Don

Drjones
May 10, 2003, 01:15 AM
Dude, chill out.

Don't you ever expose yourself to any news?

DonQatU
May 10, 2003, 01:18 AM
Let me see! Could this be another "false positive"? The news released the same day General Garner was demoted? HOW CONVENIENT! :D

THINK about it , folks! Don

PS - And what NEW news have you heard about THIS MOBILE BIO-LAB since it's first report???!!! Quiet....... isn't it???!!!!! Just like the other many false reports!!! :D

Drjones
May 10, 2003, 01:22 AM
....and saddam doesn't really even exist!

It's all a jewish, "neo-con" plot to take over the world!


So, just because we agree with and support our government in this case, we are not thinking?

:scrutiny:

DonQatU
May 10, 2003, 01:28 AM
Dude, chill out.

Yes, drjones! I'll chill out after you tell us WHERE this newest mobile "bio-lab" was discovered. And WHO turned it over to US??!!! And PuhLEASE, tell us WHAT bio agents were discovered!

Was this found in one of the 600 areas our intelligence suspected WMDs or did it just APPEAR OUT OF NOWHERE????

Inquiring minds MUST KNOW! :D

Don

Cactus
May 10, 2003, 02:17 PM
DonQatU,

The news reports are out there if you choose to do a little research. If YOU choose to not believe them, look them up and YOU can show where they are in error or are unreliable.

Exactlly what sources would you consider reliable if they report WMD's? Or do you think the whole operation against Iraq is a conspiracy by our government?

CZ-75
May 10, 2003, 07:03 PM
I think I'd use the same reply I gave Don last time regarding his ability to recognize a fact, but LawDog would close the thread again. :rolleyes:

DonQatU
May 10, 2003, 09:59 PM
The news reports are out there if you choose to do a little research. If YOU choose to not believe them, look them up and YOU can show where they are in error or are unreliable.

Cactus, I know the answers to the questions I posed above. I was just hoping Drjones and others who are curious would also look up the information and be able to provide answers.

The first "mobile bio-lab" was turned over to us by the Kurds. They claimed they found it at a check-point at Fall Kayf. No bio-agents found by MET.

So... now another couple of questions for "inquiring minds"! What equipment was found on these "mobile bio-labs" that leads to the conclusion they were INTENDED for bio weapon manufacture?

Don

TexasVet
May 11, 2003, 12:01 AM
OH???? Who were "they", Texas Vet?!!! Source for your mis-information?

Let's see... every freakin' news source in the bloody country!!! Print, radio, tv, internet, international, where the heck have you been?

DonQatU
May 11, 2003, 08:58 AM
Well, actually Texas Vet, I think the "information" you are are referring to was provided by an informant ....... some minor "employee" not among the 55 "most wanted". But, I'm sure you can come up with a source citing the correct information, if I'm in error.

Keep in mind, the US has offered a rather large reward for information leading to the discovery of WMDs. They are very likely to get a lot of false leads. This isn't unusual when you offer rewards or use paid informants. And it doesn't prevent the US from leaking false leads they've been given to provide the impression that they are making progress. When the information proves to be false, they can point out that THEY didn't make it up. Like the Nyrha "baby incubator" story or the forged "Yellow Cake from Nigeria" documents.

Note that the US has basically given up trying to make their Iraqi nuke case. They've allowed seven nuclear facilities to be totally looted and are using THAT as an excuse for not being able to find any evidence on Iraq's "advanced" nuke program.

They're concentrating on Bio right now. But so far the only Anthrax (or any other bio agent) they've come up with is the vial that Secretary of State Powell held up while presenting "evidence" to the UN. Remember that one? The speech featuring the forged "Nigerian Yellow Cake" documents and the aluminum rocket tubes that were going to be turned into "centrifuges"?

Oh, but I guess that vial that Powell held up didn't REALLY contain anthrax. But what a COOL visual effect, eh? :rolleyes:

Don

DonQatU
May 11, 2003, 09:05 AM
This just in!!! :D

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40212-2003May10.html

Don

Coronach
May 11, 2003, 03:00 PM
I'm old enough to remember when I trusted my government.With all due respect, I think what you may be recalling is the naivete of youth.

...if they [WMD] ever existedOh, they existed. Ask the Kurds. The only question is if they still do.

I'm confident that they do (or at least did, until very recently), and that evidence of them will be found. This is not due to blind faith in my government, but rather a rather skeptical view of one Mr. Saddam Hussein. Sure...he's giving them up. Riiiight.

False positives as "evidence" of the US Gov making this a into a witch hunt? Please. How does that follow? Lets say that you're running a disinformation campaign...if you have nothing good to report, do you 1. leak information which will immediately be retracted, thus highlighting your lack of progress or 2. keep your yap shut? :rolleyes:

OCCAM'S RAZOR: Prelim tests and evidence gathering techniques have false positives by design, so as to enhance safety and prevent real evidence from going unnoted. Our free press grabs hold of these results and runs with it, leaving the Pentagon to issue retractions later.

This makes a great deal more sense than the Conspiracy Theory D'jour, but, as it means that the government might actually be doing something right and acting in a tolerably truthful manner, it will likely come as a bit of a disappointment to certain individuals.

Swathed in tinfoil, I remain

Mike

TexasVet
May 11, 2003, 06:04 PM
But, I'm sure you can come up with a source citing the correct information, if I'm in error
Sorry, but I quit doing research for others back in the 60's. Got tired of trying to educate the ineducable.

Cadwallader
May 11, 2003, 06:41 PM
Regarding the satellite images of a jetliner/traing camp outside Baghdad - is terrorist training camp the only possible conclusion? Seems to me such a setup is exactly what Iraqi govt. forces would also use for anti-terror training. I don't know if there have been any hijackings on Iraqi soil ever, but it seems like a good thing to be ready for in the Middle East. I think we have to be careful not to demonize Iraq in its entirety - sure the Hussein regime sucked eggs but surely not every single govt. installation was devoted to nefarious purposes.

Drjones
May 11, 2003, 06:52 PM
Regarding the satellite images of a jetliner/traing camp outside Baghdad - is terrorist training camp the only possible conclusion? Seems to me such a setup is exactly what Iraqi govt. forces would also use for anti-terror training. I don't know if there have been any hijackings on Iraqi soil ever, but it seems like a good thing to be ready for in the Middle East. I think we have to be careful not to demonize Iraq in its entirety - sure the Hussein regime sucked eggs but surely not every single govt. installation was devoted to nefarious purposes.

Saddam?

Is that you? Oh, how I've missed you so!!! :scrutiny:

SO; you are trying to tell us that saddam and his regime, who have a long and well-documented history of supporting many different terrorist organizations, actually used that fuselage to COMBAT TERRORISM???

Are you for real?

Drjones
May 11, 2003, 06:55 PM
So Don;

you are so convinced that this whole war is some big conspiracy by our govt.

I notice you have not yet answered my questions I posted above:

-Why did the UN pass 14 resolutions pertaining to Iraq?

-What EXACTLY was the purpose of those 14 resolutions?


There's your answer as to the existance of the WMD.

I will eagerly await your reply to the above, don.

Cactus
May 11, 2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Cadwallader:
Regarding the satellite images of a jetliner/traing camp outside Baghdad - is terrorist training camp the only possible conclusion?

Combined with the testimony of Iraqi defectors that they trained Al Qaeda members and others to overcome air crews at this site, yeah, I would say that is the only possible conclusion. Unless of course you believe Saddam was using Al Qaeda for counter-terror work!:scrutiny: Or you choose to believe, like Don apparently does, that our government is making the whole thing up.

DonQatU
May 11, 2003, 08:55 PM
Cactus, which paid defector stated that they had knowledge that Al-Qaeda trained at Salman Pak? I missed that one!

I believe if you recheck your information you'll find THAT claim was never made!

Don

PS - Don't WE employ mock-ups to train counter hijacking? Or are we training those "Red Teams" to be "terrorists"?

PPS - Iran has also employed mock-ups for training since the mid-80's.

faustulus
May 11, 2003, 09:10 PM
OCCAM'S RAZOR.

The simplist answer to why we haven't found them is they are not there.

DonQatU
May 11, 2003, 09:33 PM
The simplist answer to why we haven't found them is they are not there.

It's plain that the 75th Expedition Task Force doesn't think so.

But I'm sure they'll find SOMETHING! Before the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq did have a massive chemical and biological weapons program. Some is probably still lying around. If sufficient quantities can be uncovered, perhaps it will be enough to convince an eager public that the war was worth it.

Now it's time to sit back and enjoy the cat fight between Rumsfeld's "Office of Special Plans" (aka. the Cabal) and the CIA for the faulty intelligence! :D

Don

Coronach
May 11, 2003, 09:44 PM
Faustulus-

True enough re: Occam's razor. A pity, though, that I was not talking about the question of why we haven't found them, but why we keep having "finds," then retractions. This is very much not the same issue.

Also, as to why we haven't found them thus far? Sure..."they're not there" is very simple indeed. However, it ignores several key pieces of circumstantial evidence, and a whole host of prior data (like several thousand gassed Kurds). Occam's razor is the simplest explainatition for all of the data. And even though it is admirable for its parsimony, it is not always correct.

Quite nearly as simple and more in line with the (admittedly) circumstantial case is "they're very well hidden, or dumped."

One way or the other, we'll eventually see.

Mike

DonQatU
May 11, 2003, 10:51 PM
Coronach, A pity, though, that I was not talking about the question of why we haven't found them, but why we keep having "finds," then retractions. This is very much not the same issue.

Oh..... it's VERY MUCH THE SAME ISSUE! They are STILL imbedded journalists. Our are you saying they're free to report all they see? I think they're free to report all they're fed.

There are NEVER retractions of false reports.

Did you ever hear a retraction of the "Baby Incubator" story in GWI?!!!! :rolleyes:


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3589/us-iraq-lie.html

Don

Coronach
May 11, 2003, 11:53 PM
Don-

Reread my post, Faustulus' response, and my rebuttal. We are not talking about the same thing. The failure to find 'WMD' is related to, but not logically the same as, a tendency for journalists to publicize false positives. If you cannot see the difference, well...I'm perfectly willing to decalre you the 'winner' in this debate to save everyone else time and bandwidth. :rolleyes:

As to whether or not they're free to report everything they see, I'm sure they're not, and they have said as much- operational security, etc. However, if you're trying to suggest that they are now just spewing what the gov't wants them to spew, I'd suggest that you're off base. I'd also advise you to consider my original point- if you are running a disinformation campaign, how does putting out false reports, which are later easily proven false, help you in your ultimate goal of...of...whatever the Illuminati are doing?

Mike

SkunkApe
May 12, 2003, 01:45 PM
"...if you are running a disinformation campaign, how does putting out false reports, which are later easily proven false, help you in your ultimate goal of...of...whatever the Illuminati are doing?" -coronach

coronach,

The reason for doing this is to create the general impression that WMDs are being found all over Iraq. The embedded journalists release the original story with great fanfare. When the eventual retraction comes, its back page news. The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story.


The question is not if Hussein ever had WMDs, its obvious that he did prior to 1991. The question is whether he had them in 2003. And so far, there is no proof of that.

A larger question should be, "why can't Iraq have WMDs?" We have WMDs, Israel has WMDs, North Korea even brags about its WMDs. Don't nation states have a right to defend themselves? The attack of Kuwait doesn't seem to be an answer, as the U.S. has attacked many more countries recently than has Iraq. In 1981, Israel flew jets to Iraq and destroyed its nuclear facility. The countries were not at war. What was the U.S. response? If Iraq had bombed Israel's nuclear facilities, what would be the U.S. response? Is there a double standard here? Why?

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 02:18 PM
Excellent post Skunkape!

And coronach, I don't remember mentioning anything about the "Illuminati" in any of my posts. I really don't know why you are trying to attribute comments about the "Illuminati" to me. UNLESS you are trying to discredit my comments about the Office of Special Plans.

You might want to do a little research on the OSP. You don't need a tinfoil hat to recognize they specialize in doctoring intell to suite their agenda.

Sorry, no conspiracy, just a purposeful agenda!

Don

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 02:30 PM
A larger question should be, "why can't Iraq have WMDs?" We have WMDs, Israel has WMDs, North Korea even brags about its WMDs.

You can honestly, seriously, with a straight face tell me that you have no problem with countries like Iraq and Syria having WMD, but you DO have a prob with the US having them? :scrutiny:

As an analogy, you have no problem with criminals owning guns?

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 02:35 PM
The reason for doing this is to create the general impression that WMDs are being found all over Iraq. The embedded journalists release the original story with great fanfare. When the eventual retraction comes, its back page news. The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story.


Though you do raise a good point about the retraction being a back-page story, you make a HUGE assumption that the media is overwhelmingly pro-war, and would falsely report findings of WMD, thus further proving Bush and the pro-war side to be in the right.

I'd love to see you document THAT assertion. :scrutiny:

One last bit:

If Iraq doesn't have WMD, and we haven't found even a *shred* of evidence, what do you make of the underground nuclear facility that was (falsely, I'm sure) uncovered?

Maybe you'd like to ask france about it, since they sold it to Iraq. (well, not really, since we all know iraq doesn't have WMD, and france isn't one of Iraq's biggest trade partners. :rolleyes: )

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 02:38 PM
The question is not if Hussein ever had WMDs, its obvious that he did prior to 1991. The question is whether he had them in 2003. And so far, there is no proof of that.

You are wrong. He's had them AFTER 1991.

Since don keeps ignoring my questions, perhaps you can answer these for me:

-Why did the UN pass 14 resolutions pertaining to Iraq?

-What EXACTLY was the purpose of those 14 resolutions?

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 02:43 PM
If Iraq doesn't have WMD, and we haven't found even a *shred* of evidence, what do you make of the underground nuclear facility that was (falsely, I'm sure) uncovered?

Where was this "underground nuclear facility" found?

You would surely think this would have been front page news!

You think there is some sort of cover-up going on, drjones?

Don

LiquidTension
May 12, 2003, 02:48 PM
Going a different direction here:

Ms. Dyer complains that the Bush administration is changing the definition of "WMD" to help their cause. I've got $50 that says she supports the "assault weapon" ban and the reclassification of new weapons under the term. This is based on the fact that the majority of people opposing the war are liberals and don't like Bush. I could be wrong, but I'd be really surprised :D So, changing the definition of things is wrong...but only if your opposition does it :scrutiny:

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 02:53 PM
Ms. Dyer complains that the Bush administration is changing the definition of "WMD" to help their cause. I've got $50 that says she supports the "assault weapon" ban and the reclassification of new weapons under the term.

Liquid Tension, didn't Dubbya himself state that HE would sign the "assault weapons" bill into law? I don't know Ms. Dyer's position on the "assault weapon ban", but George W. Bush has made HIS position on the "assault weapon ban" pretty darn clear!

Don

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 03:34 PM
Where was this "underground nuclear facility" found?

You would surely think this would have been front page news!

You think there is some sort of cover-up going on, drjones?

Don

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/news/s_128200.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32006

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31966

SkunkApe
May 12, 2003, 03:36 PM
Drjones,

I pity you if you've fallen to the point of using the U.N. as an argument for attacking Iraq.

The United States (and Israel) ignore the U.N. when they see fit, and embrace it when it benefits them. The Unites States leads the security council members (by a large margin) in vetoing U.N. resolutions. Israel has been in violation of U.N. resolutions over over thirty years. Should we attack Israel and set up a new government?



And did the U.N. sanction this invasion of Iraq?

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 03:37 PM
Liquid Tension, didn't Dubbya himself state that HE would sign the "assault weapons" bill into law? I don't know Ms. Dyer's position on the "assault weapon ban", but George W. Bush has made HIS position on the "assault weapon ban" pretty darn clear!

Ah, the beauty that is GWB. :D

He said he would sign a renewal.

That lies on the assumption that one will cross his desk.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030509-92627140.htm

Excerpts:

"The House in the past has taken a dim view of the assault-weapons ban," said Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "I would say that the majority leader is pretty skeptical of reauthorizing it, as is the House as a whole."

House Republicans made voting to repeal the assault-weapons ban one of the first orders of business upon ascending to the majority in 1995. While the repeal passed the House 239-173, the Senate never took up the matter and the issue died.

Now it's likely that the law itself will be allowed to expire.

"It has zero chance," Mr. Roy said, adding that the Senate might try to fold the ban's reauthorization into a bill that the House supports, but that such a strategy is bound to fail.

"It's technically possible to do that, but just about on the verge of being impossible," Mr. Roy said.



Nice try...well, not really... :rolleyes:

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 03:44 PM
I pity you if you've fallen to the point of using the U.N. as an argument for attacking Iraq.

Where did I state or even imply that?

You are trying to tell us all that saddam doesn't have WMD.

It seems the rest of the world begs to differ.

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 03:56 PM
This from the World Net Daily article: "One report said the tunnels might contain weapons-grade plutonium, while unnamed sources have suggested the U.S. forces came upon known stocks of low-grade uranium and broke U.N. seals meant to control radioactive material."

drjones, so what did they find? Weapons-grade plutonium OR low-grade uranium? BIG DIFFERENCE!

Judging by the absolute silence and the way US forces left the Tuwaitha facility unsecured for looting, I'd guess the latter.

But your article DOES prove the value of reporting "false positives" (giving the impression that TONS of bad things are being uncovered) with no later retraction/clarification. In YOUR mind, they really did find weapons grade PLUTONIUM.

Don't you think World Net Daily would have had a follow-up article on this "weapons grade Plutonium" if that's what it actually was??!!

BUT.............. the silence is DEAFENING!

Another "false positive"!

Don

Art Eatman
May 12, 2003, 04:06 PM
DonQ, what was found was a high level of radioactivity in a previously unknown, uninspected basement facility.

One of the reasons the UN is a big joke is that every member uses it or ignores it, depending on the view of the member at the time. This doesn't mean that no good comes from the various humanitarian departments, although they could be done more efficiently and less expensively in a totally different sort of world-wide organization.

As far as WMD in Iraq, the archives at http:www.debka.com (.org?) have some interesting info. Since the Israelis live or die as a function of intel, I tend to have a bit of respect for what they say.

Art

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 04:13 PM
"Ah, the beauty that is GWB. He said he would sign a (assault weapons ban) renewal.
That lies on the assumption that one will cross his desk."

drjones, based on YOUR idea of the "master plan", the President won't sign the assault weapons ban renewal. So should those who have pre-bans unload them quickly while they can still get a decent price for them?

I'm in the market, if that's the case! :D

Don

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 04:24 PM
Art, I hope the Israelis don't rely on the accuracy of debka for their survival. If they do, they're done for!

It was debka that reported that thousands of soldiers from the PRC were pouring into Afghanistan to repel the Americans.

Don

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 05:07 PM
drjones, based on YOUR idea of the "master plan", the President won't sign the assault weapons ban renewal. So should those who have pre-bans unload them quickly while they can still get a decent price for them? That's a fine looking straw man you have there!

First, I acknowledged the fact that he said he WOULD sign the bill.

IF it crosses his desk, which, according to a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom Delay, it WILL NOT.

How, Don, can the president sign something that is never given to him?

Since Bush has proven his intelligence to those of us intelligent enough to realize it, he knows of the very strong possibility that the AWB won't even reach his desk.

I'd wager to say he probably doesn't even support it himself, but by SAYING he WOULD sign it, he gains support of the antis.

And when the bill doesn't even reach his desk (again, as he knows it probably won't) he doesn't lose our support.

Do you get it?

Brilliant political strategy... :D

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 05:11 PM
Re: WMD.


*SIGH*

I KNEW you would do that.

Don, think about this for a second:

Why would Iraq, which has some of the largest oil reserves on the PLANET, need a nuclear reactor?

In the words of one hair-brained liberal, "he wants to use cheap nuclear power to save all the oil possible to sell."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And Bill Gates clips coupons to save money. :rolleyes:

The mere fact that iraq even HAS a nuclear reactor should set off all the alarms and red flags in the world.

But I suppose saddam supporters are blind to those. :rolleyes:

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 05:12 PM
I'd wager to say he probably doesn't even support it himself, but by SAYING he WOULD sign it, he gains support of the antis.

So, drjones, you think the President is lying for political advantage?!!

Don

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 05:22 PM
drjones, are you claiming the Iraqis had a working nuclear reactor when we attacked? How the heck did those clever buggers hide that from our overhead reconnaissance assets?!!

Don

DRC
May 12, 2003, 07:18 PM
DrJones,

It surprises me that you continue this debate. Why? Becasue it is obvious that Don is going to report the same positive negatives and then retract them at his leisure ;)

I liked the question regarding the radio activity found in the secret underground lab. A question that no one has even addressed is what reason there would there be for anything radioactive in a secret underground facility, in a country without a nuclear facility? Were they baking cookies? Working on building the worlds finest microwave oven? Or just fancying the idea of a great tanning booth? :) Typically people with no harmful intent do not keep radioactive material in their basement or at least not around here that I'm aware of, regardless of "how radio active it is" Early on once our troops were in Bagdad there was a sealed room where radio active levels were so high they couldn't send anyone in until it had been cleared. So as I've asked what did they need the radio active material for? It surely wasn't a biproduct or waste product from nuclear power production.

Skunkape said:

"...The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs. Just look at the the beliefs of the intelligent people in this one thread alone. People actually believe that WMDs were discovered in Iraq. Heck, there was even one person who still believed the baby-incubator story."

Hmmm. I consider myself an intelligent person and yet I can't think of an instance where I've believed anything other than the facts of the matter. I'm smart enough to know that many things are not being reported for security reasons and I'm okay with that. I figure that the folks incharge of the operation probably have a little more intelligence on the subject, as well as training, than I do. So instead of being an armchair General "out of the loop" I'll defer to the real Generals' expertise in the matter. After all they are the ones fighting the war and they are there to see these things first hand. All we get are the video feeds and limited at that.

Don,

"drjones, are you claiming the Iraqis had a working nuclear reactor when we attacked?..."

Maybe my eyes screwed up while I was reading but I don't recall seeing DrJones state anything of the kind. BUT in all fairness think about your question. What produces nuclear and radioactive material? If you don't have a facility ones self but have the material then one must have access to a facility that produces said material. If one hasn't a facility in which to use radio active materials to produce power then what would its function be? Hair removal?

I'm confused here. Examples;

If I have an assault rifle at home and it's legal for me to own and I store it propperly, some one could still say I have no need for it and shouldn't have it. But I might compete with others at matches and never do anything with it to break the laws regulating the use of firearms.

If I have a basement full of radioactive material (high grade or low grade) mere exposure to this could cause sickness and or death to me and anyone that came in contact with it and perhaps beyond. Not to mention, it wouldn't be legal for me to own it in that capacity.

Saddam had the same stipulations put on him. He could own whatever weapons fell within the confines of the resolutions set by the U.N. to protect himself and his "country" (read-regime) but elected to work outside of those confines.

And finally:

"So, drjones, you think the President is lying for political advantage?!!"

(Snicker...) If I know you're not going to do something, but say that I'll go along with it if you do this is called "calling a bluff." It's not a lie, it's a "bet". I'm betting you're not going to do something and in the case of the president he's got enough sources to tell him who will and won't back a proposal so his "bets" are pretty secure. Instead of saying "I will veto a proposal on this" and turning the ball over to the opposition for political fire, you find out who supports and who doesn't. Once you know there's no backing for the proposal call them on it and you gain credibility when the opposition can't afford to pass the proposal, much like CFR.

This is politics and believe it or not it's played every day of the week in D.C.; Dub's just doing it better than they ever thought he could and he's got several good people around him to help him through it as well. Imagine politics in politics, perish the thought. ;)

Take care folks,

DRC

faustulus
May 12, 2003, 07:20 PM
Coronach,

I wasn't so much as replying to your post as simply taking your suggestion of using the simpilist method and applying it to the topic of the thread. I can do without your condesention.

It does not ignore past data. I simply stated that the reason we cannont find WMD is they are not there. Including all data we have that is logically the simplist explanation.

It is, however, foremost a logic principle. And like what Einstein said about mathmatics and reality probably applies here.

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 07:36 PM
DRC, thank you for the kind words and the responses.


Don:

So, drjones, you think the President is lying for political advantage?!! Don, you do not understand: He is not lying. He said he would sign the bill, and I trust he would.

Again, that is only possible if the bill passes the house and senate, and ends up on Bush's desk. He is probably confident that such a thing will not happen.

Do you understand that? Its not lying because he WOULD SIGN THE BILL.

But if it never passes and never lands on his desk for him to sign, HOW is it that GWB is lying? :scrutiny:

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 07:41 PM
"drjones, are you claiming the Iraqis had a working nuclear reactor when we attacked?..."

DRC, that was a question. Not a statement. Drjones has chosen not to answer that question yet.

What produces nuclear and radioactive material? If you don't have a facility ones self but have the material then one must have access to a facility that produces said material. If one hasn't a facility in which to use radio active materials to produce power then what would its function be? Hair removal?

DRC, Tuwaitha had a nuclear reactor that was bombed to heck. At one time it worked. I would guess that the low-level uranium SEALED by UN inspectors was used at one time to power this reactor.

But you see, there's a BIG difference between SEALED containers of low-grade uranium and "bomb-grade" plutonium. Of course, you know that.

Don

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 08:00 PM
Its not lying because he WOULD SIGN THE BILL.

Yes, drjones, he would sign the bill. And by him saying so in advance, he's given political cover to any weak-kneed Republicans that also go along with him on the ban renewal.

Or maybe YOU know something that the NRA and GOA don't? Don't think so!

Don

Drjones
May 12, 2003, 08:15 PM
Or maybe YOU know something that the NRA and GOA don't? Don't think so!

Well, you clearly claim to be smarter than Bush and his entire cabinet when you proclaim that saddam doesn't have WMD.

And I don't know what it is that I'm claiming to know, but whatever... :rolleyes:

DRC
May 12, 2003, 08:23 PM
"DRC, that was a question. Not a statement. Drjones has chosen not to answer that question yet."

Sorry. My bad. It was bombed to oblivion, but again I'm not sure I remember DrJones saying they did have a Nuclear reactor, did he? A secret underground nuclear facility, but I don't think he said reactor. However, I do stand by my question of why radioactive materials were there to begin with and what were they being used for since the concensus is that we all seem to agree that radio active materials were there and discovered.

"DRC, Tuwaitha had a nuclear reactor that was bombed to heck. At one time it worked. I would guess that the low-level uranium SEALED by UN inspectors was used at one time to power this reactor."

Perhaps I need to assertain what these things were being used for then. I cannot rely on a "guess." I'll post what I find ASAP. Thanks for the heads up though.

"But you see, there's a BIG difference between SEALED containers of low-grade uranium and "bomb-grade" plutonium. Of course, you know that."

Yup, I do know that. But I haven't seen where they've said this was SEALED low-grade Uranium not to mention UN Inspectors did not find or go into this area according to reports before or after the bombing. So inspectors couldn't have found something and sealed it if they were never therein the first place, but I'll do a little more looking.

Take care Don and nice talking with you.

DRC

Coronach
May 12, 2003, 09:10 PM
SkunkApe-
The reason for doing this is to create the general impression that WMDs are being found all over Iraq. The embedded journalists release the original story with great fanfare. When the eventual retraction comes, its back page news. The lasting impression is that we have found WMDs.*blink* *blink*

Are you serious? I turn on the evening news and all I can hear are the talking heads screeching about how we haven't found WMDs yet, and how this is all very bad for the Administration's standing.

Well, if that's really your fear, you can relax. The cat is very much out of the bag. :rolleyes:

Moving on to the issue of Did They/Do They have WMDs...OK, we both agree that iraq had them pre-91. The question is if they have them post-91. There is a boatload of (admittedly) circumstantial evidence that they do. There is also the logical inference that, based upon Saddam's history and psychology, they probably still do. I'll also freely admit that the 'smoking gun' has yet to be found. I, however, am still hopeful that it will be.

(paraphrase)Why can't Iraq have WMDs? Other countries doA couple of reasons:

1. They agreed not to, specifically.
2. It violates a other treaties and conventions as well.
3. Saddam is bat-**** wacko.

#3 is very much the key reason. I'm perfectly OK looking at some other nation, seeing they are a threat, and taking steps to deal with that threat. Those steps may, eventually, include use of force. In this case, after 12 years of screwing around, it did include a use of force. North Korea...are you paying attention?

Faustulus- No condescension, unless you seek it there. Your rejoinder made it sound as if your alternative was to be considered alongside mine for snipping with Occam's famed blade. I was merely pointing out that thet were two seperate (though related) logical entities. Don, at least, missed that point. You, apparently, have not.

Mike

SkunkApe
May 12, 2003, 10:30 PM
Coronach, I appreciate the rational debate.

Of your three points:

1. They agreed not to, specifically.

As of now Iraq has not been proven to have broken this agreement (regardless of how it was obtained.)

2. It violates a other treaties and conventions as well.

Which ones? Name one. I double-dog dare you.


3. Saddam is bat-**** wacko.

I tend to agree, but often wonder if this is just more propaganda. The U.S. is like the boy who cried wolf.

Saddam is a strong ally who should be supported in his war against the Iranian fundamentalist terrorists. Oops, no he's not. In fact he IS a terrorist. Sorry, we got mixed up.

Saddam took the babies off of the respirators! Oops, no he didn't, the Kuwaiti marketing company made it up. We just went along with it.

Our top-secret satellite photos show Saddam has hundreds of thousands of troops on the Saudi border poised to invade them! We must attack now! Oops, no, they don't. The Russians actually released their photos instead of just talking about them. Almost zero Iraqis on the Saudi border.

Saddam intentionally released oil into the Gulf in an act of enviro-terrorism! Oops no he didn't. That was us. Bad shot. Sorry. Accidents happen.

Saddam has huge stockpiles of WMDS poised to wreak havoc on the U.S. and her Allies. Oops, no he doesn't. He must of moved them to Syria. Or destroyed them. Or hid them real good so we can't find them. Or something...

Saddam is and evil madman who tortures his Olympic athletes if they lose! You've got to be kidding me. I actually heard this on NPR, no less. This sounds like something your read while in the grocery store checkout line.

Saddam is a terrorist! Just because he has never actually committed any terrorism doesn't mean he won't soon! Besides, he's an Arab. Everyone know that all Arabs are terrorists. Don't you watch TV? Fundamentalists, Baa'thists, what's the difference? Plus, we're still working on the definition of "terrorism". As soon as we can write it so it includes Hussein, and not us, we'll have him.


Do you still wonder why I have doubts?

DonQatU
May 12, 2003, 11:02 PM
OK, drjones. DRC requested I ask you if it was SEALED containers of low-grade uranium or "bomb-grade" plutonium found by the Marines in those "hidden underground tunnels".

Or did their tritium night-sights peg the Geiger counter?

Don

Coronach
May 12, 2003, 11:39 PM
1. They agreed not to, specifically.

As of now Iraq has not been proven to have broken this agreement (regardless of how it was obtained.)Uhm...

Actually, they have been proven to have violated the armisitice. Missiles are limited to X miles and they were flying X+Y miles.

And I thought we were talking about why they should not have WMDs, not whether or not anything was proven thus far?

2. It violates a other treaties and conventions as well.

Which ones? Name one. I double-dog dare you.Are they a signatory to the nuke non-proliferation treaty? Just off the cuff that would be one, if they're doing verbotten nuke research (again, not proven, but certainly there are hints to that effect)3. Saddam is bat-**** wacko.The US is the boy who cried wolf on this one how? Even if you take away all of the false leads, allegedly false accusations, etc etc etc, Saddam still has enough bodies in the ground to lend serious credence to this point. Someone starting a rumor about him that turned out to be false doesn't return gassed Kurdish villagers to life.

Mike

SkunkApe
May 12, 2003, 11:43 PM
"Someone" starting a rumour about him that proved to be false? "Someone"?

This "someone" is the the United States government. You call it "starting a rumour that proved to false". I call it lying. Flat out lying.

The United States of America is not supposed to lie to its citizens, darn it. I'm not sure how much I can do about, but at least I can refuse to be a pawn.

Go to sleep, my friend, you're not at your best right now.

Coronach
May 13, 2003, 12:03 AM
A. I'm not conceeding any points about the US lying re: Saddam and Iraq.

B. (and this was my main point) even IF all points re: lyingare conceeded to you, Saddam has still slaughtered enough people and engaged in enough barbarism all on his own that it still supports my point #3.

Mike

DRC
May 13, 2003, 01:35 PM
ROFLMAO,

"OK, drjones. DRC requested I ask you if it was SEALED containers of low-grade uranium or "bomb-grade" plutonium found by the Marines in those "hidden underground tunnels".

Or did their tritium night-sights peg the Geiger counter?

Don"

That's a good one! You rock dude.

Seriously, DRC (that would be Me) didn't ask you to ask DrJones if the readings were being caused by low grade Uranium or bomb grade Plutonium found in the "hidden underground tunnels" DRC (again Me for those that might get confused) said

"Yup, I do know that. But I haven't seen where they've said this was SEALED low-grade Uranium not to mention UN Inspectors did not find or go into this area according to reports before or after the bombing. So inspectors couldn't have found something and sealed it if they were never therein the first place, but I'll do a little more looking."

The levels of radio activity are too high for them to go in and find out what is down there as of yet. So the way I figure it, and correct me if I'm wrong, if the military that's there in said location doesn't even know what's down there yet then I don't either. The reports say it will be later this or next week before they can get down there to find out so unless you're really good at seeing the future you don't know what they've found either. I'm not saying it's one or the other; what I'm saying and in fact said was I don't know what's down there causing the readings so I cannot speculate what it is until the authorities in that matter find out and release that information. It may be just a bunch of barrels of low-grade uranium from years gone by but since I'm not there doing the research nor can I see into the future or into underground bunkers from here I won't speculate.

SkunkApe,

I'm reading a very good book that you should read if you haven't already. It's by Mona Charen and the title is "Useful Idiots." No, that's not a dig against you (remember I'm reading it now) but it will definitely give you a perspective of things that will make you think about a lot of things in a way you never have before. I've always considered myself a conservative in my ideologies and never put much stock in anything liberally based anyway but after reading the first half of the book I can honestly say that your feelings are justified if you've only garnered a singular view point of the situation. To put it more bluntly, there's a lot that you may think you know but until the real truthes come out you're basing your feelings on skewed information. The book talks about the "Blame America First" crowd and the effect it's had on this country ever since. It's a good read and I recommend it if for no other reason than entertainment purposes.

"The United States of America is not supposed to lie to its citizens, darn it. I'm not sure how much I can do about, but at least I can refuse to be a pawn."

You're personifying the country so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here. BUT for the sake of debate I'll assume that you are referring to the administration or the reporting entities. I'll assume specifically that you're referring to the administration. People in these positions get intelligence reports and then have to act on them in one way or another. Bush and his administration followed accepted protocol and got hammered for being a war monger the whole way. This administration gave Iraq time, gave the "Blame America First" crowds UN meetings and weapons inspectors and allowed votes to be made and new resolutions to be passed. When all of this failed this administration gave Iraq an ultimatum and acted on it (because somebody had to)

Are there WMD in Iraq? I have no clue as of yet but my assumption is "Yes" based on past knowledge of Saddams regime and what his aspirations were. Did Bush have enough information to substantiate his actions and assertions that Iraq had WMD? I believe he did.

Take care,

DRC

SkunkApe
May 13, 2003, 02:09 PM
I've resisted telling you all this, so as to destroying your "fall-back" defense to my arguments, but here it is:

I'm not a "liberal".

Nope. Sorry. I voted for a grand total of one Democrat in my life (John Dingell, who, at the time, had an NRA "A" rating.)

I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. I voted for the George H.W. Bush (once).

I supported the "Contract with America" and cheered when the Republicans took over Congress.

I believe that pure unfettered capitalism is the greatest and most natural economic system possible.

I believe the Constitution of the United States represents the greatest words ever written.

I recent years, I've become a staunch Libertarian. But I still am disgusted by socialism and communism.

But still I know a liar when I see one, regardless of party. The truth still shines as brightly as it ever did, and the stench of propaganda is still as strong.

I know who lies, and who believe the lies.

And I recognize those who believe because their party tells them its true, and those who recognize that membership in a political party, or the profession of political beliefs, does not necessarily make one true and good and right.

Think, man, think.

DRC
May 13, 2003, 02:38 PM
Um...I don't think anyone ever accused of of anything you've espoused, or perhaps I was absent when this happened.

As to who's lying and who's telling the truth? Well, we'll have to wait and see but I've never known anyone that had the ability to tell a liar at a glance. How does that work and where does one go to learn this technique? It sure would save me the time and trouble of having to go through all the facts and information if I could learn this as well. I'm a busy guy and spend an inardenant amount of time sifting through information and this would be a God send. Please let me know where I can sign up at your earliest convenience.

I can just see Me now.

Me "Sir! You are a liar!"
Them "But I didn't say anything."

And Me sitting looking smug knowing that I know the only truth in this situation because I can tell a liar at a glance without knowing them, or knowing what they know. It would make me feel warm and fuzzy knowing I was always right without question. I would be a god!

DRC

ahenry
May 13, 2003, 04:28 PM
http://e4u.consoleradar.com/happy/516.gif

DonQatU
May 13, 2003, 05:37 PM
The levels of radio activity are too high for them to go in and find out what is down there as of yet. So the way I figure it, and correct me if I'm wrong, if the military that's there in said location doesn't even know what's down there yet then I don't either.

Well thank-you, DRC! At least you are honest enough to admit you don't know what they found. I think they found a lot of Geiger ticking like you would expect to find in any old nuclear facility. Chernobyl is still dangerous even with the years passed and it's concrete overcoat.

No, I didn't seriously think the Marines mistook readings from their tritium sights. I just didn't understand how anyone could take such leap of logic to assume a wildly ticking Gieger would indicate weapons-grade plutonium. Evidently News Max did and forgot to withdraw their claim.

DRC, if you don't believe anything else I said, believe me on this one.....

If they found weapons-grade plutonium at Tuwaitha, it would have been front page news!

I encourage you to keep up your good sense of humor, even when we disagree!

Don

DRC
May 13, 2003, 07:30 PM
I try.

I do have to clarify a couple of things for you though because I'm not sure where you're getting your implications.

"Well thank-you, DRC! At least you are honest enough to admit you don't know what they found. I think they found a lot of Geiger ticking like you would expect to find in any old nuclear facility. Chernobyl is still dangerous even with the years passed and it's concrete overcoat."

First I must take issue with this (but not in a mean sort of way.) I am honest enough to admit that I don't know what they found which has been my contention this whole time. I also said that when the time came and the crews hired to go in found out what was down in the facility we would know for sure what was causing the high readings on the equipment. Then I asked why something radio active would be down there in an area that according to reports the UN Inspectors never went to (the reports could be wrong but we will have to wait for this as well) and in three different reports it states this. So my questions are thus:

The facility was bombed. The UN Inspectors (according to reports) were never in this section of the facility nor did they even know it existed so how they can assess that it's low-grade Uranium in SEALED barrels placed in a SEALED section of the building to contain the radio active emmisions is what I'm questioning. You have every right and should question those you feel are possibly not being forthright, but by that same token I'm doing the same. You question the US and its Administrations actions and reporting and I'll question the totalitarian regimes that broke every (I believe the final tally was 18) resolution the UN passed and kicked out inspectors all while rebuilding this very facility.

Sadly, you do not seem to be as honest in that you don't know what they found either. Only speculation from you which is, in and of itself, hypocracy :( Yup, it was a neclear facilty and there's radio active stuff around places like this I have no doubt, But what a great place to hide MORE radio active stuff. Think about it, hiding radio active stuff in or near a nuclear facility (functional or not) that inspectors have already been to regardless of whether they had been to the actual underground storage facility or not. I'm not saying that's what has been done but personally I can't think of a better hiding place not to mention if the Iraqis didn't think about this then they missed an opportunity and would appear less brilliant than we gave them credit for.

"DRC, if you don't believe anything else I said, believe me on this one.....

If they found weapons-grade plutonium at Tuwaitha, it would have been front page news!"

You're absolutely right but perhaps they haven't reported it because they haven't been able to enter the underground facility to find out what's down there yet What a concept! Not reporting what you don't know for a fact. That would mean the media showed responsibility which is uncommon (especially for News Max) but a welcome change. I trust the media very little but presently they're not really saying much when there's nothing much to tell, but when the story breaks (which it hasn't yet) they're all over it.

And finally I don't really think we disagree as much as you speculate one thing and I ask "How do you know when nothing definitive has been released yet?" We're on the same page I'm just refusing to speculate until I have more facts. If someone tells me a color pattern has red and blue in it I'm not going to jump up and say "It must be Plaid then." I just can't bring myself to do that regardless of whose in office or what's on the political table. If you feel comfortable with that (and you might be correct and I'm not saying otherwise) then be my guest but I'm not built that way. I'll wait for the proof one way or the other first.

Take care Don and thanks for the kind words. You too have been very cordial and I appreciate that.

DRC

DonQatU
May 13, 2003, 08:21 PM
I also said that when the time came and the crews hired to go in found out what was down in the facility we would know for sure what was causing the high readings on the equipment.

This time has already come and gone. The military experts found NOTHING! At least nothing that presented a "smoking gun".

Time frame: The Marines took control of the facility. Facility left abandoned...... then looted! Checked again by the US forces. Nothing found!

News Max silent! BUT........I'm sure they'll print a retraction soon! :rolleyes:

Don

SodaPop
May 13, 2003, 10:08 PM
Don, where were you during the Vietnam war?

twoblink
May 13, 2003, 10:11 PM
But if you take out Saddam, who is going to take on the task of torturing the Iraqi's?? Do you know how hard it is to find a good dictator that will last more than 2 decades these days? :rolleyes:

I saw a sig line that made me laugh.. It said:

I love Saddam... in a breadbox!

DonQatU
May 13, 2003, 10:18 PM
Don, where were you during the Vietnam war?

Soda, let me just say I wasn't fighting a polyp on my neo-con **** to avoid the draft like Rush Limbaugh!

Don ;)

DRC
May 14, 2003, 11:25 AM
I believe we're talking about two different places and instances.

The site I'm talking about is in Tuwaitha where offices have been looted but that's on top and was done some time ago. The military has been there and found a door breached to the underground facility as recently as April 10th and still have not been able to go into the area because of the high radiation levels and some infighting between the the administration and IAEA. I beleive you're talking about the facility in Bagdad found fairly early in the conflict that had high radiation levels that the offices had been looted prior to the military getting there.

I was watching Fox News Monday and they were talking about it and said they probably would not be able to send anyone in to the underground facility until late this week or later. Here's a link that talks about the Bagdad facility and the Tuwaitha facility in this vein. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85940,00.html

Take care,

DRC

DonQatU
May 14, 2003, 01:21 PM
DRC, thanks for the Fox News article. But after reading it, I didn't see anything about them finding (or suspecting they'll find) weapons-grade plutonium like the News Max article stated.

But the IAEA said Iraq was allowed to keep several tons of low-grade uranium and other nuclear material there under seal because the material couldn't be used directly for weapons.

The above is is taken from the Fox article and is what the Marines found.

The reason there's a big fuss over Tuwaitha right now, is because the US allowed it to be looted.

Wasn't the PRIMARY REASON for invading Iraq to find and sieze any WMDs? While they didn't find any WMDs at Tuwaitha (or any other place in Iraq yet), there was a lot of stuff that should have been secured in that facility.

Six or seven other facilities associeted with Iraqs former nuclear program have also been looted.

Don

DRC
May 14, 2003, 02:02 PM
"DRC, thanks for the Fox News article. But after reading it, I didn't see anything about them finding (or suspecting they'll find) weapons-grade plutonium like the News Max article stated."

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in a manner that you can comprehend but I'll try it one last time just to hopefully help you understand what I (Me personally) said.

1) The location you're talking about is not the same location I'm talking about.

2) The location (Tuwaitha) has been visited by inspectors many times, but (according to reports) they were never in these underground facilities (read-never allowed)

3) The remainder of the buildings on the surface were looted and it is suspected that someone may have gone down into the facility since the military found a sealed door breached when they arrived on the scene. What they fear is that material "may" have been removed but since they have no record of what was down there to begin with they don't and probably won't know what-if anything-is missing.

4) The radioactive levels are "unusually high" near the door according to reports and especially in some small "mechanical buildings." So much so that perimeters have been set and decontamination has been necessary.

5) I never said there was plutonium, uranium, aluminum or even the Easter Bunny down in the tunnels. I have said over and over again that they have not been able to go down into this underground facility because the radiation levels are too high for humans regardless of the cause for this.

6) Lowgrade Uranium? Spent fuel? Plutonium? Left overs from a really bad facility cook? I have no idea what's down there, you have no idea what's down there and the military, at present, has no idea what's down there.

As I said before, it would be a missed opportunity for the Iraqis if they didn't take advantage of this area for storage of any weapons grade radioactive material. Never once did I say they had it hidden down there, never once did I say WMD are down there, nor did I ever say that what's down there isn't allowable components left over from days gone by. I said "I have no idea what's down in this area and no one else knows for sure either until they are able to go down into the underground facility."

What we know is radiation levels are "unusually high" (I would assume that this means the levels are outside off what would be considered ordinary for the components that are known to be there) And no one has been allowed down into these areas to determine what's causing the levels of radioactivity. The rest is speculation only at this point. I'll be intrested to know what they find primarily because of the Inspectors lack of access to this part of the facility and to see if there had been any new construction going on.

I'll say this again too:

Did Bush lie about WMD? No.
Will we find WMD? Yes.

I'll refrain from speculations that are unfounded and stick with the facts as they unfold.

Thank you for reading and I hope this clears things up a bit.

DRC

DonQatU
May 14, 2003, 02:49 PM
I have no idea what's down there, you have no idea what's down there and the military, at present, has no idea what's down there.

OK, DRC! You don't know what they found down there. I don't either. But when they don't find anything scary and forbidden down there, there will be complete silence about this "big find".

No news means another false positive.

Don

DRC
May 14, 2003, 05:03 PM
:banghead:

"OK, DRC! You don't know what they found down there. I don't either. But when they don't find anything scary and forbidden down there, there will be complete silence about this "big find".

No news means another false positive.

Don"

Okay that obviously didn't work. Sorry that I couldn't make myself clear to you. Hopefully there are others that understood what I was saying.

Take care,

DRC

SkunkApe
June 3, 2003, 02:01 PM
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq3_20030603.htm

Arms hunt hurts U.S. credibility

Intelligence on Iraqi arsenal is under review
June 3, 2003






BY WARREN P. STROBEL AND JOHN WALCOTT
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF




WASHINGTON -- Dramatic claims by President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top officials that Iraq was hiding vast stocks of banned weapons so far have proven to be without foundation, raising serious questions about whether U.S. intelligence on Iraq was twisted for political reasons -- or simply wrong.

The failure to find solid evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has undercut Bush's justification for the war and complicated his quest to get international backing for a tough stance against Iran and North Korea. It also has prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Senior U.S. intelligence officers said that CIA Director George Tenet resisted insistent pressure from some quarters -- particularly the Pentagon -- to shape intelligence estimates on Iraq to provide backing from the war.

But those charges miss the point and mask a larger, more important and far more troubling intelligence failure, the officers said Monday.

"The real issue isn't whether the intelligence community hyped what we had. It's how little we had. We had no significant high-level political sources inside" Iraq. "We had no significant penetration of Saddam's WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, "programs and we had no high-level agents in the Iraqi military," said one official, who like the others spoke only without attribution because it's illegal to discuss classified information.

The lack of an extensive spy network inside Iraq left the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department at a disadvantage in the bitter inter-agency battle over Iraq intelligence that preceded the war, this official and others said.

Pentagon civilians, supported by Vice President Dick Cheney's office and some officials on the National Security Council staff, were pushing more alarmist views, based in part on intelligence and defectors made available by exile groups with their own agendas, particularly the Iraqi National Congress. The exiles' data was fed to a special unit established by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

But framing the public debate, congressional inquiries and an internal CIA review around the question of whether officials revised intelligence estimates to serve the Bush administration's political purposes "misses the point and lets everybody off the hook," one of the officials said.

"Were estimates doctored? Not to my knowledge. Were analysts told what to write? I don't believe so," the official said. "But was our intelligence on Iraq as good as it needed to be? Absolutely not."

U.S. personnel in Iraq on Monday began a fresh search for evidence of chemical-, biological- and nuclear-weapons programs, and U.S. officials said the renewed effort would not rely on intelligence supplied by the INC and its head, former banker Ahmed Chalabi.

Powell, whose credibility is on the line because of his dramatic February presentation to the UN Security Council on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, said the beefed-up U.S. search would be "the most extensive regime imaginable."

So far, however, checks of hundreds of major sites -- many of which were also bombed during the Iraq war -- have not turned up conclusive evidence of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Top Bush administration officials say some evidence of banned weapons activity by the Iraqis has been found, and they predict much more will surface.

They point to two mobile labs found in Iraq that appear to have been designed to produce biological weapons and are similar to those that Powell described in his February presentation.

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, in a report Monday, said the vehicles were unlike any that Hussein's regime had declared. But Blix declined to draw broader conclusions.

Another senior intelligence official added that top officials from President Saddam Hussein's regime in U.S. custody, who initially declined to provide information to interrogators, are slowly beginning to talk about banned weapons programs.

This official disputed charges that the CIA had inadequate intelligence coverage of Iraq, saying the quick pace of the war and that the agency had advance word of Hussein's movements, which allowed U.S. forces to target him twice, proved otherwise.

The chairmen of two Senate committees have said their panels will investigate U.S. intelligence on Iraq.

Tenet, who has begun providing Capitol Hill with extensive documentation to support the CIA's past statements on Iraq, issued a public statement Friday defending his agency's work from charges of politicization.

"Our role is to call it like we see it; to tell policymakers what we know, what we don't know, what we think and what we base it on. That's the code we live by," Tenet's statement said.

But the CIA lost most of its covert network in Iraq in a series of reversals during the 1990s.

Most notable was a failed 1996 coup attempt against Hussein, which the Iraqi regime not only prevented but also used the plotters' CIA-provided satellite phones to tell agency officials in Jordan that it had failed. The U.S.-backed group that planned the coup, the Iraqi National Accord, was found to have been penetrated by Hussein's agents.

Efforts to rebuild the CIA network were hampered by Iraqis' suspicions that, after numerous failures, Washington wasn't serious about overthrowing Hussein, officials have said.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/blair3_20030603.htm

Blair battling charges of war deal with Bush

Some Brits call for independent inquiry
June 3, 2003







BY DON MELVIN
COX NEWS SERVICE




LONDON -- A political storm has begun in Britain over charges that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government doctored intelligence reports regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, duped people into backing the war and made a secret agreement with U.S. President George W. Bush to invade regardless of how UN weapons inspections turned out.

At a news conference Monday, Blair insisted he stood "absolutely 100 percent" behind the intelligence report his government published last fall. He said it was "completely and totally untrue" that he and Bush secretly decided to wage war. And he asked for patience as the search continues for banned weapons in Iraq.

But calls for an independent inquiry came from nearly all quarters: some members of the Labour Party, including former cabinet minister Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, and Malcolm Savidge, who compared the charges to Watergate. A spokesman for the left-leaning Liberal Democrat Party said an investigation was needed.

Even the Conservative Party, which solidly supported Blair's stance on the war, said it was considering backing an inquiry.

While the war was justified, said Conservative official Michael Howard, "there is a separate question, which is whether the government told the truth in the run-up to the war."

A good portion of the controversy centers on a British intelligence finding published Sept. 24. Its most alarming claim was that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons it could deploy within 45 minutes of an order.

This week, the Sunday Times of London said it had seen documents that showed the intelligence finding was published only after "extensive consultation" between the chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee and Blair's communications director.

Members of Parliament have called for the original draft of the report to be released so they can see how it was altered.

During the weekend, Clare Short, who resigned from Blair's cabinet after the war was over, accused Blair on television of having lied to the cabinet.

She contended that Blair secretly agreed with Bush at Camp David in September to go to war -- but told the cabinet he would try to restrain the United States.

She said that, although it was true that Iraq had laboratories and was trying to create chemical and biological weapons, the claim that such weapons could be quickly deployed was false.

"Where the spin came was the suggestion that it was all weaponized, ready to go, immediately dangerous, likely to get into the hands of Al Qaeda, and therefore things were very, very urgent," she said.

And she accused Blair of saying French President Jacques Chirac had said he would veto a second United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing war. She said her reading of Chirac's remarks showed that claim to be false.

All of that created an unnecessary rush to war that left inadequate time for postwar planning and helped engender the chaos now evident in Iraq, she said.

"I have concluded that the prime minister had decided to go to war in August sometime and he duped us all along," she said.

http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/ewmd3_20030603.htm

Iraq's Weapons: Much at stake if reasons given for war aren't found

June 3, 2003







After a weekend of spinning and defending its oft-stated casus belli, the Bush administration has a lot riding on the discovery and display, soon, of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq:


Credibility. The world is questioning not only why war was necessary, but also whether the United States can be trusted. Even a discovery will be suspect now. (It's not too late to bring in United Nations weapons inspectors to confirm any find.)

Colin Powell. President George W. Bush has no more loyal soldier than the secretary of State, who made the U.S. case for war before the United Nations. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested in an interview released during the weekend that WMDs weren't the rationale but merely a reason to go -- the only one all could agree upon. It was also the one that was sold to the world. If the administration expects Powell to keep carrying its water to foreign capitals around the world, it can't be poking holes in his bucket.

Tony Blair. Bush has no more loyal ally than the British prime minister, vilified more in England than Bush is here over the war. Blair staked his future to this cause.

Iraqi support. Some administration officials are now saying they may have been steered wrong by Iraqi dissidents, who are bristling at such accusations. The United States needs these folks to help rebuild Iraq.

Where are they? If Saddam Hussein truly had these frightening weapons, but U.S. forces can't find them, who has them? The prospects are frightening.

Edward429451
June 3, 2003, 02:23 PM
Sticky situation. Its totally reasonable to assume that the government lied, they have a history of lieing. But on the other hand, most lies have their foundation in a speck of truth, then are exaggerated and twisted to the liers desire. (the skin of a reason, stuffed with a lie.)

Maybe the WMD were smuggled out to Syria? Or maybe it was just a jug of freon, lol. We'll probably never know for sure.

Its too serious of a situation to totally condem the government over, and yet, too serious of a situation to not be suspicious of the government also. :confused:

DaveB
June 3, 2003, 02:27 PM
You think the heat's on? You're daft. Nobody cares.

db

Published on Tuesday, June 3, 2003 by the New York Times
Standard Operating Procedure, by Paul Krugman

The mystery of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction has become a lot less mysterious. Recent reports in major British newspapers and three major American news magazines, based on leaks from angry intelligence officials, back up the sources who told my colleague Nicholas Kristof that the Bush administration "grossly manipulated intelligence" about W.M.D.'s.

And anyone who talks about an "intelligence failure" is missing the point. The problem lay not with intelligence professionals, but with the Bush and Blair administrations. They wanted a war, so they demanded reports supporting their case, while dismissing contrary evidence.

In Britain, the news media have not been shy about drawing the obvious implications, and the outrage has not been limited to war opponents. The Times of London was ardently pro-war; nonetheless, it ran an analysis under the headline "Lie Another Day." The paper drew parallels between the selling of the war and other misleading claims: "The government is seen as having `spun' the threat from Saddam's weapons just as it spins everything else."

Yet few have made the same argument in this country, even though "spin" is far too mild a word for what the Bush administration does, all the time. Suggestions that the public was manipulated into supporting an Iraq war gain credibility from the fact that misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration, which — to an extent never before seen in U.S. history — systematically and brazenly distorts the facts.

Am I exaggerating? Even as George Bush stunned reporters by declaring that we have "found the weapons of mass destruction," the Republican National Committee declared that the latest tax cut benefits "everyone who pays taxes." That is simply a lie. You've heard about those eight million children denied any tax break by a last-minute switcheroo. In total, 50 million American households — including a majority of those with members over 65 — get nothing; another 20 million receive less than $100 each. And a great majority of those left behind do pay taxes.

And the bald-faced misrepresentation of an elitist tax cut offering little or nothing to most Americans is only the latest in a long string of blatant misstatements. Misleading the public has been a consistent strategy for the Bush team on issues ranging from tax policy and Social Security reform to energy and the environment. So why should we give the administration the benefit of the doubt on foreign policy?

It's long past time for this administration to be held accountable. Over the last two years we've become accustomed to the pattern. Each time the administration comes up with another whopper, partisan supporters — a group that includes a large segment of the news media — obediently insist that black is white and up is down. Meanwhile the "liberal" media report only that some people say that black is black and up is up. And some Democratic politicians offer the administration invaluable cover by making excuses and playing down the extent of the lies.

If this same lack of accountability extends to matters of war and peace, we're in very deep trouble. The British seem to understand this: Max Hastings, the veteran war correspondent — who supported Britain's participation in the war — writes that "the prime minister committed British troops and sacrificed British lives on the basis of a deceit, and it stinks."

It's no answer to say that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. I could point out that many of the neoconservatives who fomented this war were nonchalant, or worse, about mass murders by Central American death squads in the 1980's. But the important point is that this isn't about Saddam: it's about us. The public was told that Saddam posed an imminent threat. If that claim was fraudulent, the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history — worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-contra. Indeed, the idea that we were deceived into war makes many commentators so uncomfortable that they refuse to admit the possibility.

But here's the thought that should make those commentators really uncomfortable. Suppose that this administration did con us into war. And suppose that it is not held accountable for its deceptions, so Mr. Bush can fight what Mr. Hastings calls a "khaki election" next year. In that case, our political system has become utterly, and perhaps irrevocably, corrupted.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

SIGarmed
June 3, 2003, 02:37 PM
The U.N. is pissed because they weren't invited in. We all know how the left loves the United Nations. Mr. blix just anounced that there is no proof of WMD or something of that sort, because they weren't invited back to iraq.

The liberal New York Times embedded reporter with the force looking for WMD even agree's that its not a matter of whether saddam had WMD, but where they put them.

All the complaining and so called "heat" is rhetoric. The world is a better place now that saddam is defeated. Also it'll make the America haters in the world think twice before they try and pull off their terror plots. They should be made to understand that the United States is no longer a paper tiger.

Mike Irwin
June 3, 2003, 02:40 PM
Heard a very good point on Fox news today...

We can't find Saadam Hussein, either.

But is anyone really going to say that he wasn't in Iraq just a few short months ago?

DaveB
June 3, 2003, 02:42 PM
Mr. SIG,

It doesn't matter to you that you were lied to? If you had lost your Son, your Father, your Own life in the late war, would you care that the reasons given were lies?

Also it'll make the America haters in the world think twice before they try and pull off their terror plots. They should be made to understand that the United States is no longer a paper tiger.

Good plan.

Saudis kill Americans.

We kill Iraqis.

db

erikm
June 3, 2003, 02:43 PM
You think the heat's on? You're daft. Nobody cares. Don't be so sure. On this side of the atlantic a lot of people, including a lot of britains, do care, especially about this things like blatantly misleading parliament. This is an issue which will probably last until the next UK general election. I also expect some ministerial heads to end up on the block before that time. Which ones I can't say, but remember that in the UK the prime minister can be replaced after a vote of no confidence or if the party's MPs want to replace him. What the outcome, if any, of this will be with the UK's idiotic election system I can't say.

Cheers,
ErikM :evil:

JohnBT
June 3, 2003, 02:52 PM
Okay. You win.

Almost nobody cares. :D

John

SkunkApe
June 3, 2003, 03:11 PM
Mark down another vote for "I care".

I don't know what bothers me more; my own government lying to me, or people I respect being so easily duped.

Destructo6
June 3, 2003, 03:23 PM
You're also failing to notice that the Clinton Administration emasculated the CIA and DIA. Intelligence networks take decades to build, but only moments to destroy.

How does it apply? Well, you have to go with what you have. The world knew, incontrovertible fact, that Iraq has had WMDs, has used WMDs, is a nation prone to belligerance. The UN was certain that significant amounts of WMDs were missing, which would put Iraq in violation of the cease fire that ended the Gulf War. Anything on top of that would be icing on the cake, so to speak.
I don't know what bothers more; my own government lying to me, or people I respect being so easily duped.
False argument there. ie If you don't think like me, you're stupid.

Fastlane
June 3, 2003, 03:37 PM
I care. I was lied to about Vietnam now it seems the Govt. might be lying about Iraq. Bush is almost as bad as governor Taft or do I mean governor Daft.

Waitone
June 3, 2003, 04:34 PM
Beginning with Jimmuh Carter's CIA director Stansfield Turner, the US implimented a policy of reducing to the point of elimination of the use of human intelligence. Corresponding policy is that of increasing reliance on technical intelligence gathering. We therefore went on a high tech binge that eventuated in monsters like Carnivore, Echelon, and lots of satellites. Each president since Jimmuh Carter has put his own stamp on the retreat from human intelligence. No president has clean skirts. No director of CIA is clean also. Congress bears particular responsibility because it is oversight. Congress could easily have stopped the retreat but it went along with it. Congress added to the problem by imposing ideocy such as the Toracelli rules which prohibited the CIA and other intelligence organizations from dealing with or contacting bad people.

Bottom line is the US is out of the human intelligence business and has replaced eyeballs and ears with satelites. How bad is the situation? Robert Baer author of "See No Evil" is a former Middle Ease CIA Case officer. He spent a career running agents in the middle east. He said that be the mid-1990's the US had NO intelligence sources in the Middle East; none in Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi, Ashcanistan, or Pakistan. There is no one on the ground to provide local time sensitive intelligence. No one knows what is going on. The substitute is overhead pictures and cell phone intercepts.

I think we are seeing the limits of technical intelligence. What is the difference between human and technical intelligence? Real simple. Technical intelligence demonstrates CAPABILITY. Human intelligence is the only way to determine INTENTIONS.

We are paying the price for some really bad decisions made by a lot of government types since the mid-1970's.

WYO
June 3, 2003, 04:44 PM
Personally, I don't think it matters if we find WMD's or not. The point is that Saddam was supposed to allow inspections as a part of his agreement to stay in power after the first Gulf War. He stalled for 10 years, giving him ample opportunity to stash them in places we would never find them, including other countries. We were holding him to what he agreed to. If he had let the UN have unfettered access to what it wanted, the war wouldn't have happened.

In any event, I still think there are some WMD's out there somewhere, waiting to be found. We found those 2 mobile labs. Why did he need a mobile lab?

MJRW
June 3, 2003, 04:51 PM
It matters to me. Is there anything more frightening than a super-power willing to make up reasons to go to war? Other reasons for the war are irrelevant. The reason given was WMD. If that reason is fraudulent, then we have gone to war for the wrong reason.

SIGarmed
June 3, 2003, 04:54 PM
DaveB said:
Good plan.

Saudis kill Americans.

We kill Iraqis.

Are you kidding with that childish arguement? It doesn't merit further response. I just quoted it so people can read it again and get a good laugh.




Folks Iraq was in violation period. Did you forget? They violated numerous resolutions including this one. They lost a war and are subject to the provisions of the cease fire which doesn't include trying to knock our American serviceman out of the sky on a regular basis.

resolution 1441 (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm)

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;


The U.N., europe and the left didn't have the guts to do anything about it, but saddams number was up. This country sticks to its guns and then what happens? The left gets to redefine the issue's because it'll do them no good for the Bush administration to get any credit. God forbid.

DaveB
June 3, 2003, 05:09 PM
Mr. SIG, I don't speak for "the left". I speak for me.

What issue is being 'redefined'?

Iraq has been proven to have had NO role in 9/11. All but 1 or 2 of the hijackers were Saudi. That's the point I made.

Your response: Iraq is in violation of ...

Since when does W give a damm about UN resolutions?

The point of this thread was (try to follow): we went to war to prevent SH from using WMD against the USA.

It appears likely that the Bush administration knew that there were no longer any such weapons in Iraq.

I don't understand why people are not barking mad.

db

braindead0
June 3, 2003, 05:18 PM
The list of U.N. resolutions that Israel has (still is in many cases) violated is too long to list here. They have WMD's, yet we don't attack them.

SIGarmed
June 3, 2003, 05:23 PM
braindead0,

Keep the jokes coming.

Waitone
June 3, 2003, 05:34 PM
Iraq has been proven to have had NO role in 9/11. All but 1 or 2 of the hijackers were Saudi. http://www.newsmax.com/archive/print.shtml?a=2003/3/13/112209

http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/8/13/95502

http://www.newsmax.com/archive/print.shtml?a=2003/4/30/94434

http://biz.yahoo.com/law/030508/a6201b4e6276b330f456ecc2ebe7656f_1.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/

http://www.google.com/search?q=salman+pak&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&newwindow=1&start=0&sa=N

JohnBT
June 3, 2003, 05:50 PM
Saddam should have been finished off once and for all the first time around. We shouldn't have waited and I didn't need an additional reason.

The U.S. government thought he had WMD. Many still believe they are hidden.

Like Saddam.
Like Osama.
Like Rudolph (caught after five years.)


"The government LIED to me."

Hello? Earth to Pluto, Earth to Pluto. They're politicians. Duh.

Aren't there any poker players in the house? Did FDR tell the Germans, or even anybody on our side, precisely what we were up to in WWII?

John

Khornet
June 3, 2003, 06:10 PM
1. No lies have been proven. Not that they couldn't have happened, but they've not been demonstrated.

2. Unnamed sources speaking through Enron adviser Paul Krugman do not impress me. Back to #1.

3. If Pentagon insiders knew the intel was being manipulated, and were willing to talk to someone like Krugman, how come they didn't leak until after the war ended and no WMD had turned up? Could it be that they are a) liars or b) not so sure of their info, and so had to wait to see which way the wind blew? Not very credible.

4. Krugman is a liar. See " those 8 million children denied any tax break in a last-minute switcheroo" for example. Those are kids in households *which don't pay taxes*, and a reduction in zero is still zero, and you can't refund what wasn't paid. And the switcheroo was done to placate the Dems by reducing the "cost" of the tax cut. I wouldn't qoute Krugman (or the NYT) if I wanted to be credible.

5. WMD may yet be found, who knows?

6. If no WMD are ever found, does automatically it follow that Bush lied? No other explanation? Only to a reflex Bush-hater. I'll wait and see.

Monkeyleg
June 3, 2003, 07:33 PM
To believe that Bush, Blair, Powell, Rumsfeld and others lied you must believe a number of other things:

1. That Bush (and Blair) wanted war so much that they would risk their political careers (and the futures of their parties) by stating the untrue.

2. That Saddam never had WMD's.

3. That Saddam, given the option of either documenting the destruction of WMD's (and thus being allowed to continue to live in luxury and power) or being run out of his own country, thought the latter was a better alternative.

4. That UN reports for the last decade were false.

5. That Clinton administration reports were false.

6. That it's impossible to hide a few barrels in a desert the size of California.

7. That it's impossible to move the barrels into Syria or another country friendly to Iraq.

8. That, during the drawn-out timeframe wherein Bush sought UN approval, Saddam could not have done #6 or #7, or simply destroyed the WMD's.

9. That stories from the NY Times and statements from members of congress cannot be politically motivated.

Here's a link to at least some of what the Bush administration and the CIA knew or thought they knew: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

SkunkApe
June 3, 2003, 08:25 PM
1. That Bush (and Blair) wanted war so much that they would risk their political careers (and the futures of their parties) by stating the untrue.
I do believe that, especially now, seeing how hard it is for people to see the obvious.

2. That Saddam never had WMD's.
The question isn't whether or not he ever had them, its whether he had them when we attacked. Bush and Blair claimed the situation was urgent and there was no time for more diplomacy or U.N. inspections. They claimed Hussein could launch chemical and biological attacks on 45 minutes notice.

3. That Saddam, given the option of either documenting the destruction of WMD's (and thus being allowed to continue to live in luxury and power) or being run out of his own country, thought the latter was a better alternative.
Iraq did document the destruction. Over 11,000 pages of documents. The U.S. and Britain claimed the evidence wasn't good enough.

4. That UN reports for the last decade were false.
What reports? The U.N. inspectors found no evidence of WMDs. Hans Blitz was ridiculed by Bush supporters for being incompetent, or even in cahoots with Hussein. Shoe's on the other foot now, no?

5. That Clinton administration reports were false.
What?

6. That it's impossible to hide a few barrels in a desert the size of California.
By "a few barrels" I assume you mean chemical weapons, and not biological, as biological weapons need controlled storage. The quantities of chemical weapons required to pose the dire threat advertised by the Bush and Blair administrations ar considerably larger than "a few barrels". If you invade a sovereign state and kill its citizens and leader, you damn sure better have something more than "its possibe".

7. That it's impossible to move the barrels into Syria or another country friendly to Iraq.
See above. Where's the proof?

8. That, during the drawn-out timeframe wherein Bush sought UN approval, Saddam could not have done #6 or #7, or simply destroyed the WMD's.
Numbers 6 and 7 discussed above. Why would Hussein destroy the WMDs? At that point it was obvious that Iraq was going to be invaded, no matter what.

9. That stories from the NY Times and statements from members of congress cannot be politically motivated.
I'll give you that one.

Tom B
June 3, 2003, 08:52 PM
Fastlane you said it all in a nutshell! LBJ said "but we wuz attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin ma fellow Americans!" :scrutiny:

Drjones
June 4, 2003, 01:14 AM
Dear SkunkApe and anyone else who thinks the US has to find WMD to "justify" this war:

We haven't found Saddam and do not know where he is.

Using your logic, he never existed.

Right?

Monkeyleg
June 4, 2003, 01:17 AM
SkunkApe, I'm sorry that it's too late (for me) to rebut in full your counterpoints. But let's establish a jumping-off point for tomorrow's discussions.

1. You may believe that Bush and Blair truly would sacrificice political power by lying, but I'm quite sure that their advisors would have stopped them. The easiest route for Bush to have taken would have been to condemn Saddam with words, and move on. The war has taken a toll on our economy, something I'm sure the Bush team knows will be front-and-center in the 2004 elections. I don't see any political advantage to war. By November of 2004, all the voters are going to be looking at is the economy, and this war didn't help it at all. This war jeopordized Bush's chances next year.

2. CIA, UN and foreign intelligence said he had the weapons or the means to produce them. Remember that a number of sites discovered in the first few weeks couldn't be confirmed as WMD sites because they could serve dual purposes: they could produce pesticides or sarin gas, depending upon the process at the moment. Further, the argument was not that Saddam would attack in "45 minutes." The argument was that, given enough time, he would grow much stronger, and the cost to our troops would be much heavier.

3. UN Resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam had not abided by the prior resolutions which required him to document the disposal of his WMD's. 1441 also authorized the use of force if Saddam did not comply. The onus was on Saddam, not us.

4. "What?" What "what?"

5. Controlled storage? You mean the kind of controlled storage that anthrax requires to be sent through the postal system here? With all due respect, are you well-versed enough in chemistry/biology to be able to state that such weapons cannot be stored in low-tech environments and still be lethal afterwards?

6. "See above. Where's the proof?" Again, the onus was on Saddam. And, if you don't believe that he could move vials, barrels and boxes into Syria in exchange for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that a country like Syria needs, well, we're never going to reach any concensus.

7. "I'll give you that one." Why, thank you very much! And you have a good night as well.

MJRW
June 4, 2003, 01:24 AM
DrJones,

You think that is actually a valid argument or did you just feel an urgent need to post something?

rrader
June 4, 2003, 04:02 AM
DaveB:


[Quote] Iraq has been proven to have had NO role in 9/11 [Unquote]


When was this "proven?" How exactly do you prove a negative anyway? Where are you getting this hot intel?

Are you referring to the doubts raised by the Czech Government about the Bin Laden operative meeting with an Iraqi Intelligence Officer in Prague?

The military action in Iraq has been mostly over for a very short time, for around a month. How long did it take to find Mengele and Barbie after WWII?

No WMD's? No Iraqi involvement in 9/11? So what. The Iraqi dictatorship killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians both directly and by starvation, waged unprovoked war on it's neighbors, threatened to supply weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, paid families of homicide bombers in Israel, attempted to assassinate the former POTUS (an act of war against the USA), violated the cease-fire agreement that ended DS/DS innumerable times (acts of war against the USA when they fired on US aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone), etc..., they deserved to be taken out irregardless of any lack of involvement in 9/11.

US forces in Iraq are now in an excellent postion to launch strikes into Syria and Iran, therefore the Iraq war was very well worth the trouble.

faustulus
June 4, 2003, 05:22 AM
1. I realize this is an emotional dicussion, but please attack the arguements, not the person.

2. Dr. Jones, Do you really not see the difference between one person and weaponS of mass destruction. A better analogy would be using the 50 odd leaders the administration has targeted. Now it would stand to reason that if they found one of 55 surely they could have found one of X numbers of WMDs.

3. What are the consequences of our leaders lying?

4. Let's keep in mind this isn't the first time America has done this. See Mexican-American conflict.

5. I think we can all agree Saddam was bad and the world is better off without him. The question on the table is the justification BEFORE the attack not after. He was not a saint, but the world is full of bad men who pose more of a threat to the U.S. than Saddam did. Why then the urgency to attack this madman? Looking at the cost/benefit analysis of the operation I think we can safely say it is unbalanced. We lost too many sons and daughters and a ended up bolstering Osama bin Laden's status among fence sitting Muslims. We took down a fairly stable secular regime in a region ruled by religious fanatics.
My problem with the current administration -- who I voted for -- is his reluctance to let Americans know what is going on. He doesn't like to be bothered with keeping us informed. I do not trust people who work in the shadows.

Khornet
June 4, 2003, 10:18 AM
I must agree with Dr. Jones. He is simply using the same logic, in the same way, as those who claim there never were WMDs. It may be true that there never were any--we'll see, I hope--but not finding them now doesn't prove they weren't there. Absence of evidence vs evidence of absence, you know?

Of COURSE the consequences of our govt lying to us are enormous. So are the consequences of an elephant falling out of the sky onto my keyboard. Has nada to do with the probability of the event, and Monkeyleg was doing the reasonable thing: wondering what was the likelihood of lying. And to address that you have to ask why Bush would stake everything on it. Perfectly reasonable thinking, and your response doen't address it.

Skunkape, either Bush is a cynical, conniving man or he isn't. If he is, it makes no sense for him to stake everything on WMDs he knew didn't exist. If he isn't, then he was doing the best he could with the info he had, which may have been incorrect--again, we don't know. You can't have it both ways.

If and when the truth ever comes out, it won't be through the media sources quoted in this thread, which, as I pointed out earlier, are blatantly biased and dishonest.

Don Gwinn
June 4, 2003, 11:15 AM
We couldn't find Eric Rudolph for five years in South Carolina. We're supposed to find stuff that was hidden with the resources of a national government in a wilderness the size of California (or larger, if they went to Syria) in about one month? Riiiight.

Aren't most of the people now saying we should have found WMD within one month the same people who said the weapons inspectors needed another six months to do their job properly, about a year altogether?

Do you think it's possible, just possible, that the "intelligence reports" which are now being denounced as false were true at the time, but that the Iraqis moved WMD in the meantime? Finding stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, if they exist, is going to depend on taking the time to break down members of the Baath party and the military who are party to those kinds of secrets. We don't even have all those people in hand yet.

In other words, which is more likely:

1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?

DaveB
June 4, 2003, 11:21 AM
In other words, which is more likely:

1. Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us and got away with it, or
2. Hussein hid the stuff?

There's a third option: Bush, Powell, and all the rest lied to us, and will need to be be more forthcoming during the impeachment trial.

The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.

Those of you who are not familiar with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution should go and do your homework.

db

Khornet
June 4, 2003, 11:49 AM
Those of us who are not familiar with Churchill's unheeded warnings about Hitler should go do our homework.

Those of us who said we had 'much to learn' from Stalin should go do our homework.

Just as silly as your comment, my friend.

I start from the assumption that Bush is honorable, because I have no proof otherwise. That's my approach, based on what I have seen so far of this President. So if I'm told he's been lying, I want some evidence. I haven't gotten it.

Others begin from the premise that Bush is a liar. For them any allegation is plausible, hence this thread.

If it turns out that Bush lied, he deserves to be removed--or worse. I won't have to like it, I'll just have to acknowledge it. Until then, I keep my options open. What I've seen in this thread is people who had already reached their conclusion before any of this happened. I can see no other explanation for the readiness to accept such flimsy evidence. We need the truth, not attitude.

DaveB
June 4, 2003, 11:52 AM
Khornet, I agree with you that knowing the truth will help. I can wait.

db

rrader
June 4, 2003, 01:24 PM
Don Gwinn:

[Quote] Aren't most of the people now saying we should have found WMD within one month the same people who said the weapons inspectors needed another six months to do their job properly, about a year altogether [Unquote]


Yep, these are also the same people who opposed Iraq I and II saying economic sanctions should have been given a chance to work, while simultaneously accusing the US of killing 650,000 Iraqi babies through the imposition of economic sanctions after Iraq I.

The fact that Hussein and his family refused to spend on food and medicine the billions from the oil for food program that were later found stashed in French banks means nothing to these people.

It's kind of sad to see the political left in the US devolve into such a shrill, ignorant, paranoid group.

Derek Zeanah
June 4, 2003, 01:43 PM
Aren't most of the people now saying we should have found WMD within one month the same people who said the weapons inspectors needed another six months to do their job properly, about a year altogether?Actually, I think the people here are making a somewhat unrelated argument:

A nation-state needs some justification for inititaing force against another nation-state, and this is generally required to be something more then "we don't like the SOB that runs the place," or "our moral compass says we need to remove evil people like that."
We were working on an acceptable amout of justification with the UN inspection teams. They were getting nowhere while the administration claimed that they had "irrefutable proof" that prohibited substances existed and were being manufactured.
Instead of sharing this intel with the inspection teams as they requested, we (meaning the current administration of the US) decided to keep the info to ourselves, and then went on with claims that Iraq's possession of these substances made them an immediate threat to the United States, and such threat was so great that we couldn't wait for things like UN inspection teams to find the evidence we needed to go in legitimately. Further, we didn't see the need to get our actions approved by the rest of the globe. We chose to act alone in this. Well, except for a few "friends."
Now that all is said and done, we aren't finding the huge amounts of substances we supposedly had "irrefutable proof" existed. To some of us, this sounds phony. If we had proof before, then we should be able to find at least some of the substances. Maybe the assets on the ground that we weren't willing to potentially compromise by sharing our intel should be a good source for info on what happened to the substances we knew with 100% certainty weree there...
I guess it comes down to this: given the explanations the Bush administration has handed out, we might expect certain behaviors from them (like supplying a pave-low for inspectors, mixed with current info to get them to a site before anything could be moved) that we never saw. I expect the administration to act in a rational manner, and what we've seen to date suggests that the administration is either

Not rational (not likely), or
Not telling us everything about the situation.
You're welcome to disagree, but at least try and understand where some of us are coming from.

BTW, if the "he's a bad guy" argument gives us legitimacy to wage war on our own, does that mean we're justified in taking on China next year, on the basis that they're an immediate threat? How about securing the siberian oilfields as part of our attempt to eliminate risks from unaccounted for nukes in the former USSR?

Mute
June 4, 2003, 01:48 PM
Let me see if I got this right. For 12 years, UN Inspectors found duck feathers, duck wings, duck bills and duck webbed feet in Iraq. They even found a whole duck here and there. They also captured numerous terrorists operating in and seeking asylum in Iraq.

But since they haven't found a whole duck after this war, Bush lied about the existence of all of the above. Iraq has no ducks, never had any ducks and could not have sold or given ducks or parts to assemble ducks to the terrorists that were never in Iraq. Uh-huh.

If it walks and quacks like a duck.

DaveB
June 4, 2003, 02:49 PM
Did Wolfowitz really say this? If he did, how do y'all feel now?

db

Published on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 by the Guardian/UK

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US Deputy Defense Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defense minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbors - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

JohnBT
June 4, 2003, 03:06 PM
"We haven't found Saddam and do not know where he is.

Using your logic, he never existed.

Right?"

Right! Succinct and to the point. They use bad logic.

I'd be very happy to find out that Saddam et al did in fact destroy all the nasty weapons.

I just don't believe they destroyed them all or left it all hidden when they fled. I don't believe they took tons of the stuff with them, but I bet they took enough to hold as bargaining chips.

John

DaveB
June 4, 2003, 03:08 PM
Is it rude to post a link to your own thread?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25500

db

SkunkApe
June 4, 2003, 04:41 PM
I do I feel now? As more and more evidence had come out showing how the governments of the United States and Britain lied to the public about the real reasons for attacking Iraq, my feelings have gradually changed for suspicion to outrage, with a little sadness thrown in.

I am somewhat relieved that this issue is finally getting the publicity it deserves. Make no mistake, this story is big. The British parliament and U.S. senate are calling for hearings, with members of Bush and Blair's own parties among those asking for investigations. Bush is in the hot seat, and he knows it. That's why thousands of additional inspectors are being sent to Iraq, hoping to find (or plant, as some accuse) some sort of definitive evidence.

DaveB
June 4, 2003, 04:57 PM
It got really quiet all of a sudden.

db

jmbg29
June 4, 2003, 05:12 PM
It got really quiet all of a sudden.You askedDid Wolfowitz really say this? Then you posted an article fromthe Guardian/UKAnd you weren't able to hear me LMMFAO?

Maybe it's time for a hearing check-up.

jsalcedo
June 4, 2003, 05:15 PM
There was some minor evidence of WMD and their earlier presence.

Am I happy with the result of the war?
Yes. I'm glad the Iraqis will get to share in the oil wealth instead of it going to one dictator and his palaces.

what else is good?

No more govt sponsored torture

" " gang rapes
" " political murder"
" " restriction of free speech and assembly
"
" " use of WMD on dissidents and enemies
" " sponsoring and support of terrorism


Our govt is full of crap 90% of the time and I'm not happy about that. Sometimes the best things happen as a result of the worst intentions.

Ian
June 4, 2003, 06:57 PM
I'll believe in a just replacement Iraqi government when I see it.

Monkeyleg
June 4, 2003, 08:00 PM
"It got really quiet all of a sudden."

Sorry, Dave. I'm just waiting for Sean Hannity to tell me what to think. ;)

So far the only sources I've heard for these statements are Vanity Fair and now a couple of papers in Germany.

When a media outlet that I know to be at least somewhat credible--even the Washington Post--does their own coverage, it will be easier to take a position.

Meanwhile, I find it a little incredulous that our deputy defense secretary would tell a bunch of people in Singapore that the war was "all about oil." If he was simultaneously announcing that he was running for the White House with Ralph Nader, that would be a different story.

rrader
June 4, 2003, 08:48 PM
Quiet all of a sudden???

More like the Monty Python line: "Gales of derisive laughter Bruce!"

The Guardian. This is the same "newspaper" that has fabricated dozens of patently false stories about the war in Iraq over the past year in a campaign to support their hard-left extremist political agenda.

This is the same "newspaper" that fabricated a story about the US Army supposedly "staging" the rescue of Jessica Lynch, stating in their article that she was in no obvious danger (what about the 7 members of her squad killed execution-style) and that the rescue personnel fired blank rounds during the rescue.

Right.

I'm sure the US Army, which was having so much difficulty resupplying front-line units according to the Guardian, just happened to have brought along a lot of blank rounds for this very purpose.

What a crock.

The Guardian has no credibility whatsoever.

It's sad to see the political left devolve into such shrill paranoia.

SkunkApe
June 4, 2003, 08:57 PM
rrader,

The Detroit News and Free Press also printed the story about the staged Jessica Lynch rescue. I've seen this story on many, many other respectable sources.

Waitone
June 4, 2003, 09:18 PM
One of the more interesting phenomena of today's world is the way news is reported. Use to be a story was put out and it was pretty much taken at face value. Same thing goes for newsmakers quotations in op-ed pieces.

With the availability of primary sources on the internet it is now possible to read the primary sources and then compare it to reportage.

Surprise, surprise. Seems our vaunted defenders of part of the first amendment have been playing loosey-goosey with the facts, facts that in years past would not have surfaced. Seems media outlets have either made up or heavily modified quotations. My all time favorite was a quotation Maureen Doud made in her column of a quotation by Dubya. Other media outlets went back to Dubya's quotation and compared it to Doud's scribing of the quotations. Doud jiggered the quotation so that the meaning was different from what Dubya actually said. To this point Doud has not admitted wrong or apologized. In the past it never would have surfaced.

Subject article was reported in an antagonistic european rag which sourced the article from another european rag. There are those who would jump of such reportage to support a preconceived opinion as to just what actually happened in Iraq.

Don't know about you, but I check carefully the pedigree of any reportage about anything and I sure don't rely on one source.

If I was in the government business this day and time, I would not sit for an interview unless I ran my own tape recorder and I retained the right of publishing transcriptions of said interview. Our moral code this day and time does not prohibit lying. Used to be one could sorta trust the product of major news outlets. No more. Biggest names in the businsess can no longer be trusted.

SkunkApe
June 4, 2003, 09:28 PM
Waitone speaks wisely.

David Park
June 5, 2003, 12:08 AM
From http://www.belgraviadispatch.blogspot.com/ But this quote is inaccurate on its face as well as taken completely out of context. Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq:

"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said.
...
It is hugely irresponsible of the Guardian to run such a distorted, tabloid-style headline. Regardless, however, this story will now make the rounds of the international press (it started in Germany) and conspiracy theorists will have new fodder to peddle their noxious claims that the U.S. went to war because of oil. Comments, DaveB?

faustulus
June 5, 2003, 03:04 AM
I must agree with Dr. Jones. He is simply using the same logic, in the same way, as those who claim there never were WMDs.

No offense Khornet, but please explain to me how comparing not finding one man, is linked to finding numerous weapons. As I said if you want to say that it is analogous to anything it would be something along these lines: The U.S. knew there were 55 leaders of the Baath party in Iraq before the war. They have found none of them, therefore they must not have exisited.
The problem is they have found some of them. What are the chances of finding 55 people out of what 3 million, yet not being able to find evidence of WMDs that they said they had evidence exisited before the war. If there was enough evidence to attack a sovergin nation you would think they would have some inclination as to where they were. They supposedly had pictures, you are saying we could get pictures in a country that was hostile to us but can't find the bloody elephant now we are crawling all over the place?

gunsmith
June 5, 2003, 03:24 AM
The brits are set to begin an inquiry, and we'll all mebbe know more soon.


Tony Martin is in jail,not whether Tony Blair was wrong for helping
out the free world

fallingblock
June 5, 2003, 03:34 AM
It's gone all 'quiet' again:D

It's so unlike "The Guardian" to misquote AND mislead:banghead:

Seeker
June 5, 2003, 03:47 AM
UN Resolution 1441 specifically stated that Saddam had not abided by the prior resolutions

I wonder if the U.S has ever ignored or violated a U.N Resolution?

If he had let the UN have unfettered access to what it wanted, the war wouldn't have happened.

What about when the UN wants unfettered access to US National Parks, or your guns?

Not defendin' SaDamn just think our gov. ain't being square w/ us.

Seems to me CIA issued a report before the war that Iraq wasn't a threat - politicals insisted that he was.

While Blix was doing his thing there was talk that CIA/US new right where the WMD were - but we didn't share that info w/ inspectors.

Now it seems that the CIA/US didn't not only share the locations of he WMD w/ the inspectors but appearently won't share the info w/ the CIA/US as we havem't found the WMD yet.

The war wasn't about oil. The US will, however, oversee oil sales for the forseeable future, and I hear that a new super tanker was launched and named the "Condolezza Rice".

I hear on right wing radio that the WMD don't matter as we freed those people from "the Tyrant", but where in the Constitution does it say that is the business of the US. I thought the business of the US was Business, if this is true what is the business that made war w/ Iraq good for business?

IIRC, a wise gentleman warned of 'foreing entanglements'. And another warned us against The Military-Industrial Complex - both were wartime generals.

So Heck Yes it matters if the WMD are found! Not that that willjustify the war but it will let us know that we weren't lied to completely. Surw we know he had chem weapons - we sold them to him, but if he was a threat why didn't he use them between Gulf Wars? Why didn't he use them during this Gulf War? I recently heard a Gulf War II filed cmdr say that there were no WMD with the Iraqi combat units and he doesn't think there ever was.

...but you know me... I tend to question authority.

And just for the record - I don't think G.W. Bush is lying, but I do believe he would unwittingly repeat non-truths told him by DickCheney/Don Rumsfeld.

jmbg29
June 5, 2003, 04:16 AM
:p :D

rrader
June 5, 2003, 05:45 AM
SkunkApe:

The Detroit Free Press, NY Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, and BBC, have all taken an anti-war stance and are nearly as guilty of biased reportage as is the Guardian.

The fact that each of these papers may repeat the same lie doesn't make it true.

Since when have any of these been "reputable" news sources with regards to the Iraqi war?

Show some hard evidence of the US Army staging this rescue. Point to a source within the unit that admits to it, or physical evidence of blank rounds being used, etc....

I can point to the 7 members of Lynch's squad killed execution-style after surrendering as evidence of the danger she was in, what do the Freep or any of the other disreputable leftwing rags have in the way of hard evidence? Shrill, paranoid rantings don't count.

fallingblock
June 5, 2003, 06:16 AM
Surely you're not implying that "The New York Times" would have anyone on staff who would falsify an article?:)

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 09:17 AM
has also been debunked. Seems that he was explaining that there were a number of good(in administration opinion, though also mine) reasons to go to war, but that not all could be brought on board with each reason with the exception of WMDs, so they emphasized that one. That is, the Admn. believed there was a terror connection, that SH had aggressive intent, that the citizens were being abused, That the UN had a duty to intervene with force,AND that SH had WMD.

This manipulation of the quote is like Maureen Dowd's careful ellipses in the Bush comment about Al Qaeda. She lied.

Every time I read a news story I have to think about what might be true, what is the bias of the writer/publisher, and what I myself want to be true.

A writer recently remarked that he was talking to applicants for journalism school, and they were telling him their reasons for applying were things like "I want to make a difference" and "I want to help people". How 'bout "I want to put the facts before the public"?

Russ
June 5, 2003, 11:26 AM
If you believe items quoted in that rag, my I recommend the NY Times and the Los Angeles Times (otherwise known as Pravda West).

You really should have take your tin foil hat in and have it blocked and shaped.

DaveB
June 5, 2003, 12:04 PM
This article has been taken down from the Guardian site, and from one other site I read. I don't know what that means...

If this turns out to be invented, or taken out of context (to the extent that it gives the wrong meaning), I'll eat some crow. :eek:

Here's a quote from someone on another forum about the Guardian article (which was quoted verbatum from Der Welt:

HERE is the *source* of the 'source': Der Welt's article that was quoted.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." appears in the original Der Welt article as this:

"Auf die Frage, warum eine Atommacht wie Nordkorea anders behandelt würde als der Irak, wo kaum Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden worden seien, antwortete der stellvertretende Verteidigungsminister wieder sehr offen: Betrachten wir es einmal ganz simpel. Der wichtigste Unterschied zwischen Nordkorea und dem Irak ist der, dass wir wirtschaftlich einfach keine Wahl im Irak hatten. Das Land schwimmt auf einem Meer von Öl."

And it is accurately translated, for those who cannot read German.

BTW, Der Welt is Germany's counterpart to the NY Times (biggest, oldest most respected paper in the nation). Which means they are not a "left wing whacko" news source (like people say the Guardian is) and yet, tho "mainstream" like the Times, they still have their reputation for journalistic integrity intact...

db

Steve B
June 5, 2003, 12:23 PM
Of course there were no WMD. All those dead Kurds died from old age, they weren`t gassed....

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 01:02 PM
I really think you oughta read the transcript of Wolfowitz' remarks.

Citing Der Welt for its solid reputation since it's the 'German equivalent of the NYT'??? You think the NYT is respectable? And you trust Der Welt via the Guardian, despite the transcript?

George Hill
June 5, 2003, 02:16 PM
This whole WMD issue is irking me.
Bush is a liar, but Clinton's Operation Desert Fox and UN Resolution 1441 were okay? Okay, if Bush was lying then so was Clinton and everyone who signed the UN resolutution.

And the Guardian/UK is a joke.

DaveB
June 5, 2003, 02:19 PM
I really think you oughta read the transcript of Wolfowitz' remarks.

Is there a link that you can post?

George, I don't understand what Clinton's lying has to do with W's.

db

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 02:26 PM
See David Park's post above for link. Also checkFree Republic (I know it's right-wing, but there are more links there).

As of now, the Guardian's ombudsman is saying that the qouote was misconstrued, and that they will be printing a retraction tomorrow.

We sure need some honest newsmen badly these days.

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 02:28 PM
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/02/NYT010203.html

A War Crime or an Act of War?

By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE

MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.



IN fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades -- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition -- thanks to United Nations sanctions -- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?

CMichael
June 5, 2003, 02:29 PM
I think it's rediculous.

There is little doubt that Hussein had WMD. Hell, he used them on the Iranians and Kurds. According to the cease-fire agreement he had to prove that he destroyed them. He didn't do this. Thefore he is in breach.

Could someone please explain why he would voluntarily destory the WMD and not provide documentation that he did which would have proven his case and not resulted in the war?

During the war we found about nine mobile bological labs, or what the liberals consider to be ice cream trucks, a nuclear underground facility, and chemical weapons, excuse me fertilizer that farmers keep in a military bunker.

Hussein could have hid the weapons extremely well, destoryed them when he say the capture of Baghdad was imminent, or had them moved.

Whether they are found or not is irrelvant in my opinion.

The BBC Lynch story is a lie. The US never claimed that there was fighting within the hospital. However, they didn't know if there would be or wouldn't be and prepared for the worst at they should have. There was fighting outside the hospital.

The BBC story claimed that Americans fired blanks within the hospital which is rediculous. What soldier is going to lose valuable time changing from blanks to real bullets in the middle of a firefight.

It's all horse crap.

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 02:31 PM
www.defenselink.mil/transcripts2003/tr20030603-depsecdef0242.html

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 02:47 PM
We're sorry! The file you requested is not available at this location.


Looks like they took it down, Khornet.

If its the same thing I read last night, though, it was just the transcript of the actual speech and not the question and answer session that followed. The quote about the oil allegedly came from the question/answer session.

DaveB
June 5, 2003, 02:51 PM
might be the correct link.

db

DaveB
June 5, 2003, 02:57 PM
Yum.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~insects/deadcrow.gif

Preliminary conclusion: out of context.

Jerks.

My opinion is still that W exaggerated the WMD threat (lied to us and to the world), and that a "free and open debate" should have taken place before we went to war. The only reason the president can commit troops to war is in the event of an emergency - when Congress cannot convene and vote quickly enough. According to the Constitution, it's not the President's sole decision. We have a President, not a King.

There was no emergency concerning Iraq, and I defy anyone to convince me different.

When Congress abdicates its responsibilities, we need to throw the bastids out.

db

cordex
June 5, 2003, 03:04 PM
Lesson for the day:
Just because someone puts something that supports your position in print doesn't mean that it's good, defensable material.

DaveB ain't the only one who has done this.

CMichael
June 5, 2003, 03:29 PM
David B Hussein playing cat and mouse with the WMD has been going on for twelve years.

I am glad that President Bush acted to remove a chief threat to the US then wait for the mushroom cloud to occur, from Hussein giving a nuke to Al Qaida.

Destructo6
June 5, 2003, 03:53 PM
What about when the UN wants unfettered access to US National Parks, or your guns?
Until a National Park invades a neighboring country and gets a UN-brokered cease fire after being expelled from the ill-gotten gains, that rhetorical statement isn't applicable in the least.

jmbg29
June 5, 2003, 04:01 PM
President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border.The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.Please point out the distortion between what the author cites President Bush as having said, and what the author stipulates as having happened.

Thank you in advance. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Destructo6
June 5, 2003, 04:16 PM
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people.
Wrong. The strongest argument is that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991.
it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East.
No secret there. Afterall, the Shatt al Arab waterway was the point of contention in the Iran-Iraq war.

Jim March
June 5, 2003, 04:16 PM
I know what happened.

Taco Bell had just opened a franchise, and they weren't used to those bean burritos :barf:.

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 04:24 PM
...practically anything about what really went on--including whether the pro-Bush or anti-Bush sides are lying--

I've gotta ask:

Mr Pelletier, if you knew this in 1991...HOW COME YOU'RE ONLY SPEAKING UP NOW?? That's wierd. And if this has been in the public domain forever, and the Guardian didn't pick it up, and Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Dennis Kucinich et al didn't shout it from the rooftops, why is that?

Seems we're getting a lot of people suddenly speaking up who knew all along that Bush was lying. What were they waiting for?

It all has a strong piscatorial bouquet to me.

Khornet
June 5, 2003, 04:28 PM
STOP!!!
DON'T EAT THAT!!!
Haven't you heard of West Nile Virus?

Anyway, hats off to you. You did the manly thing.

(even if you did sneak in another rant)

DaveB
June 5, 2003, 04:56 PM
Well, Khornet, I thought I was wrong once...


but I found out later that I was mistaken.


db :neener:

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 05:35 PM
Jmbg29,

What the author is syaing here is this:

1) A battle took place in Halabja between the Iraqis and the Iranians.

2) Kurdish people were killed by gas.

3) The Iraqis didn't have the kind of gas that was used. The Iranians did.

4) The Iranians probably gassed the Kurds, not the Iraqis.

5) Even if it was the Iraqis, the Iranians were the intended target, the Kurds were just collateral damage.

At least, thats the way I read it.

No real need to read it though. Its easier just to dismiss it as leftist lies.

Only Democrats lie.

Sergeant Bob
June 5, 2003, 06:30 PM
Khornet Mr Pelletier, if you knew this in 1991...HOW COME YOU'RE ONLY SPEAKING UP NOW?? That's wierd. And if this has been in the public domain forever, and the Guardian didn't pick it up, and Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Dennis Kucinich et al didn't shout it from the rooftops, why is that?

Follow the money to.......Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275945626/ref%3Dcm%5Fcustrec%5Fgl%5Frec/102-5450882-0024162)
Customers who bought titles by Stephen Pelletiere also bought titles by these authors:

Gore Vidal
Noam Chomsky
Greg Palast
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed
William Rivers Pitt

DonQatU
June 5, 2003, 06:36 PM
Skunkape, I may have a bit more information than you do about this incident.

It was the Iraqis who hit the people at Halabja.

Don

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 07:18 PM
DonQatU,

Intentionally? Or were they targeting the Iranians? If not, why did they gas Kurdish civilians?

Jim March
June 5, 2003, 08:43 PM
OK, I'll be serious now.

The Kurds were gassed for three reasons:

1) Baath party policy calls for a near-constant state of war to "build the national character". No, I'm not kidding. There's been detailed citations posted here on THR, search legal/political for "Baath Party ideology".

2) The Kurds are a separate ethnic group who inhabit parts of Iraq, Iran and Turkey. They were screwed out of a homeland by the Brits, and have been grumpy ever since. They want to rebuild "Kurdistan" out of pieces of all three, and those three states are hence less than amused. Turkey has done all sorts of horrific things to the Kurds, but in Iraq it's worse because a lot of oil is under the Iraqi chunk of "Kurdistan". (Surprisingly, Iran has probably treated their Kurds the best of the three.)

3) Because the Kurds have more loyalty to each other than their respective "nations", they do a lot of cross-border smuggling. Especially of guns - Iranian policy was to keep the Iranian Kurds well supplied with bangthings knowing they'd share with their buddies across the border in Iraq and keep Saddam permanently annoyed.

Once you know all this, finding a motive for Saddam to gas Iraqi Kurds is easy. There IS no motive for Iran to do it, especially not Iraqi Kurds.

David Park
June 5, 2003, 09:14 PM
I always thought the reason for bringing up Halabja was not to prove that the Iraqi regime was evil (there's plenty of evidence of that), but to prove that Iraq had chemical weapons. This article admits that Iraq had chemical weapons, but that they might not have used those weapons to gas the Kurds in Halabja, or at least they didn't do it intentionally. Either way, Iraq definitely had chemical weapons.

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 09:20 PM
I don't think anyone (not even me) denies that Iraq had chemical weapons in 1988.

The question is whether or not he had them (thus constituting an "imminent threat") in 2003.

David Park
June 5, 2003, 09:36 PM
The Guardian's retraction, posted today: A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the Department of Defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/corrections/story/0,3604,971436,00.html

Sir Galahad
June 5, 2003, 09:55 PM
Who cares?!? A dictator is gone (probably playing Crisco-Twister with Osama and Quadaffi in Libya). What else need be said? He cannot ACQUIRE NBC weapons as he was fervently trying to do. Pre-emption. A stitch in time saves nine million lives.

jmbg29
June 5, 2003, 10:22 PM
No real need to read it though. Its easier just to dismiss it as leftist lies.No. What I am saying is that there is a need to read it.

The author quotes President Bush as saying thatThe dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.Then he says The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.I got the following information from a U.K. website specifically because I know how much you trust them over your fellow Americans. To wit:Mustard gas has always been seen as a particularly nasty poison, resulting in a painful and often slow death, and, ironically, whilst it causes cancer, it has also been used to help cure it. It was in 1919, not long after the first usage of mustard gas, that it was noted that victims had a low blood cell count, because the mustard gas attacked white blood cells, and bone marrow aplasia (breakdown). You can find the website here: http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/mustard/mustard.htm 5) Even if it was the Iraqis, the Iranians were the intended target, the Kurds were just collateral damage. At least, thats the way I read it. That doesn't surprise me. Perhaps before you venture further in your quest to tilt at windmills, you might try to learn about WMDs and why they are noted as such. Perhaps if you had the slightest inkling about how they work, what effects they have, etc. you wouldn't ask questions likeIntentionally? Or were they targeting the Iranians? Maybe learn a little about the very looooonnnggg history of the Kurds and their neighbors, and you won't have to askIf not, why did they gas Kurdish civilians?Not knowing anything about these subjects isn't a crime, but it does tend make the accusations that you post the immediate object of gales of laughter. Then again, I always have use for a good laugh. Only Democrats lie. Not true really. It's just that they generally aren't any good at it. Lying effectively requires wit and cunning. Something (thank God) that most simple minded leftists lack.

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 11:29 PM
jmbg29,

Although I appreciate your response, I was refering my questions to DonQatU, who implied that he had first-hand knowledge of the gas attacks in question.

I have plenty of access to news accounts and history books, thank you.

SkunkApe

SkunkApe
June 5, 2003, 11:32 PM
By the way, are you say that if the U.S. attacks Iraqi troops and civilians die, thats unavoidable collateral damage; but if the Iraqis attack Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians die, thats an atrocity?

You're still dead, but since we didn't really mean to kill YOU, that doesn't count. We're Americans. We're always right. At least as long as there's a Republican in the White House, anyway. Now if it was that Clinton fellar, now thats another matter.

Thumper
June 5, 2003, 11:45 PM
I have plenty of access to news accounts and history books, thank you.

Though he and I frequently disagree, I can assure you that DonQatu recieved his information from a more reliable source than history books and news accounts.

Haven't we had this discussion before, Skunk?

The Kurds were gassed because they were a thorn in Saddam's side. Some could argue that, compared to some of Hussein's other "thorns," they got off easily.

When your efforts to malign the U.S. stray to becoming a Hussein apologist, you render your arguments irrelevant to knowledgeable people.

You'd better stick with the "No blood for oil" crowd.

rrader
June 6, 2003, 12:06 AM
SkunkApe wrote:

[QUOTE]By the way, are you say that if the U.S. attacks Iraqi troops and civilians die, thats unavoidable collateral damage; but if the Iraqis attack Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians die, thats an atrocity?

You're still dead, but since we didn't really mean to kill YOU, that doesn't count. We're Americans. We're always right. At least as long as there's a Republican in the White House, anyway. Now if it was that Clinton fellar, now thats another matter.[Unquote]

You need to take a step back and re-evaluate your post. You are drawing an equivalence between US-caused civilian deaths, deaths resulting from a war not of our choosing and which US Military personnel take pains to aviod, with the deliberate targeting of civilians by an Iraqi dictatorship with a long history of such brutality.

There is no equivalence in either numbers or motive.

As an example, note that 3000 Americans lost their lives on 9/11 partly because the US Military was not willing to risk large numbers of civilian deaths in a strike on a Sudanese hospital where Bin Laden was known to be receiving kidney treatments several years before the acts of islam-inspired genocide on 9/11.

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 12:53 AM
Skunkape, the Kurds were taking advantage of the conditions created by the Iran/Iraq war to start their own rebellion. Saddam couldn't tolerate this and hit them back hard with chemicals. Ruthless? Sure was! But, there was very little protest from the US at the time.

So it's very hypocritical of the neo-con warhawks to keep bringing up the old "Saddam used WMDs on his own people and the Iranians" mantra. We knew about it at the time and did nothing!

In fact, we assisted him in doing so during the Iran/Iraq war. We provided the Iraqis with intelligence and targeting information so they could more effectively employ their chemical/nerve agents against the Iranians!

Keep in mind, Iran was the "bogeyman" and Saddam was our "friend" back then (even though Saddam was employing "WMDs" on the Iranians and Kurds at the time).

Don

jmbg29
June 6, 2003, 01:33 AM
I have plenty of access to news accounts and history books, thank you.Then you might want to consider using them.

It may help you avoid non sequiturs like thisBy the way, are you say that if the U.S. attacks Iraqi troops and civilians die, thats unavoidable collateral damage; but if the Iraqis attack Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians die, thats an atrocity?

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 01:59 AM
When your efforts to malign the U.S. stray to becoming a Hussein apologist, you render your arguments irrelevant to knowledgeable people.

Thumper, I'll let Skunkape speak for himself, but I don't think he was being a "Hussein apologist".

Many are questioning our motives for attacking and occupying Iraq. That doesn't make them "Hussein apologists".

If you've been watching the news lately, the "WMD" threat from Iraq was HIGHLY "exagerated" (read....a big lie).

Don

SIGarmed
June 6, 2003, 02:06 AM
Well, I'll have to take some of these posts around here with a serious grain of salt. Is this THL or the democratic underground? :rolleyes:

Zander
June 6, 2003, 02:09 AM
Thumper, I'll let Skunkape speak for himself, ... Not really necessary...he will continue to deny the truth because it serves his "argument".

Such propaganda is no different than that from those who specialize in Holocaust-denial...and it should be accorded exactly the same weight.

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 02:12 AM
Is this THL or the democratic underground?

Uh, actually it's the THR. :D

Don

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 02:20 AM
Such propaganda is no different than that from those who specialize in Holocaust-denial...and it should be accorded exactly the same weight.

Wow, Zander! How did you manage to work "Holocaust-denial" into this topic? Agenda? :confused:

Don

Zander
June 6, 2003, 02:54 AM
Wow, Zander! How did you manage to work "Holocaust-denial" into this topic?Manage? Easy...it's directly analogous.

The Nazis didn't really use Zyklon-B to murder Jews in the concentration-camp showers and Saddam Hussein didn't really use lethal gases to murder his opponents, children included, in Northern Iraq.

A convenient conclusion for those, like you, who deny historical facts...

Agenda?Equally easy...pursue and publish the truth.

What's your excuse for distorting established facts?

Agenda?!? <snort>

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 03:09 AM
Such propaganda is no different than that from those who specialize in Holocaust-denial...and it should be accorded exactly the same weight.

Actually, Zander. The first "DENIALS "that the Iraqis did it" (Halabja) came from the US and UK. They were trying to place the blame on the Iranians at that time. Does that make them "holocaust-deniers"?

The PUK controlled the city. Unlikely the Iranians would have dumped chemicals on their allies. Bad PR!

Don

Seeker
June 6, 2003, 03:24 AM
So you're ok with the UN declaring various parts of the US world historical sites that the UN has sole ownership of?

I noticed that there was little coment on whether the US ever ignored or violated a UN resolution...

I find it interesting that the UN is all-wise and the greatest thing since beer in bottles when it does what Bush wants but is desparaged the rest of the time. I find this new-found faith/trust in the UN rather hypocritical.

BTW, you can put me in the "US out of the UN and the UN out of the US" crowd.

Jim March
June 6, 2003, 03:28 AM
Exactly. I can't say what *happened* here personally, I wasn't there, but I damnsure know who had motive to do this and it wasn't Iran, it was Saddam.

Destructo6
June 6, 2003, 04:57 AM
So you're ok with the UN declaring various parts of the US world historical sites that the UN has sole ownership of?
They can declare all they want. If they attempt to occupy or do anything about it, they'll have a problem.

The UN does good things and bad things, often at the same time. Such a bloated organization, with vastly different factions vying for their own agenda and no organic power, often exhibits schizophrenic behavior.

It is the prerogative of the US to support UN decisions it agrees with and ignore those it doesn't.

SkunkApe
June 6, 2003, 05:45 AM
Thanks for the info, DonQatU.

Thumper, yes, we've had a similar conversation, but last time it was in regards to a news account of a mass grave in Iraq. That time, I suggested that mass graves are not all that uncommon during times of a civil war, and most of the others were certain that it was sure evidence of mass murder.

Tom B
June 6, 2003, 08:32 AM
Dear Drjones - Bush can do no wrong because he is a Republican right?

jmbg29
June 6, 2003, 08:34 AM
Thumper, yes, we've had a similar conversation, but last time it was in regards to a news account of a mass grave in Iraq. That time, I suggested that mass graves are not all that uncommon during times of a civil war, and most of the others were certain that it was sure evidence of mass murder. (emphasis added)A moment ago it was if the Iraqis attack Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians dieand now you are talking about civil war? Which is it? Does uncle Saddam kill his countrymen on purpose? Or by accident?

:confused: :uhoh:

CMichael
June 6, 2003, 10:26 AM
I think it's sour grapes from the left because of the relatively easy victory.

Bush and Blair didn't lie. They stated that Hussein had WMD. No kidding. I think about nine discovered mobile biolabs proves this.

Also as stated Hussein used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. According to 1441 he had to verify that he destroyed them. Did he do this? No.

Oh I know, I know, Hussein was very remorseful and so quickly destroyed his WMD he forgot to document the destruction so he can meet the terms of the cease fire agreement. He always seemed like such a kind soul :rolleyes:

Bush and Blair acted on information they had. They never said they captured Hussein's WMD. They said that they know he has them.

We are in a war with terrorism. As Rice said I wouldn't want to wait until the mushroom cloud for the US to oust Hussein.

What is interesting is that the left was all for a war in Bosnia solely based on human rights reason. Here we have human rights reasons and that Hussein was a threat to the US.

Thank you lefties for making me appreciate that Gore (excuse me :barf: ) lost the election.

Drjones
June 6, 2003, 12:17 PM
That's right Tom!

I'm a blind, stupid sheep! Republicans can do no evil! I don't care if they're lining us up to go to death camps or chipping at the BOR with the "Patriot Act," so long as its under the leadership of a Republican, its A-OK by me!

You should see the Bush Shrine I have in my room! I kneel before it every night. I meditate in front of it for hours after I sacrifice Democrats on my holy altar.










:rolleyes:

Tom B
June 6, 2003, 01:01 PM
We have some of those "mobile labs" here in the south but we call them stills! We never knew we had WMD! ;)

Thumper
June 6, 2003, 02:30 PM
The heat is on over missing WMDs

Yeah...wishful thinking.

Bush's approval rate is up again to 66%. When I'm President, give me that kind of "heat."

CMichael
June 6, 2003, 03:38 PM
I just want to say that I am proud of how well President Bush has handled Al Qaida and Hussein.

mercedesrules
June 6, 2003, 03:52 PM
I just want to say that I am proud of how well President Bush has handled Al Qaida and Hussein. - CMichael
Haha!

If Bush doesn't find Iraqi WMD soon, I feel certain that he will either plant them or start a new war to end the controversy.

MR

Destructo6
June 6, 2003, 04:33 PM
We have some of those "mobile labs" here in the south but we call them stills! We never knew we had WMD!
Yeah, Iraq had the only biotech industry on wheels. Amgen and Genentech are running scared.

DonQatU
June 6, 2003, 11:28 PM
and now you are talking about civil war? Which is it? Does uncle Saddam kill his countrymen on purpose? Or by accident?

Well I think it WAS a rebellion/civil war. Encouraged by Bush Sr. and the Shiites were then betrayed. Please don't tell me the reason we went to war in Iraq this time was because of the atrocities carried out by Saddam. If THAT were the case, we should have supported the Shiia rebellion 12 years ago! Or at least protected them against Saddam's wrath.

This cartoon puts it all into perspective:

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/2003/danziger1651.html

Don

jmbg29
June 7, 2003, 02:34 AM
Well I think it WAS a rebellion/civil war.That's nice. When I am asking you, I'll let you know.

Destructo6
June 7, 2003, 02:36 AM
Please don't tell me the reason we went to war in Iraq this time was because of the atrocities carried out by Saddam.
I'll tell you it was a reason. People, and this is a general statement, have a tendency to chose one of several reasons and declare it the reason. It's a logical fallacy, but I can't recall the exact name at the moment.

It's also convenient on the politician's side, since it makes things appear simple.

I believe that cartoon has already been addressed and dismissed.

DonQatU
June 7, 2003, 12:37 PM
I believe that cartoon has already been addressed and dismissed.

Destructo66, no I don't think the message that cartoon conveyed has been dismissed. Not at all. In fact it shows the "hypocracy" of the administrations claims. Maybe that's why you choose to dismiss it.

The facts are:

Bush Sr. encouraged the Shiites to rebell against Saddam and then stood by and watched as Saddam slaughtered them. That's a fact!

I can get you exact quotes from Bush Senior's speeches encouraging the rebellion, if you'd like.

He didn't really want the Shiites to gain independence. AND he certainly didn't want a large oil rich area of Iraq aligning itself with Iran and controlling the Shat al-Arab.

The atrocities against the Shiites apparently didn't concern him all that much at the time.

Don

Delmar
June 7, 2003, 12:58 PM
Before we start pounding on GW for getting rid of an absolute scumbag, may I suggest that hiding chemical weapons is a whole lot easier than, say, a nuclear weapons plant? After all, we are talking liters here.
Tell ya what-take 50 gallons of milk in 1 gallon containers, and bury them in vastly different locations in the State of California, about the size of Iraq. You have 6-9 months with which to hide them while I go to the UN and state my case.
Then I'll give you a month or two to find them. If you don't in say, 60 days, I'm going to make you look like a fool and a liar because you have no proof of its existance.
Not saying GW is lying about the WMD or not, but its tough to prove a negative.

jmbg29
June 7, 2003, 01:17 PM
Not saying GW is lying about the WMD or not, but its tough to prove a negative.There goes Delmar talking about things like logic.

Where is the fruitcake leftist conspiracy fun in that? :D :D :D ;)

Delmar
June 7, 2003, 01:20 PM
Scuse me jmbg29, its time for my medication. They're very strict about that here at the Home for the Very, Very Nervous!


:D

DonQatU
June 7, 2003, 02:07 PM
but its tough to prove a negative.

I'm sure they WILL find WMDs! After all, this is a faith based administration. You just have to believe! :D

Don

Destructo6
June 7, 2003, 04:03 PM
Don, that cartoon is nonsense because it says, "Rise up and throw off Saddam. The United States will come to your aid." To the best of my knowledge, there was no promise of aid, only encouragement.

Seed stock can be turned into finished product in about a week. Seed stock supplies I've seen were no larger than one's thumb. Try finding something that small in a country the size of Germany. For reference, I've personally handled hundreds of E.coli fermentations, so I do have an inkling of the process.

DonQatU
June 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
Oh, right, Destructo6! Bush didn't really mean that the Shiites should rebell!

"Although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene."

Don

DonQatU
June 7, 2003, 04:29 PM
"In my own view . . . the Iraqi people should put (Saddam) aside, and that would facilitate the resolution of all these problems that exist and certainly would facilitate the acceptance of Iraq back into the family of peace-loving nations." G.H.W Bush

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/2003/danziger1651.html

Don

DonQatU
June 8, 2003, 12:52 AM
To the best of my knowledge, there was no promise of aid, only encouragement.

I won't even comment on this! They should have read the FINE PRINT, eh?

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/cmp/2003/danziger1651.html

Don

jmbg29
June 8, 2003, 12:57 AM
Don,

If you'd like, I would be happy to buy you a keyboard with a "." where the "." is supposed to be, rather than having to suffer the "!" where the "." is supposed to be.


Guh :barf: ;)

DonQatU
June 8, 2003, 01:05 AM
jmbg29, glad you can have find joy in my typos! Don't see you disputing my FACTS! :D

Don

jmbg29
June 8, 2003, 01:14 AM
jmbg29, glad you can have find joy in my typos!Making everything you type an exclamation or a question isn't a typo. Don't see you disputing my FACTS!You do have some interesting conjectures from time to time, but facts? Puhlease. :p ;) :D

Destructo6
June 8, 2003, 03:56 PM
Don, you're comments on my statement only supported them. Thanks.

The US had never even talked to those people, who you seem to claim were promised aid. Did they use telepathy?

DonQatU
June 8, 2003, 04:29 PM
The US had never even talked to those people, who you seem to claim were promised aid.

Gee, I wonder who G.H.W. Bush's remarks were addressed to? :confused:

Those Shiites expected help and were let down. Those silly Shiites should have read G.H.W's LIPS! :rolleyes:

This incident is very similar to the way the Soviets encouraged the Poles to rise up against the Germans as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw.............. The Soviets then stopped their forward thrust and watched as the Poles and the Germans killed each other. The Poles faired worse.

Destructo6, maybe you and jmbg29 don't get it. Put the Shiites understand the betrayal.

Do you wonder why the Shiites didn't greet us with roses? Heck, they STILL aren't giving us any roses! :rolleyes:

Don

jmbg29
June 8, 2003, 07:12 PM
Do you wonder why the Shiites didn't greet us with roses? No, I don't.

Destructo6
June 8, 2003, 10:22 PM
Those Shiites expected help and were let down. Those silly Shiites should have read G.H.W's LIPS!
They were let down by their own baseless expectations. They were promised nothing, which is what they received.
Destructo6, maybe you and jmbg29 don't get it. Put the Shiites understand the betrayal.
"you don't get it"...typical idiotic leftist nonsense. I disagree with the premises and conclusion of what you've foisted as an argument.

DonQatU
June 8, 2003, 10:49 PM
"you don't get it"...typical idiotic leftist nonsense. I disagree with the premises and conclusion of what you've foisted as an argument.

Well then...... let's watch the reality on the ground in southern Iraq!

And please refrain from trying to slime me with your "leftist" comments. Let's stick to the facts.

You think the Shiites weren't encouraged by G.H.W Bush to rebell against Saddam toward the end of Gulf War I and then left to be slaughtered. The Shiites in Iraq think differently.

Probably just a misundertanding because they don't speak English/Texican. :rolleyes:

Don

Destructo6
June 9, 2003, 03:47 AM
And please refrain from trying to slime me with your "leftist" comments. Let's stick to the facts.
Coming from you, that must be a joke, especially when you throw out nonsense like this:
This incident is very similar to the way the Soviets encouraged the Poles to rise up against the Germans as the Soviet Army approached Warsaw.............. The Soviets then stopped their forward thrust and watched as the Poles and the Germans killed each other. The Poles faired worse.
We're not Soviets and they're not Poles. The Saddam/Hitler connection, I won't comment about. In 1991, the US and Coalition had no intentions, unlike the Soviets, of driving into the enemy's capitol. Your analogy doesn't fit. The more accurate fit would have been if you'd compared the Poles to the Kuwaitis, but that wouldn't have done much for your argument, would it?

jmbg29
June 9, 2003, 04:24 AM
[NELSON LAUGH]HaHa[/NELSON LAUGH]

DonQatU
June 9, 2003, 08:40 AM
Your analogy doesn't fit.

It fits perfectly, Destructo. The Soviets saw an opportunity to get their enemies to fight each other. While the Germans were their main enemy, they knew they would have to deal with the Poles later (which they did).

G.H.W. Bush saw an opportunity to use the Shiites to cause problems for his main enemy Saddam. But he also didn't want to see the Shiites win (for the reasons I've outlined before).

SO in both cases one enemy was encouraged to fight a more deadly enemy by false promises of aid from an outside force.

The analogy fits perfectly! Don

Destructo6
June 9, 2003, 11:49 AM
The Soviets saw an opportunity to get their enemies to fight each other. While the Germans were their main enemy, they knew they would have to deal with the Poles later
Again, you fail to notice that we were not going to Baghdad in 1991 and, therefore, had no need to weaken the Shi'ites (Poles).

This "betrayal" of yours isn't the only reason Shi'ites aren't giving us roses. They resent a non-Islamic power daring to set foot in the same country that contains their holy sites. They also realize that we'll do our best to prevent the establishment of a refedi theocracy.

jsalcedo
June 10, 2003, 12:21 AM
www.tedreport.com
The truth about WMD will soon be revealed, and the Dems will be back
to square one: nothing to whine about.
Monday, June 9, 2003
By Ted Hebert
What is the deal with all the Dems going nuts over the lack of WMD in
Iraq? Do they really think that President Bush, Colin Powell, Don
Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Gen. Richard Myers, Dick Cheney, etc all came up
with a big lie just to go to war?
The idea is preposterous for several reasons, not the least of which
they are all smart enough to know that such a deception would be
revealed in the media and drag them all down. The last thing the Bush
administration wants to do is come off Clintonian and be caught in a
blatant lie.
Many people on the left love to speculate that President Bush went to
war with Iraq to avenge his father. How stupid. His father kicked
Saddam's ???, and had he wanted to, he could have done away with
Saddam in 1991. Maybe, the left has said, GWB wanted to clean up his
father's mistake, and rid the world of Saddam like his father should
have.
My goodness, is that the best the left can come up with? No one, not
even a slime ball like Bill Clinton would fight a full scale war for
purely personal reasons. It's absurd to make such a suggestion.
However, the Dems find themselves in position to lose a lot more
ground in 2004, so they're really just grasping for straws at this
point.
The bad news for the Dems, as far as WMD goes, is that the DIA
(Defense Intelligence Agency) is set to declassify several reports
that prove Saddam had WMD as recently as February of this year, and
that former Russian military officials convinced him to move them into
Syria. The Russians warned Saddam that if he kept his beloved chemical
and biological weapons the U.S. would without question destroy his
regime.
The reasons for not declassifying these DIA reports earlier is that
the sources are extremely sensitive, and in the interest of National
Security the reports had to be gleaned of any references that could
give away sources and put them in danger. One has to believe that at
least some of these sources are deep within the groups of former
Russian military, and perhaps even current Russian government and
military officials.
The U.S. weapons hunters on the ground in Iraq right now may have
already found plenty of evidence that cannot yet be revealed. A Fox
News crew observed people coming out of an Iraqi nuclear facility and
apparently being decontaminated. Many Iraqis around certain nuclear
sites have complained that some metal looted from these sites is
contaminated, and they want it removed for fear of health
consequences.
What about the mobile labs that were found last month? Some lefty
analysts have speculated that these labs might have actually been used
to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Weather balloons? Are they
serious? Why would you build a mobile lab to make weather balloons?
There is no doubt in my mind that these labs were used, or intended to
be used as mobile weapons labs. In fact, I have been told that the
declassified DIA reports will show that convoys in the hundreds of
these mobile labs crossed into Syria just a few weeks before the war
in Iraq began. Their final destination is apparently known to be the
Baca Valley.
So, when all this comes out, hopefully this week, what will the Dems
have to say? Most polls show that the American people overwhelmingly
don't care if WMD are ever found. The simple fact that Saddam has been
defeated, and the Iraqi people can now forge their own destiny is
enough. The war has made peace between Israel and Palestine possible,
and will most likely result in an Iranian revolution that will bring
democracy to that nation.
Even if WMD are never found, although I believe we already know they
have been moved out of Iraq, the end certainly justifies the means.
To comment or offer feedback on this article email
feedback@tedreport.com
www.tedreport.com

Malone LaVeigh
June 10, 2003, 01:19 AM
I'm with this guy. I think they pretty much better "find" some WMDs real soon. Maybe OJ will take some time off from looking for Nichole's killer to lend a hand...

Republicans, the new cargo cult...

faustulus
June 10, 2003, 02:49 AM
You know the Dixie Chicks are looking smarter and smarter as the days go by.

SIGarmed
June 10, 2003, 02:57 AM
:rolleyes:

twoblink
June 10, 2003, 06:15 AM
Have you read the cover of Newsweek this week? How about the Times? If there is any unbiased reporting left, I sure can't find it.

I'm just waiting for them all to say what a nice man Saddam is and we should find him and put him back in power...

Al Norris
June 10, 2003, 07:17 AM
...the end certainly justifies the means.

Oh well then! Here, take my guns now!








































NOT!
:cuss:

geekWithA.45
June 10, 2003, 09:19 AM
but no one is saying THEY don't exist.....

jsalcedo
June 10, 2003, 09:31 AM
Good one GeekW45.


That is about the best comment I have read in 50 threads about this subject.

If you enjoyed reading about "WMD Mega-Thread" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!