 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:01 PM "100 terrorists incidents a week" - Source?? "a corrupt government" - most are to one degree or another, live with it, you're not going to change it. "electricity availability worse than the pre-war day" - Source?? Apart from what the left-wing anti-war bloggers want to depict the only place in Iraq that was guaranteed electricity 24 hours per day in pre-war Iraq was wherever Saddam Hussein happened to be. "a civil war looming after the occupation is ended..." - Well no trouble there Bobert if your predicted "civil war" depends on a non-existent occupation coming to an end. Even Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has given up the ghost in trying to get the "civil war" going |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 26 Mar 09 - 08:12 AM Improve??? Curious word to use for a country where there are still over 100 terrorists incidents a week, a corrupt governemnt, electricity availability worse than the pre-war day and a civil war looming after the occupation is ended... But like the man who had just jumped off the Empire Sate Building yelled back to the reporter who had yelled "How are things goin'?" out the 95th story window, "Purdy good, so far..." Bottom line, things are still a mess... Not only for the Iraqis but for the US and our troops... Dumb war... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:05 AM Still bimbling along michaelr, as the situation in Iraq improves daily, within four months all UK troops with the exception of those engaged by the Iraqi Government to train up their Navy will have left. Basra Airport is now under full Iraqi control and has been accepting both domestic and international flights since the beginning of the year. No civil war No break-up as predicted by Joe Biden and many here In the recent local elections secular parties were preferred to the religious theocratic parties. Nothing seems to suggest that that trend will be bucked in the Parliamentary elections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: michaelr Date: 26 Mar 09 - 12:58 AM This horse still breathing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 25 Mar 09 - 04:15 PM Give it a rest, Sawz... Yer an embarassment to yer side... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 25 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM An accusation from Mr no answer Bobert: "When we ask you for your sources all we get is either silence or the same old *bumper sticker* answers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Mar 09 - 04:26 PM LOL... ~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 24 Mar 09 - 01:46 PM "Come on, T... Get real..." I wish you would try that Bobert 1 million "dead Iagris" your neck of the woods must be pretty cluttered. How big are they by the way? Or are they like "tumble-weed" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 09 - 11:39 AM Sorry, Bobert. I pointed out some time ago that the Bush administration went to the UN ( like you keep saying he should have done) and demanded they declare it genocide- and the UN REFUSED. If youy want to say that Bush should have then gone on to unilateral action re Darfur, feel free ( that was my opinion) but that would eliminate any arguement you might have with his actions in Iraq- where he felt US saftey was endangered. But when I pointed it out, you had no comments.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 24 Mar 09 - 08:18 AM Come on, T... Get real... A few posts on a thread that fell off the board a long time ago ain't like the thousands of posts that you have posted supporting this dumb war... How 'bout Robert Mugabee??? Ain't he worth a couple thousand posts as well??? I mean, everything is relevant, ain't it??? As fir Darfur, tell the Peanut Gallery just what percentage of the world's oil reserves are there compared to Iraq's... Oh, and then tell ther good folks how much $$$ the US/UK have spent on the Iraq War... Then tell the folks how many barrels of oil we get from Iraq... Then divide that number into the costs of the Iraq war... Now take that number and factor in the 1,000,000 dead Iargis and the 5000 or so Americans/UK'ers (private and public) who have died... When you have done that then you'll better understand what we on this side have been talking about: Cost per barrel = Current cost + Cost of war per barrel + dead people + severly disabled people + rebuilding Iraq +++.... Get it yet??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 24 Mar 09 - 02:06 AM Point 1: "I haven't heard yer voice here about the conditions in Darfur or Rwanda... What, cat got yer tounge???" If you look for it Bobert you will find that as far contributions to the thread on Darfur goes Bobert mine amount to almost 10% of the total - While yours amount to - Zip - Cat got yer tongue Point 2: (No oil in them places, Boberdz...) No oil in Darfur Bobert?? Go away and look again you cretin, except in this particular case the big bad oilmen who are chasing it are Saddam's former trading partners the Chinese. You know the ones Bobert, they sit on that committee in New York and make sure bugger all can be done in places like Darfur and Burma because that is where their business interests lie. You condemn the USA for taking such positions but are rather silent when it comes to criticising others. Point 3: "My exact point... Three oil men, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice called up the invasion of Iraq... I didn't hear them talking about Darfur or Rwand either... Why is that, T???" Ehmmm Possibly because Rwanda occurred in 1994 Bobert and the present episode of the conflict in Darfur which had its origins back in 1956 took advantage of the fact that the world's attention was focused elsewhere in February 2003. I am surprised that you did not hear anybody in the Bush Administration talk about Darfur Bobert. They were quite voluble about it in the UN. It was Colin Powell who called it "Genocide", and it was Kofi Annan who said it was not - the UN's former special representative for Rwanda obviously knew what he was talking about Eh Bobert. Because you see Bobert under the Charter of the UN if something is termed "Genocide" the UN is compelled to act to prevent it - and action Bobert is the thing that the UN under the stewardship of Kofi Annan was not very keen on - everything for the quiet life. Your former President, George W. Bush, and his Administration knew that only too well, which is why the US told the UN in no uncertain terms with regards to Iraq - You act or we will - again Kofi Annan and the UN did not act. But guess what Bobert the US did and you accuse GWB of being a liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:31 PM You guys sure know how to change a subject and flood the air with hypotheticals. You ever hear the story about the new oil tanker that got named after Condi? "Condoleeza Rice used to be a Chevron Corp. Director "In 1993 Chevron named a 129,915 tonnage oil tanker after her (scroll down). In 2001, this was publicly criticised. Quote: 'A Chevron spokeswoman said yesterday that the oil giant has no intention of renaming the Condoleezza Rice and noted that board member Carla Hills also had a Chevron tanker named in her honor before she was appointed former President George Bush's trade secretary -- and the vessel has kept the name. "It's part of a long-standing practice of naming (tankers) after members of the board of directors," a company spokeswoman said, citing other big ships named George Shultz, David Packard and Kenneth T. Derr." So, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 10:23 PM Condi Rice an oilman? Cognitive thinking? LOL Last time I heard she was a female, a concert pianist, a figure skater and provost at Stanford University. Ah don't see see no hands up in tha air about Bobert's mythological M-16 rifle so that myth is busted. Bobert the rodeo clown jumps back in his barrel only to pop up later with another fact he refuses to support except with personal attacks. Another prime example of a misleading smokescreen diversionary Bobert fact: "we read accounts of road ways from Bahgdad to Syria, littered with one burned out car after another with burned corpses" Please guide us to the source where you read that Bobert? Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Washington Post____________ New York Times___________ TV News ______________ Thanks in advance for your sincere answers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 07:30 PM Ahhhhh, kinda like callin' the kettle black, T.... I haven't heard yer voice here about the conditions in Darfur or Rwanda... What, cat got yer tounge??? (No oil in them places, Boberdz...) My exact point... Three oil men, George Bush, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice called up the invasion of Iraq... I didn't hear them talking about Darfur or Rwand either... Why is that, T??? Yeah, you feel all smug about thread-drifting attack on Amos about stuff noy even related to Iraq but yer voice has been silent... George Bush's voice was silent... Cheney's... Rice's... All silent othe than an occasion purfunctatory, "Geeze, ya'll... Play nice" and not teeth... No UN 1441's... No nuthings... It is absolutely hypocritical, T, to hold Amos to a higher standard than you own... How about starting a Sudan thread and beg the Obama administration to invade... Or one on Robert Mugabee... There's a man worth a bullet... So I guess we are supposed to think Amos a bad person because he isn't 24/7 to get Rwnada invaded while you sit in the comfy of whereever you sit and haven't done any heavy lifting except when it comes to defending the stupid invasion or Iraq???? Give me a break... No make that give Amos a break and while yer at it... ...beam my up, Scotty... The Axis is a little more stupider than usual... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 07:09 PM And you the "appeasers", the any freedom at any price as long as I don't have to pay it crowd would have done what?? Exactly what would have been the price of your inaction Amos?? You witter on about humanity as though you have a monopoly on it. Where was you humanity in Rwanda? Where was it in Bosnia?? and in Kosovo?? Where is it now in Darfur?? and in Burma?? I'll tell you what Amos ould son all your so-called humanity hasn't and isn't doing much for the good of mankind. You are the ones who when they see evil shuffle about and go into a huddle to come up with some hypocritical theory as to why you should not act. Your fore-runners cost 72 million lives by not taking on the great dictators of the twentieth century when they should have done. Like you they saw the danger and blithely hoped it would just go away - it didn't, and it wasn't going to this time round either. Iraq? Mistake? Lets have a look at the magnitude of this mistake: The potential threat that was removed, the axis of evil as it was called: A rogue state with WMD or WMD technology and expertise links up with an international terrorist organisation to mount an attack using WMD on US centres of population. The stuff of horror stories, that was what your President was talking about when he referred to "The Axis of Evil". Amos would meaninglessly chase after terrorists who'd already given it their best shot - Al-Qaeda a threat to the US post 9/11 - Hells teeth they haven't been able to guarantee their next nights sleep since November 2001 - some threat to the US they are. No your President listened to what his predecessor had ignored. 9/11's, a whole string of them, had been on the drawing board since long before Iraq almost ten years in fact. But the Terrorist organisation is not the centre of gravity of the threat, they are the delivery system, the really dangerous part of the equation lies in the weapons that a rogue state could put in their hands. On evaluation Saddam's Iraq was the prime candidate to fulfill the role of rogue state and moves were made to it render safe. He really should have listened when GWB told the UN to act to address Americas concerns or the US will act unilaterally - big mistake, on the part of Saddam. By mid-summer 2003 could you name me any candidates for the role of "rogue state" Amos?? Certainly not Libya Certainly not Iran Certainly not North Korea Certainly not Syria No Amos they all tucked their heads back in, and that has kept the US extremely safe. Who, with an anti-American agenda now would volunteer to take on the role of likely "rogue state"?? I cannot think of anyone Amos can you?? Why Amos because they wouldn't f**king dare to thats why, and all because of Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 05:31 PM You are absolutely correct, Amos... And, BTW, well written... There is a reason why I have tagged the 3 amigos the "axis of evil"... It fits them well... None has the mental capacity to actually, ahhhhh, think independly for themselves so they let others do it for them... And the beat goes on... And on... And on... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 01:42 PM The Oxford Research Group Overall, how would you say things are going in your life these days - very good, quite good, quite bad, or very bad? Overall -------------Good-------....--------Bad------..No ..........NET..Very..Quite..NET.Quite.Very...opinion 2/25/09...65....21....44....35...19....16.....* 2/20/08...55....13....41....45....29....16....* 8/24/07...39.....8....31....61....34....26....* 3/5/07....39.....8....31....61....32....28....0 11/22/05*.71....22....49....29....18....11....1 6/14/04...55....12....43....45....29....16....* 2/28/04...70....13....57....29....14....15....1 *05 and. previous, Oxford Research International, on all questions ----------------Good-------....--------Bad-----.No ...........NET..Very..Quite..NET..Quite.Very..opinion Sunni 2/25/09....49.....8....42....51....23....28....0 2/20/08....33.....7....27....67....38....28....* 8/24/07....12.....2....11....88....36....51....0 3/5/07......7.....1.....6....93....38....55....0 Shiite 2/25/09....70....25....46....30....16....13....* 2/20/08....62....14....48....38....27....11....* 8/24/07....54.....9....46....45....31....14....* 3/5/07.....53.....9....44....47....31....16....0 Kurdish 2/25/09....73....32....41....27....23.....4....0 2/20/08....73....24....49....27....20.....7....* 8/24/07....49....16....33....50....36....14....1 3/5/07.....68....22....46....32....24.....7....0 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 09 - 01:39 PM You stone-headed Bushians are really, really missing the point. You have so justified and rationalized things that you continuously spout on, fully in support of a deed of misestimation and extreme violence, an economic drain of magnitude, a level of force and destruction and the ruination of bodies, homes, families, minds and hearts on all sides of the conflict, far, far in excess of necessity. Yet you go around, and around explaining why it seemed a good idea at the time (which it was not)and asserting that everyone was fooled the same way (which they were not) into thinking it was the only possible choice (which it was not) for dealing with a major international problem of grave danger (which it did not do, and which arguably did not in fact exist). I think Bobert comes back to these fundamental disconnects between your screeds of rationalizing and the simple elements of reality at the time, and your screeds keep assaulting his cognitive filters with unreason, without apparently ever pausing to wonder why you are doing so. The invasion of Iraq was not a well-thought out act of national defense. It was a political act of gross opportunism and really slimy pools of unwarranted influence, conceived in blind ambition and executed in a miasma of stupidity and misunderstanding. It has only one redeeming aspect to it, the passing of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime. The price is comparable to using an RPG to punish a littering offence in terms of scale. Wake up and smell the humanity, guys. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM Correction to "the majority of Iraqis say they are better off without Saddam Hussein." That is incorrect. A minority said things were better under Saddam. 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam's era. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM Hey Bobert, indication of how bad things are in Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7957974.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM Even on the subject of WMD's with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq Bobert is clueless. Bobert being of the opinion that WMD had to be found when in actual fact they did not, all that had to be established in a verifiable manner was that Iraq no longer possessed any WMD, was no longer activiely seeking to acquire WMD or develop delivery systems for WMD. All impossible to do while Saddam remained in power, by the man's own admission. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:54 AM Will anybody that knows anything about Bobert's mythological M-16 rifle that Rumsfeld allegedly gave to Saddam Hussein please raise their hand and state what they know about it? I cannot find anything anywhere that supports this "fact". Not in his claimed only sources of information: the Washington Post; the New York Times; TV news website or blogs or anywhere on the net. Therefore I believe that this is another imagined, made up "Bobert Fact" put forward to support his unsupportable rant against the war. Is this the Grabage in or the Grabage out? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 11:30 AM As per usual, Bobert is clueless about what *The war* was all about and he insists that it was merely an issue of WMDs. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the official policy of the United states since 1991 and put into law with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. However Bobert the sage figures if he can bluster and put all the focus on WMDs and there were no WMDs he can win his egotistical I told you so argument that he was right about the war "some 7 years ago" and not have to accept the truth on the ground that even the majority of Iraqis say they are better off without Saddam Hussein. Grabage in, garbage out... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 23 Mar 09 - 08:19 AM As per usual, Sawz is clueless about what *The Surge* was all about and thinks that it was merely more boots on the ground... No wonder Saws can't make any cognitive contributions to this thread... Grabage in, garbage out... Oh well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 23 Mar 09 - 12:45 AM The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a "surge" of more than 20,000 extra troops. ... Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam's era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:57 PM QUite so. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:04 PM Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Gervase Date: 22 Mar 09 - 03:42 PM But Amos, have you any proof? Senate reports are all well and good, but Teribus will need something concrete, like Wikipedia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 02:37 PM "ccording to two Senate Committee Reports that will be completed in 1994, one on May 25 and another on October 7, dual-use chemical and biological agents exported to Iraq from the US significantly contributed to the country's weapons arsenal. The initial May report will say the agents "were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction" and the October report will reveal that the "microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program." The 1994 investigation also determines that other exports such as plans and equipment also contributed significantly to Iraq's military capabilities. "UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development program," Donald Riegle, the chairman of the committee, will explain. He also says that between January 1985 and August 1990, the "executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq."" Ibid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:11 PM More details on the Western contribution to Iraq arms can be found here. Old GHB was a real operator, I tell ya! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:06 PM Bullshit, Bruce. I never said he had no program back in the 80's. Your blind commitment to adversarial positions is fogging your glasses. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:02 PM "On September 3rd, a C.I.A. assessment, classified "Top Secret," informed Baker that Iraq had a program to develop nuclear weapons and had "made use of covert techniques" to obtain the high technology it needed to build a bomb. The report identified some of the specific dual-use technology that Baghdad's procurement network was trying to obtain around the world for its nuclear-weapons program, including oscilloscopes, high-speed cameras, and centrifuges."...Ibid" You don't say, Amos.... You keep saying that Saddam did not have such a program. Which is it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 09 - 11:49 AM "The United States did not supply any arms to Iraq until 1982, when Iran's growing military success alarmed American policymakers. It then did so every year until 1988. Although most other countries never hesitated to sell military hardware directly to Saddam Hussein's regime, the United States, equally keen to protect its interests in the region, adopted a more subtle approach. Howard Teicher served on the United States National Security Council as director of Political-Military Affairs. According to his 1995 affidavit and other interviews with former Regan and Bush administration officials, the Central Intelligence Agency secretly directed armaments and high-tech components to Iraq through false fronts and friendly third parties such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, and they quietly encouraged rogue arms dealers and other private military companies to do the same: "The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq." The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified." (From T's reference pthread). "Now, in early August of 1986, when Bush was in the Middle East, C.I.A. officials in Baghdad for the first time began directly providing the Iraqi military with highly classified tactical intelligence information. The C.I.A. also provided Saddam with equipment to receive intelligence information from satellites, which would help him assess he effects of his air strikes on Iran. According to one official, the intelligence provided to the Iraqis during and after the summer of 1986 "was specific to assisting them in their air war."* Saddam's suspicions of the United States may have been eased somewhat by the involvement of an emissary as highly placed as the American Vice-President. *(Jonathan Pollard comments: This is only half the story. The amount and type of intelligence transferred to Iraq was far greater than what was reported here. The transfer also started a lot earlier than August 1986. In fact, I first saw this material headed for Baghdad back in the Spring of 1984. And it very definitely included information pertaining to the Israeli Defense Forces, not just Iran.) On August 5th, Bush returned to Washington and was debriefed by Casey. "Casey kept the return briefing very close to his vest." One of his aides says. "But he said Bush was supportive of the initiative and had carried out his mission." On the same day, however, the covert machinations almost came undone. Low-level American Embassy officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, had learned of the Saudi transfer of United States arms to Iraq earlier that year. Unaware that the Reagan Administration had secretly authorized the arms transfer, the officials went so far as to question Prince Bandar Ibn Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, who told them that the transfer had been accidental and the amount had been small. The day Bush returned to Washington, the State Department sent a secret cable seeking further information about the bomb sales to Saddam. The cable warned that the that the Arms Export Control Act required the State Department to report the arms transfer to Congress. It said, "We shall be forwarding such notification in the next few days in classified letters to the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee." Exposure of the arms transfer could have had significant consequences for Saudi Arabia. President Reagan had recently notified Congress that he intended to transfer the first of five AWACS planes, worth $3.5 billion, to the Saudis. The State Department cable warned that the AWACS sales could be endangered by disclosure of the Saudi's arms transfer. It added: We are concerned, naturally, about possible reactions to this unauthorized transfer. Section 3 provides for the possibility of a presidential determination of ineligibility of such a country for further FMS credits and guarantees, although Department has always taken the posture the President is not required to do so. The same section also gives the Congress the opportunity, by adoption of a Joint Resolution, to declare a country ineligible for FMS sales. This is a possibility we must treat seriously given the previous debate on arms sales. In the end, the Reagan Administration had little to worry about. The White House sent a notification letter to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Richard Lugar, claiming that the arms sales were "inadvertent," that only a "small quantity of unsophisticated weapons" had been transferred, and that the transfers were "unauthorized." In fact, the sales were done purposefully; the Administration knew that fifteen hundred bombs had been sold to Iraq; and most important, the sales had been covertly authorized by the Reagan Administration. One senator said he approached Lugar about rumors that Saudi Arabia was sending United States arms to Iraq. "Dick Lugar told me there was nothing to it, and so I took his word," the senator told us. There the matter ended. The senator said that Lugar told him he was relying on the word of the White House." From Pollard in the New Yorker "When Bush became President, in January ,1989, he increased aid to the regime of Saddam Hussein. Why, after the end of the Iran-Iraq War, the Reagan and Bush Administrations accelerated their support for Saddam has never been fully explained. But classified documents and interviews with senior officials indicate that the relationship between the United States and Saddam Hussein became strained after the revelations that the Reagan Administration had also sent arms to Iran. "We had to work doubly hard to recoup the stature we lost with Saddam," one official told us in an interviews. As Whitehead had written in his memo, "It should be remembered...that we have weathered Irangate." More would need to be done to develop closer ties with "the ruthless but pragmatic Saddam Hussein." Once again, a failed covert policy -in this case, to arm Iran- led to another: increased covert support for Iraq that would facilitate its crash program to develop ballistic, chemical, and even nuclear weapons. Bush implemented the new policy despite the fact that several government departments had repeatedly warned of Saddam's massive military buildup, human-rights violations, and continued support for terrorism. In March, 1989, State Department officials told the new Secretary of State, James Baker, that Iraq was working on chemical and biological weapons and that terrorists were still operating out of Iraq. In June, the Defense Intelligence Agency sent a top-secret report to thirty-eight high-level Bush Administration officials, warning that it had discovered a secret military-procurement network for Iraq operating in countries around the world, including the United States. In September, the Defense Department discovered that an Iraqi front company in Cleveland was funneling United States technology to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program, but the Bush Administration allowed the company to continue operations -even after the invasion of Kuwait. On September 3rd, a C.I.A. assessment, classified "Top Secret," informed Baker that Iraq had a program to develop nuclear weapons and had "made use of covert techniques" to obtain the high technology it needed to build a bomb. The report identified some of the specific dual-use technology that Baghdad's procurement network was trying to obtain around the world for its nuclear-weapons program, including oscilloscopes, high-speed cameras, and centrifuges."...Ibid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:10 AM "most of the nation agrees that it was a terrible mistake with the exception of a few." Present figures ( March 21, 2009) are 52% against, 40% in favor of the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 10:07 AM Barry, "the blood on the hands of those that protested this war" Yes, because those people did nothing to tell Saddam to comply with the UNR, or honor his cease-fire commitments.They did nothing to stop the war- only to tell the world that Saddam could do whatever he wanted, without cost- just like Chamberlin. Had Saddam thought he would be attacked, he would have complied with UNR, and there would have been no war- so the protests, and the other governments blocking US action are a contributing cause to the war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:09 AM "Saddam had an ongoing relationship with the US prior to his belligerence that involved American export of arms to Iraq to offset the threat of invasion by Iran" - Stringsinger Have you got any proof at all for that?? Open the link and see who did supply Saddam with his arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Barry Finn Date: 22 Mar 09 - 01:39 AM BB: "No, Bobert, it is not. It is more like blamng the Holocaust on the national leaders, and the people who did not protest Hitler's actions, who let Hitler do what he wanted without taking action, until too late to prevent a world war with 27 million dead." That's exactly what happened here BB. Not enough people protested against Bush's invasion into Iraq. Bush had it set up so folks were afraid to be considered traitors. Now 7 yrs later most of the nation agrees that it was a terrible mistake with the exception of a few. and you have the nerve to put the blood on the hands of those that protested this war, when the blood should be staining the hands of those that allowed it to happen be doing nothing to stop it or worst by supporting it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:56 AM blow·hard [ blá¹" hrd ] (plural blow·hards) noun Definition: empty boaster: somebody who boasts but is considered ineffectual. Example: "I might be an amatuer in yer little narrow minded view but I called the consequences in Iraq some 7 years ago" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: beardedbruce Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:52 AM No, Bobert, it is not. It is more like blamng the Holocaust on the national leaders, and the people who did not protest Hitler's actions, who let Hitler do what he wanted without taking action, until too late to prevent a world war with 27 million dead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM There you go again, bruce... That is equivalent to blaming the Holocost on the Jews... More delusional, twisted thinking... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:58 AM Bobert, ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 19 Mar 09 - 01:51 PM That is the logical fallacy of the "false choice", wherein opposition to Bush's invasion is equated with support for Saddam's brutality. Remember, "you're either with us, or with the terrorists!" Here's another example for you: "If you support the invasion, then you are happy about the 4300 dead, and over 100000 wounded coalition soldiers" --------------------------------------------------------------------- So if I have any blood on my hands, it is exceeded by your own, IMHO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 09 - 06:02 AM "And what it is is that there are a lot of folks with blood on their hands..." Yes, Bobert- there are- and they are the ones yelling the loudest about others, aren't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 21 Mar 09 - 05:29 AM Taking Amos's post "The Good, the Bad & the Ugly" of 19 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM: His two opening quotations are both perfectly correct and perfectly truthful; I have raised them before although in stating what Condoleeza Rice said I actually quoted Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, who imparted exactly the same information only five days after the attacks of 11th September, 2001. I asked Amos before to explain in what way the two statements are linked, or indeed why they should be linked at all. "The purpose, according to Bush, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger."" • Iraq has been disarmed, it has renounced the use of WMD, it no longer pursues research & development of WMD weapons or delivery systems for such weapons. That we now know for definite to be the case. • The people of Iraq are now free to exercise their political will for the governance of their country; they are no longer ruled by a brutal and oppressive minority. They have taken part in numerous elections since 20th March 2003, the biggest difference the people voting would have noted would be the number of names and the variety of choice on their ballot papers as opposed to the old days where there was only one. This plus the added frisson that they actually get to put the cross next to their choice instead of having it already printed on the paper. • Iraq identified on two occasions as posing the greatest potential threat to the United States of America, her interests, her allies and the middle-east region as a whole has been rendered safe. Iraq no longer sponsors terrorist organizations, Iraq no longer threats the peace of the Persian Gulf region and her immediate neighbours "Yet of course, there were no weapons to disarm and no "grave danger" to defend against." – Amos, or whoever wrote Amos's cut'n'paste. That is pure 20 x 20 hindsight, and the latter part of it still lurks. The greatest threat to the United States of America today remains to be an asymmetric attack by an international terrorist organization armed with WMD assisted and supported, logistically, technically and financially by a rogue state. Only today, as a direct result of actions taken seven years ago, the list of likely candidates who would be prepared to step forward to fulfill the role of "rogue state" is significantly lacking. "spawned more terrorists"?? Really?? In that case what have they all been doing?? How do you know that there are more terrorists if they aren't doing anything?? There again Amos has not put a date on this piece. "al Qaeda -- the main threat to the U.S. when the war was launched -- "has organized to pre-9/11 strength" because Bush turned his back on Afghanistan, a war in which the U.S. and its allies are not currently winning." I would dearly love to hear the rationale for the declaration that Al-Qaeda could ever be descibed as being the main threat to the U.S. A news flash for you Amos, Al-Qaeda has NEVER been considered any serious threat to the US, let alone THE MAIN threat. Look at it logically; what could Al-Qaeda in isolation possibly "hit" the United States of America with? How could they possibly hope to make any sort of significant or lasting impact on the U.S.? Compared to what was identified as actually posing the main threat to the U.S. the attacks of 9/11 horrendous as they were, pale into insignificance. As for, "Afghanistan, a war in which the U.S. and its allies are not currently winning", which was the latest pronouncement by your new "makee-learnee" Commander-in-Chief, but that doesn't actually paint the picture and in terms of describing the situation, the leader of Afghanistan's Taleban in exile, Mullah Omar, has put it a damn sight more accurately. Barack Obama's rather idiotic public remarks on the situation had his equally idiotic Vice-President scrambling for words to correct the error, by stating the rather lame, "We're not winning it, but we're far from losing it". Mullah Omar's statement of a "stalemate" is far more accurate and encompassing. Now then all the students of history who keep prattling on about previous incursions into Afghanistan and the lessons of history to be learned. At what time during the nine years that the Soviets were in Afghanistan did you ever hear the word "Stalemate" used to describe the situation? In terms of counter-insurgency "stalemate" is the beginning of the end for the counter-insurgents. In the coming months your Commander-in-Chief is going to send some 19,000 combat troops to Afghanistan. Currently there are around 66,000 troops serving with ISAF and with US Operation "Enduring Freedom", if composition of that force is "standard", as I believe it will be considering the durations involved, that means that only about 30% of that 66,000 will be "combat" troops, i.e. people who actually toddle about doing the actual fighting on the ground. Barack Obama is going to almost double that number and the 20,000 you have there at the moment backed by ANA and APF have forced an admission of a "Stalemate" from the Taleban? I believe that if the Taleban do not start engaging politically, they are going to be in for a very hard time in the next 18 months, both in Afghanistan itself and in the FATA of Pakistan. Withdrawal from Iraq will be in accordance with what the situation dictates and on the advice and recommendations of the military commanders on the ground. Obama's "all troops home within 16 months" as a campaign promise is a dead duck, it was always a non-starter. The size of the "stay back party" at 55,000 is staggering, I think the size of the UK's who will stay on to train up Iraqi Naval Forces is only 400. A little snippet from the "UGLY" Section relating to Iraqi journalist Muntader al-Zaidi, who valiantly attempted to avenge the humiliation Bush levied on the Iraqi people. "This is a farewell kiss, you dog," al-Zaidi said. ..."(The PRogress Report). Now prior to this "heroic" act, Muntader al-Zaidi, a Shia Muslim, never felt compelled to act to avenge the humiliation levied on the people of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. Not surprising really, if he had his treatment at the hands of Saddam's security apparatus would have been markedly different – I would have actually put this in the "GOOD" section, it's one of the best indicators of the "freedom" that the Iraqi's have been given on record. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:49 PM Thanks for that post, Stringsinger... The axis of evil (they know who they are) here in Mudville have thrown the "liar" tag at me going back 7 years because they think that if they can get that tag to stick then all their wrong-headed support fot Bush/Blair's invasion of Iraq will be justified... History has shown that the anti-war folks here were right back in '02 and early '03 and continue to be right... The axis-Catters can call me anything they want... They can play yes-no games... They can try to change the subject... They can beat 1441 to a pulp... Their denials and games won't change history any more than the brownshirts loyalty changed history... It is what it is... And what it is is that there are a lot of folks with blood on their hands... I thought it pitiful that one of them would have actaully accused the anti-war folks for the invasion??? That is delusional thinking at its best... But I would invite any of the axis-Catters to repent... I'm not trying to be funny or cute here... One just can't carry that kind of ill-will and blood but so long before it will eat them alive from the inside out... In other words, "The truth will set you free..." B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Mar 09 - 06:31 PM The burden is on Ari Fleischer to prove that WMD's did exist. His "evidence" is not credible. It is common knowledge now that Colin Powell lied to the UN with bogus maps and assumptions. He was pressured by the Bushies. Condi's "mushroom cloud" was inside her head. Bush's invasion of Iraq would not be mitigated by anything the UN had to say. He wanted his "political capital". No one is defending Saddam, Mussolini or Hitler here. That is a specious argument. There is no real comparison. First of all, Saddam had an ongoing relationship with the US prior to his belligerence that involved American export of arms to Iraq to offset the threat of invasion by Iran. This could not have escalated into a world war. Saddam was not interested in taking over the world. He was a dictator but not on the scale of Muss or Hit. That said, America had a relationship with Hitler that had nothing to do with the League of Nations. The American Bund was quite active here in the States and at one time the Graf Zepplin flew across the country sporting the swastika. When ever there is a conservative political power in the US, there are often rapprochements with dictators. As it was, a took a lot to get even FDR involved. It's too easy to hide dirty hands in foreign policies. As to the UN mitigating the effects of the Second World War, there is nothing that can be stated to prove this contention that they could have. As to the proposed "Bobert lies, 1-4" there is no evidence to support the claim that these are lies. Al Queada has been made stronger by the military presence in Iraq. Bush killed more Iraqis then Saddam. The "war" was a contributing factor in the economic crisis we now face in the States. Billions have been lost. More to come because the US can't extricate itself from a double quagmire. Finally, quoting Rumsfeld, Powell, Fleischer or any of the Bush apologists is like accepting opinions on child raising from the Marquis de Sade. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM I haven't lied at all, T... You, on the other hand, refuse to allow your mind to open to the realities of the last 7 years... At the top of that list is your worship of a danged UN resoluton that was adopted by the UN as the only way to perhaps stop Bush's all-ready made-up-mind to invade Iarq... You don't want to accept that part of the story because it does not dovetail into your mythology... That is thew way it occured... That si the way historians will describe UN Resolution 1441... If me observing that part of history the way that most historians will write it does not make me some enemy of the truth... It makes you delusional... Now when we take 1441 and put it in proper perspective then the story changes bacdk around toward something that best resemebles what actually occured and ot what you wished had occured... You also never happen to address the fact that former Secretary of the Treasury O'Neil stated in his book that Bush made up his mind on attacking Iraq from the very beginning and well before 9/11... This is also a very telling part of the story that you rfuse to allow into your narrative... This is fact... It is a very important fact but seeing as it does not dovetail into your mythology then you just ignore it... That, my freind, is delusional... Then Blix comes to the UN and tells the UN Security Council that the Iraqis are cooperating fully with the inspectors and at first you challenge me to provide a source that Blix actaully did that and then once I provide the source you ignore the remifications of such a report on Bush's allready-made decsion to invade Iraq... The reson that you poopoo Blix's report is because, again, it does not dovetail into your mythological story... That, T, is delusional... I mean, these are all factual and when taken seperately or collectively trash your mythogy... Yet you and yer wramonging buddies have tried to make me out to be some kind of liar??? Get real, T... Wake up... Get medical treatment... Get whatever you need to get you jump started toward a life where reality is reality and mythology ain't reality... We've had 7 years of yer bogus arguments and they have been tarshed over and over as reality sets in... Give the heck up, my friend... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM An interesting recapitulation of a huge falsehood, TIA. Thanks for taking the trouble. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:25 PM Big difference between Hitler/Mussolini and Saddam. They actually had functioning war machines and weapons. Turns out Saddam did not. It was all a big lie right up front. Sorry for the long cut and paste, but here is exactly why we invaded laid out in painful detail by William Rivers Pitt (from TruthOut): snip--------- Six years ago, the United States of America began the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Since then, 4,259 American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more have been wounded. There is no accurate accounting of Iraqi dead and wounded, because as we were told, we do not do body counts. Because the Bush administration left its Iraq expenditures off the budget, and because of the tremendous amount of war-profiteering, graft and theft that has been involved, we do not know exactly how much we have spent. For the record, 2,192 days later, this is how we got here: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002 "There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 9/6/2002 "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, President Speech to the UN General Assembly 9/12/2002 "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George W. Bush, President Radio Address 10/5/2002 "The Iraqi regime ... possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio, Speech 10/7/2002 "Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq's procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand." - John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Speech to the Hudson Institute 11/1/2002 "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists ... The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Vice President Denver, Address to the Air National Guard 12/1/2002 "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 12/2/2002 "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 12/4/2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." - George W. Bush, President State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, President State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003 "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Address to the UN Security Council 2/5/2003 "In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world - and we will not allow it." - George W. Bush, President Speech to the American Enterprise Institute 2/26/2003 "If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us ... But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Interview With Radio France International 2/28/2003 "So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to the UN Security Council 3/7/2003 "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, Vice President "Meet the Press" 3/16/2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, President Address to the Nation 3/17/2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly ... all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 3/21/2003 "One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites." - Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman Press Briefing 3/22/2003 "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." - Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board Member Washington Post, p. A27 3/23/2003 "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003 "We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Conference 4/9/2003 "You bet we're concerned about it. And one of the reasons it's important is because the nexus between terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction ... and terrorist groups - networks - is a critical link. And the thought that ... some of those materials could leave the country and in the hands of terrorist networks would be a very unhappy prospect. So it is important to us to see that that doesn't happen." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Conference 4/9/2003 "I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 "But make no mistake - as I said earlier - we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 "Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense "Meet the Press" 4/13/2003 "We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them." - George W. Bush, President NBC Interview 4/24/2003 "There are people who in large measure have information that we need ... so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Briefing 4/25/2003 "We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so." - George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters 5/3/2003 "I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to Reporters 5/4/2003 "We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Fox News Interview 5/4/2003 "I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein - because he had a weapons program." - George W. Bush, President Remarks to Reporters 5/6/2003 "U.S. officials never expected that 'we were going to open garages and find' weapons of mass destruction." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser Reuters Interview 5/12/2003 "We said all along that we will never get to the bottom of the Iraqi WMD program simply by going and searching specific sites, that you'd have to be able to get people who know about the programs to talk to you." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense Interview With Australian Broadcasting 5/13/2003 "It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction." - George W. Bush, President Speech at a Weapons Factory in Ohio 5/25/2003 "They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations 5/27/2003 "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense Vanity Fair Interview 5/28/2003 "The President is indeed satisfied with the intelligence that he received. And I think that's borne out by the fact that, just as Secretary Powell described at the United Nations, we have found the bio trucks that can be used only for the purpose of producing biological weapons. That's proof-perfect that the intelligence in that regard was right on target." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 5/29/2003 "We have teams of people that are out looking. They've investigated a number of sites. And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Infinity Radio Interview 5/30/2003 "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, President Interview With TVP Poland 5/30/2003 "You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ... They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two ... And we'll find more weapons as time goes on." - George W. Bush, President Press Briefing 5/30/2003 "This wasn't material I was making up, it came from the intelligence community." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Press Briefing 6/2/2003 "We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth." - George W. Bush, President Camp Sayliya, Qatar 6/5/2003 "I would put before you Exhibit A, the mobile biological labs that we have found. People are saying, 'Well, are they truly mobile biological labs?' Yes, they are. And the DCI, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, stands behind that assessment." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Fox News Interview 6/8/2003 "No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored." - Condoleezza Rice, US National Security Adviser "Meet the Press" 6/8/2003 "What the president has said is because it's been the long-standing view of numerous people, not only in this country, not only in this administration, but around the world, including at the United Nations, who came to those conclusions ... And the president is not going to engage in the rewriting of history that others may be trying to engage in." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From the Press 6/9/2003 "Iraq had a weapons program ... Intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program. I am absolutely convinced with time we'll find out they did have a weapons program." - George W. Bush, President Comment to Reporters 6/9/2003 "The biological weapons labs that we believe strongly are biological weapons labs, we didn't find any biological weapons with those labs. But should that give us any comfort? Not at all. Those were labs that could produce biological weapons whenever Saddam Hussein might have wanted to have a biological weapons inventory." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State Associated Press Interview 6/12/2003 "My personal view is that their intelligence has been, I'm sure, imperfect, but good. In other words, I think the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it, and I think that will happen." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Briefing 6/18/2003 "I have reason, every reason, to believe that the intelligence that we were operating off was correct and that we will, in fact, find weapons or evidence of weapons, programs, that are conclusive. But that's just a matter of time ... It's now less than eight weeks since the end of major combat in Iraq and I believe that patience will prove to be a virtue." - Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Pentagon Media Briefing 6/24/2003 MS. BLOCK: There were no toxins found in those trailers. SECRETARY POWELL: Which could mean one of several things: one, they hadn't been used yet to develop toxins; or, secondly, they had been sterilized so thoroughly that there is no residual left. It may well be that they hadn't been used yet. - Colin Powell, Secretary of State "All Things Considered" Interview 6/27/2003 "That was the concern we had with Saddam Hussein. Not only did he have weapons - and we'll uncover not only his weapons but all of his weapons programs - he never lost the intent to have these kinds of weapons." - Colin Powell, Secretary of State "All Things Considered" Interview 6/27/2003 "I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are." - Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 7/9/2003 snip------------------------- As self-inflicted punishment for the ridiculous length of this paste job, I will not post for two weeks. Bye. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 20 Mar 09 - 12:16 PM Well Bobert IF I am delusional then you will find no trouble in producing substantive proof for the lies that you have produced on this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 20 Mar 09 - 07:55 AM You are delussional, T, and no longer able to seperate mythology from reality... Get help!!! Soon!!! B~ |
