BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.

Subject: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:23 AM

Read this link which was kindly provided by GUEST on the thread that stated they WERE found.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051113113309990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001

So, unless someone here knows more about it than Bush's National Security Advisor, perhaps the subject can be put to rest?!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:19 AM

Thank you, Peace.

Some people ...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:45 AM

Refresh.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:36 AM

Hi Peace   Interesting article.

The problem with the search for WMDs appears to be that althought many people were highly sceptical about Saddam having WMDs, very few were prepared to put their credibility on the line just in case either they were wrong , or the Saddam regime was "fitted up" by the West.

Even Blix when making reports to the UN tended to hedge his bets.

Self preservation is a strong urge!!

This of course does not justify the hypocrisy of the pro war stragglers....quite the reverse.

I always cosidered it would have been madness for Saddam to retain WMDs, his power lay with his oil reserves internationally, and with his security services domestically.

When American and British intelligence started manufacturing "evidence" to fit the agenda, other agencies were prepared to agree or say nothing rather than run the risk of ending up with egg on their faces.

Now its obvious to all that those with the omelette foundation are the warriors of Mudcat and Mssrs Bush and Blair...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM

They were buried in Syria

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Tam the man
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:57 AM

now that's truth

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:40 AM

So now why are the terrorists blowing the crap out of Syria? to get the WMDs?

Puts fingers in ears....

La lalalalalla!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Bobert
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:11 AM

Well, well, well....

Unless Iraq's "supposed" WMD's were sent to Syria evn before the inspectors arrived, given the fact that the US was doing daily recon over Iraq since the last was, it seems unlikely that Iraq could have pulled off such a feat... Remember, after the inspectors were there they had not only a plane but a fleet of helicopters at their disposal and in the words of Hans Blix, "cooperative" folks within the Iraqi governemnt...

No, I think what we are seeing here is more of the pea-under-the-ahell game being played out by Bush and Co. much the way they tried to portray Saddam in the run-up to war...

They have circled theier wagons around the the "bad intellegence theme" and are going to ride it as far as it will take them... Hey, if they loose this one they loose the entire game and perhaps find the "e word", as empeachment waitin' fir Bush himself...

No, like the Valarie Plame case, they will play as hard as they can. They have no other choice...

I know that they using either executive privledge or executive order to protect from Cheney havin' to divulge his records of visits to and phone converstaions with the folks over at the CIA... But you can bet he was like a dog on a bone trying to cajole, threaten, or whatever it took to whip analysts into favorable reportas that such weapon did exist...

Wed do know from reading in the Washignton post over the last few days that there were usually descenting (sp) opinions written into reports that were given the President so he he was aware there were folks within the intellegence community who din't buy into Cheney's bullying... And this is the nugget to the story and why Bush and Cheney will sandbag until the cows come home...

They would loved nuthing more than to run out the clock on this one and that will be their strategy... And, hey, I can't think of anyway to get to Cheney's notes and phone records... The Senate can ask for them but Bush can calim executive privelodge or order and refuse... I can't see any court ordering them and even if one did, Bush's daddy's supreme court will protect his drunk frat boy son...

And lastly, there is the concept that both the Wsahington Post and New York Times ahve talked about in that post 9/11 atmosphere and that is "culture, sometimes referred to as "office speak" where folks purdy much were very afraid to look as if they might not be part of the team for fear of being branded un=patriotic...

Remember ho when Bush would try to sell anything in the worol one of is neo-con ideas he's bring 0/11 into the sales pitch so folks would feel that if they didn't go along with it than they were unAmerican??? Might of fact, he pulled that last Friday... "Support the war effort 'er yer giving comfort to the enemy"... What a lot of bull but I guess if I were in Bush's shoes, being the druck frat boy that he is, I'd probably be doing the same thing... Think about it... He has no other choice here but to shift blame... And if we buy that than he's off the hook...

And while I don't hate George Bush, he certainly has been given on "Get Out of Jail" card after another in life... I can't begin to think of anyone in American history who has been given as many "passes" as this man...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:24 AM

The information about Syria came from three different sources none of them US

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 09:38 AM

The neocon strategy board has a big decision to make. Either they take a knee and run out the clock as Bobert suggests or they reunite the country with another Pearl Harbor event.

Rumsfeld has used the term Pearl Harbor event for every imaginable threat to the USA to emphasise his budget requests to Congress.

Here is one of his actual letters...
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/runsfeldtext.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 10:58 AM

There are lots of people arguing on the "WMDs WERE found in Iraq" thread. There's enough of the bastard in me that I wouldn't want THIS thread getting lost. Have a wonderful day everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:12 AM

In the words of someone, payback's a bitch, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:34 AM

Some inconvenient facts for you Akenaton - I know you hate them but go read them for yourself - They are not my opinion, but the UN Mandate outlining UNMOVIC's Role and what has been clearly stated by Dr. Hans Blix himself.

"The problem with the search for WMDs ....."

Therein lies the rub Akenaton, because you see under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the Mandate forming UNMOVIC there was never meant to be A SEARCH FOR WMD - Remember Iraq was supposed to have been co-operating fully and pro-actively. Hans Blix himself stated that UNMOVIC was not in Iraq to play "hide-and-seek" - the very words out of his own report.

"althought many people were highly sceptical about Saddam having WMDs"

If what you contend above, in any way shape or form, translates to the views held at the time by the 15 members of the UN Security Council can you please explain why 1441 was passed unanimously. Oh yes it was a question of credibility alright Akenaton - those member states and their intelligence services gave great credence to the UNSCOM Report. To try and imply anything else is absolutely ridiculous.

The likelyhood of - " the Saddam regime was "fitted up" by the West." Is a pure figment of your imagination, you have absolutely no evidence to back that up, so it can be dismissed as irrational conjecture.

"Even Blix when making reports to the UN tended to hedge his bets.

Self preservation is a strong urge!!"

Are you trying to tell us Akenaton that the good Doctor was more interested in job preservation than in reporting factually, and honestly, to his employers (UN Security Council). If that indeed was the case then the US and UK had every justification to halt the inspections and take action themselves.

"I always cosidered it would have been madness for Saddam to retain WMDs"

Well Akenaton, at least you can say honestly, with hand on heart, that you, George W Bush and Tony Blair, all share a common point of view and agree on something.

"his power lay with his oil reserves internationally"

No Ake, we'd got by quite happily for the best part of 20 years with barely a drop, by christ that's some real heavy duty leverage, yer mans got there.

As far as the Iraqi people were concerned Saddam's power did definitely lay - "with his security services domestically." What was the latest number over 300 Mass Grave Sites, all filled courtesy of Saddam Hussein, the chap you, Bobert, dianavan, et al, would be more than happy to see in power and continuing the good work. Fortunately for the Iraqi people and the region in general Bill Clinton and GWB did not share that point of view with you.

"When American and British intelligence started manufacturing "evidence" to fit the agenda, other agencies were prepared to agree or say nothing rather than run the risk of ending up with egg on their faces."

As far as I am aware American and British intelligence agencies 'manufactured' no evidence. Actually, on evaluation British Intelligence was right on the button with regard to illegal rocket motors and missile development.

Sorry Ake, the US and UK were perfectly justified in doing what they did, and never mind son, it will all come out right in the end - especially for the Iraqi people.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 11:39 AM

Wriggle ...Wriggle...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:00 PM

Sorry Teribus ...Thanks for your response.

I cant be arsed going over the list again and again, but I think you understood my point fairly well ...without agreeing , naturally.

On the subject of Mr Blix, I take your point that Blix should have been braver... but no one likes to be left looking a fool, so his reports were slightly ambiguous until the very last moment, when he stated that he only needed a couple of months to finish the job.
Al Baradi had previously said Iraq had no nuclear weapons


The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 12:20 PM

"The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake"

Hardly a red-herring Ake, it was only because of GWB and the US Goverments efforts that the UNMOVIC Inspectors were invited back into Iraq.

Had the US developed a plan of attack prior to that? I would be very surprised indeed if they had not. The planning for that possibility would have been run on continuously since Safwan by various planning staffs - that is after all what they do. I have no doubt that the US has plans for invading Iceland and Ireland (both neutral countries) - doesn't mean that they are going to do it any time in the near future.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs. 7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides. We invaded, there were no WMDs. We invaded to secure our supply of OIL. George Bush planned to    invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

It seems to me that Bush was planning to invade Iraq even before they invaded Afghanistan...but 911 forestalled that.

I think it's the USA that needs to be inspected for WMDs. If they won't allow such inspection, and if they won't dismantle or surrender those weapons, then it is incumbent upon the rest of the World to impose santions. If the sanctions don't work, then we are going to have to invade the USA with an international coalition and bring about regime change. That's all there is to it. These guys have shown in the past their willingness to use WMDs to destroy innocent lives, and we have to stop them for the safety and security of the World. They can deny all they want, they can wriggle and twist and prevaricate, but they've GOT WMDs in the USA, and we will prove that if we have to by any means necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:09 PM

So, Kendall, where is all this Iraqi oil you claim we went in to get? Last I heard, we were shipping refined oil products into Iraq to keep the population happy.

Try READING UNR 1441- 14 years of inspections turned up a lot more, including prohibited missiles and prohibited raw materials he did NOT have after the Gulf war, but somehow got hold of despite the UN sanctions that many were depending on to keep them safe.


Next time, the US should wait until the nuclear bombs are produced before trying to stop their production- Oh, wait, that's what we did in Korea. You must be a lot happier about that...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 02:39 PM

kendall - 14 Nov 05 - 01:56 PM

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs."

Now come along Kendall lets have the rest of it, you're good at remembering words and stuff, what was the rest of it, you valiant seeker and champion of the truth. If you don't, or can't I'll supply the rather important bits that you have left out of your statement.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." I'm sure they did Kendall, but then the classification and assessment of dual-use precursors is a little tricky. What about telling us what else the UNSCOM inspections and searches turned up, and against what background of evasion, obstruction and harrassment. Don't want to do that, well if you don't want to acknowledge those aspects of UNSCOM's time in Iraq I'll quote them chapter and verse as written by the inspection teams themselves and as reported to the UNSC.

"We invaded, there were no WMDs." Correct and because we invaded Iraq will now no longer seek to pursue the development and acquisition of WMD and means to deliver them. Now isn't that a lot better for everybody concerned, apart from Saddam & Co, still never mind, he'll soon get over it.

"We invaded to secure our supply of OIL." Now how much oil does the good ol' US of A get from Iraq Kendall ould son? It never got that much of it in the past, so why go for it now, if indeed America is buying Iraqi crude. Prior to 1990 most of Iraq's output went to the far east, to Russia and to France.

"George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Prove me wrong."

I don't know if George Bush planned to invade Iraq before 9-11. Must be a terribly difficult thing that - a private citizen, a single man invading a country, it's a bit Quixotic, but I wouldn't have thought that that was in GWB's nature. But if you mean in the eight months after he was elected President in 2000 and inaugurated in January 2001 (had to put that bit in for the benefit of you, Kendall, Amos and Bobert) that might be different. Correct me if I'm wrong but around the same time didn't he also inherit the US Government's official foreign policy line on Iraq, yes you know the one, the one put in place in 1998 by that nice Mr. Clinton and his advisors, you know the ones Kendall, the same ones that GWB inherited when he entered the White House. Certainly in those nine months GWB didn't use his power as Pres of the US of A to move troops into Kuwait, or anywhere else along Iraq's borders. Kendall as I have said on another thread, you would be amazed at the number of invasion plans that the US Government has drawn up and keeps updating. You would be amazed at the countries and scenarios addressed by those plans. None of this means that the US Government has any intention of carrying out those plans. Your question? - oh yes! prove me wrong - about what?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:19 PM

I bet any of us would be amazed by the number of plans the USA has drawn up to invade people, all right. ;-) So many enemies...so little time...

I still say we have got to do something to control the World's number one user of WMDs and terror tactics: the USA. My suggestion is, everyone stop buying Coke, Pepsi, and McDonalds hamburgers. That will bring them to their knees!

I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician. Hopefully though, they would take him prisoner. I wouldn't want to see him get hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

"I wish George Bush would try to invade some country personally, just all by himself. It would be a very brief incident, and it would rid us of a very incompetent politician."


I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.


Doesn't say much about your heroes if that's the way you "truly" feel.


Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:45 PM

His own chief inspector told him there were no WMDs. He branded him a homo. When we invaded Iraq we went straight to the oil fields while the looters cleaned out the museums and stole hundreds and hundreds of years of history in the form of priceless artifacts.
The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves.
Bush lied...thousands died.
No one died when Clinton lied.
Spin this Mate.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:53 PM

"No one died when Clinton lied."

Kendall,

You're not the first one here to say that.

The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

(Since you're trying so hard to prove a conspiracy, we too can play that game.)

Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:14 PM

Hey, Susu's Hubby...just because I'm against Bush does not mean I have to be FOR Clinton. ;-) I regard the Democrats as an incompetent, lying, useless political party, which is just about as fond of making war as the Republicans are. My regard for the Republicans is equally low, perhaps even more so. If I lived in the USA, I wouldn't realistically HAVE anyone to vote for most of the time, because those 2 parties are the 2 arms of the same rotten $ySStem. It's a closed shop. They rule, you vote for a face who doesn't really represent you at all, but just pretends to. Clinton killed plenty of people too, in various places.

As long as they can keep Americans fighting each other over meaningless party line differences, they've got you exactly where they want you. Divide and conquer is the game. Matter of fact, your elections are just like a football game...a useless exercise in sound and fury, signifying nothing, intended to entertain and distract the public. It's the arbitrary creation of a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in your mind and every other American's mind, same as the standard plot of a TV drama. It's a tale told by an idiot, and believed only by those already hypnotized by the social status quo they grew up in. Real life just isn't that simple.

All people are the "good guy" in their own personal understanding of things, as best they can see it at the time. (Bush included, of course.)

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 05:24 PM

THE BITS KENDALL RATHER CONVENIENTLY LEFT OUT

"The UN demanded he get rid of his WMDs under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspectors in order that such destruction of weaponised agents, stockpiles of agents, precursor chemical and cultures, munitions and delivery systems, could be documented authenticated and verified."

Iraq was also required to terminate all programmes linked to the development of WMD (CW, BW & Nuclear). Now in all this Iraq had to prove to the UN that they had completed those tasks under the supervision of the UNSCOM Inspection teams.

"7 years of inspections turned up some pesticides." The seven years of Inspections turned up much more than just some pesticides as Kendall would have us all believe. Those inspections were carried out against a background of deliberate hindrance and deception on the part of the Iraqi authorities. In 1995, Kemall's defection blew the lid on Saddam's secret programme to develope nerve agents. UNSCOM Inspectors acting on information gained from Kemall uncovered the programme and closed it down. Now this was something that post dated the First Gulf War.

So it was all done for oil but you can't tell us how much oil the good ol' US of A gets from Iraq - is it a secret Kendall? - Is it brought into the country at the dead of night in a clandestine fleet of super tanker submarines, that only you know about?

Tell us exactly what steps George W Bush had put in train prior to the events of September 11th 2001, that would lead anyone to conclude that he was intent on invading Iraq.

I have no trouble accepting that plans were in place to invade Iraq or that it was the declared foreign policy of the United States Government to effect regime change in Iraq - But Kendall all that was in place long before George W Bush was sworn in as President, and the proof of that can be easily verified.

In your last post Kendall you say let the facts speak for themselves,
now just for the sake of clarity could you highlight any facts that you may have posted, so far all I have read is unsubstantiated gibberish most of which was disproved months ago.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Amos
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 06:26 PM

T-butt:

In July 2002, the 23d, the Prime Minister of England attended a meeting of high level British government wonks, among whom was the British Defence Secretary.

The minutes of that meeting included the following:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

The rest of that memo can be found here.

While this does not pre-date September 11th, it certainly predates any of the publicized panics about Saddam's WMD.

A

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:30 PM

I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence. I believe it was an English newspaper that published the Downing Street memo exposing the lies that took us to war. Our own media are owned by right wingers like Rupert Murdoch who would rather die than print the truth about Bush.
Where do you get your information, Faux News?
What we have here is two groups who will never agree on what happened, and we have slipped into a pointless debate. The hounds are at his heels, finally, and the truth will out.
Meantime, I'm outta here with better things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 07:36 PM

By the way, SuSu's hubby, I never claimed to be the author of that quote. So, who died when Clinton lied about his "hummer"?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Kaleea
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:12 PM

What alotta fuss about WMDs playing peek-a-boo & prez dubblepew this & prez clinton that. If you want to find the real weapons of mass destruction, then volunteer for diaper changing duty. The results will be clear--er, uh, well actually, sometimes a bit muddy.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:33 PM

Both Threads about finding and not finding WMDs are mute points really.
There are no WMD in Iraq. There were none when America Invaded and they haven't appeared there since!
Bush and his henchman lied to the People of America and to the rest of the World, a lie that 2 years later has caused untold deaths and continues to do so daily.
ANYONE who is still defending Bush Inc. actions on this are sad, twisted and frightened people that allowed their judgement to be clouded by over zealous Political views and who do not have the courage to admit, like the Man they support, that they were then, are now and always will be WRONG on this issue.
As for Bill Clinton and a Blowjob, well. lying about Sex vs lying to start a War is a no brainer when it comes to which is the most morally corrupt action!

The worst crime against Humanity in recent years was commited by 51% of Americans at the Polling Booths when they voted for Bush Inc.
Impeach THIS President. There are REAL reasons to do so.
As the Thread topper says "WMDs were NOT found in Iraq"
That is the disgusting, Amoral truth of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 08:42 PM

"The whole inspection proceedure was of course a red herring, as we had already decided we were going in legally or illegally..Ake"

"Hardly a red-herring Ake, it was only because of GWB and the US Goverments efforts that the UNMOVIC Inspectors were invited back into Iraq.   Teribus"

And why was the US govt so keen to get the inspectors back in!
To try to gain UN support for the invasion which had already been decided upon.
They didn't get that support but they went ahead anyway.

The US govt didn't want to go to the UN at all but "advice" from
Blair persuaded them to take the diplomatic road, as it would play better with the British voters. A pay back for Blairs support in the face of public hostility.

How lucky for you that Bush did not at first take the military option.

Then you would have had NO red herrings to throw into the debate...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Geoduck
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:48 AM

WMDs Found in Iraq Nov 9, 2005

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.


Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=10101

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:07 AM

Kendall,

"The soldiers found millions of dollars in American money in Saddams palaces. Where did it go? to Halliburton of course. The facts speak for themselves."


To quote Amos, "Has anyone bothered to isolate the facts around this slander? Or are we just beating drums and dancing around the campfire here?"

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:13 AM

Kendall,

"I always decide the truth by a close examination of the evidence."

As should we all, which is why I am asking for your evidence of what you have stated here.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 08:36 AM

Amos,

"There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."


True, and the failure of the administration to plan for that aftermath is one of the points where Bush did make a mistake. BUT that does not alter the fact that the original invasion was the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 11:16 AM

What is most interesting about this to me is that when a Washington personage states the obvious--like DUH, we KNOW WMDs were not found, we herald it as a beacon of hope. Sttrange. Are we so used to lies that when the truth--which we know already--is verified, we then see it as something important?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:32 PM

Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost.

They could have made a hundred plans for the aftermath and it would still have been a disaster!!

The whole endeavour was ill conceived, they just failed to realise what they were getting into.

And now..... the world sees them as they really are for once. Thats whats important, not me winning a point, or you refuting one.

The Iraq war has given USA/UK pariah status.....And a very good thing too....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:33 PM

Teribus: Therein lies the rub Akenaton, because you see under the terms of UNSC Resolution 1441 and the Mandate forming UNMOVIC there was never meant to be A SEARCH FOR WMD - Remember Iraq was supposed to have been co-operating fully and pro-actively. Hans Blix himself stated that UNMOVIC was not in Iraq to play "hide-and-seek" - the very words out of his own report.

Ahhhh, you're at it again, Teribus. Just once, for the record here, will you state plainly your opinion on the proposition:

Even if Saddam did not actually have any WoMD, his [alleged] non-cooperation and failure to follow to the letter all the UNSCR demands was sufficient casus belli for us to go in and invade with all the concomitants of such armed conflict (i.e.M, 2000+ U.S. servicemen's lives lost, many thousands of Iraqis, and the precedent of unilateral armed aggression as a solution to a perceived or alleged threat).

I just want to know if you indeed think that what (at least you think) Saddam did was sufficient reason for starting the disaster we're in. I think it would be right of you to also make such views known to the 2000 mothers that are grieving, the many thousands of wives whose husbands are broken.....

After that, we can get to the niggling practical points, such as whether there is any chance of any kind of "victory" in Iraq, and whether we've improved anything in starting that war, or rather, made things worse overall.....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:41 PM

Ake,

"Bruce for goodness sake give up the ghost."

Not until I have seen some evidence that I am wrong. Keep working on it.

And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Peace
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:46 PM

"And where are all the anti-war demands prior to the war for Saddam to comply?"

In Geneva?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

And Arne, for the record:

IMHO Saddam's non-complience with UNR 1441, his continued violations of the cease-fire accord, and his on-going efforts to obtain prohibited materials in violation of the letter and spirit of 14 years of UN resolutions was more than sufficient reason to go to war. IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed, BUT they chose not to.

Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Digger
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:53 PM

Richard Miniter, quoted by GUEST,Geoduck above, is a Right Wing writer and commentator who appears frequently on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh's radio program. The excerpt and statistics quoted above are also to be found on several other web sites, obviously cut and pasted all over the internet. One of these was "blogsforbush.com." Considering the source, and the lack of substantiation or reference data, well......'nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: kendall
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 01:54 PM

They showed it on the tv news...loads of money hauled out of Saddam's palaces being taken away in trucks. My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses!

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32195-2004Jul6?language=printer


Sorry, the SRS rule only applies when I say it does...

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:04 PM

BB: I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? Afterall, the "incompetent politician" in office today just happened to defeat a sitting VP and then in the next go around, one of the most liberal senators in office.

The ol' "Everyone loves a winner" thinking, eh? My, that's deep, Bruce. But I wouldn't go about advertising what a bad judge of character you are, if I were you. I'd take either of the Democratic candidates, with their military service (and in Kerry's case, medals for valour), over the AWOL "champagne unit" draft dodger, in terms of competence and selflessness. As for competence, hard to set the bar lower than the only Texas oilman never to have found oil in Texas....

But FWIW, Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections (and barely sqeaked out a victory in 2004). Worse for you, every week brings more and more people who are beginning to rue the day they ever voted the Dry-Drunk-in-Chief into office. You're gong to very lonely very soon ... and not too popular at parties yourself.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:15 PM

Arne,

You have ( as usual) not read the post- I did not make it.

"From: Susu's Hubby - PM
Date: 14 Nov 05 - 04:44 PM

.....
I'm glad you feel that way LH. If that's the way you truly feel then why continue supporting the dregs that the Democratic party continue to offer? .....

Hubby "



You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.




"Dubya didn't win the 2000 elections "

A point that can be debated, NOT one you can ex cathedra make pronouncements on.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 02:59 PM

Kendall,

"My rep to congress was a bit unclear on it, but he implied that Halliburton got it to help pay their expenses! "


And I can quote him on this? ( the implication, not the unclear part...) Name and phone number of his office?

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Well wait up a minute there Guest Arne.

Maybe you have, or have not, read the remit that the good Dr. Hans Blix and his troop of UNMOVIC Inspectors was given - I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD. Now there happen to be one hell of a lot of people on this forum who believe that that was in fact their job - I am trying to point out that it wasn't, maybe I should refer them to Dr. Hans Blix - they might just believe him, but I doubt it.

FACT - UNMOVIC were not in Iraq to SEARCH for WMD

Now onto what I think:

Was the invasion of Iraq the right thing to do - YES, without any shadow of a doubt.

Were lies told to the House of Commons or to the British People - NO

Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will. A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Are you in a disaster Arne? - I certainly am not, nor are the bulk of the Iraqi population who are delighted that Saddam has been removed from power.

Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq. Despite the threats and the bombings more Iraqi's have voted for their Government than UK citizens voted for theirs - that's a disaster Arne?

Iraq no longer sponsors international terrorists, or pays Palestinian children to blow themselves up - If you want to see the effect of that take a look at the dip in the incidents in Israel before and after March 2003 - probably just a coincidence, eh Arne?

Syria has finally ended it occupation of Lebanon and the people there are free to vote for who they wish - now that's a real mess isn't it Arne.

Libya has unilaterally renounced it WMD materials and programmes

You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive. At the end of the Second World War Greece was torn apart by civil war for a further four bloody years, Iraq is nowhere near that stage, no matter how you guys want to talk it up. This coming election is important, more so than the last one. Lets see what happens, I don't think that it's going to result in a disaster, quite the opposite.

In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it, go read what OBL stated in 1996.

Subject: RE: BS: WMDs were NOT found in Iraq.
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 15 Nov 05 - 06:00 PM

BB: You can't even get a direct quote on the same thread accredited to the correct poster.

OK, I made a mistake. My sincere apologies to you (although I suspect that you aren't too far from the same opinion ... but I'll let you speak for yourself if you'd care to chime in). See, that was easy. You oght to try it.

OBTW, that would be "credited", not "accredited". Always glad to help with accuracy around here, as long as we're being helpful.

Susu's Hubby: The fact that so many of you are trying to justify Clinton's PROVEN lying, just because "no one died", to a Grand Jury speaks volumes about your own ethical belief structure.

That you think that actions that result in the death of innocents are somehow in a category with all the rest speaks volumes about you ethical belief structure. But FWIW, there was no "PROVEN lying", and furthemore, there is a legal distinction between lying and perjury even if there were any lies shown in Clinton's testimony. There's two other legal requirements for perjury, namely, that the lie be under oath and that it be material. It's the third one here that really is at issue in the "When Clinton lied, no one died" phrase. It's legally permissible to aver falsely that the moon is made of blue cheese in a courtroom ... if this particular bit of information is of no moment to the proceedings. And it is there that Clinton's alleged lies fail the perjury test (and IMNSHO, why Ray settled for the admission he got instead of pursuing a perjury charge). While embarrassing, the fact of whether Clinton did or didn't have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky had no bearing on Paula Jones's suit (and in fact Wright excluded the Lewinsky stuff from the case).   One of the rules of evidence says that things that are intended to embarrass or prejudice a case can be excluded even if relevant based on a balancing of interests. In addition, because of the inflammatory nature of such digging into sexual histiry, there's a set of rules (FRE412-415, IIRC) having to do with when such evidence can be considered (and when such should be left out), and the Lewinsky evidence did not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. This makes this line of testimony, while tittilating for panty-sniffers such as Starr, legally immaterial. As such, not only did Clinton's alleged lies not get anyone killed, they were legally permissible because they wre of a sort that is normally NOYB (and certainly none of the court's business). The consequences of Clinton's lies didn't matter at all, really, much less get someone killed. HTH.

Susu's Hubby again: I'm sure Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Paul Wellstone would be right there beside you saying the same thing.

If they were able.

Now you're off in La-La-Land. Even your Republicans (more than one) looked at Foster, and say there's no "there" there. Brown, same thing (a tragic aircraft accident). As for Wellstone, are you suggesting the Dubya maladministration did him in (in 2002, ya'know???   ;-)

BB: IF those opposing action had spent half their effort in getting Saddam to comply, perhaps the war would not have been needed,....

A lot of Democrats have said that they approved the Iraq resolution so that the U.N./U.S. would have a strong hand in asking for Saddam's co-operation to resolve the issue (and that they hoped that with this strong hand, Saddam would comply and that hostilities would not be necessary). In fact, this is what happened; Saddam gave us the documents (as best he could, which effort the U.S. pooh-poohed), he let the inspectors in, and they were doing heir jobs and reporting that in fact, the U.S. 'intelligence' was "garbage, garbage, and more garbage" and that in fact, Saddam's account of his weapons and programs was reasonably accurate. Strangely enough, the one person clearly mistaken about what happenes was Dubya:

"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power..."

This is clearly hallucinatory behaviour, or outright lying ("honest mistake" is eliminated as a possibility [even for a doofus like Dubya] by the fact that Dubya repeated this absurd assertion a second time in another speech).

Please feel free to "explain" this behaviour of Dubya any way you want, but I would like you to address it....

...

So in fact, the war was not needed, except to people who value human life as cheaply as you, that seem to think that Saddam refusing to kiss Dubya's rosy is sufficient insult to spend the lives of 2000+ U.S. servicement (and counting) on.

There were no WoMD, and the U.N. inspectors would have found that (and were finding that. We got Saddam to accept inspectors. There's even reports that Saddam had offered to step down (although I'm not clear under what terms and how honestly).

Those apologising for Dubya's mistakes often make the fallacy of bifurcation that there were only two choices: Armed invasion, or letting Saddam do whatever he wanted. Not true, and in fact, there was a perfectly reasonable alternative (the U.N. inspections) that seemed to be working out. But that was unacceptable to Dubya for reasons that are not often examined. I'd like you to explain why.

Bottom line here, Teribus and BB: Lots of people had no problem with asking Saddam to comply, but thought that war should have been the last resort, not the first resort that it seems it was with Dubya, and were indeed quite happy that the threat of "serious consequences" did in fact work. They were even more pleased when it was seeming more and more like the sanctions and previous inspections did in fact do the job (as turned out to be the case), and that Saddam was indeed disarmed and that no armed invasion would be necessary to disarm him.

BB: Explain why YOU did not try to stop the war in the most direct manner- telling Saddam to comply.

Where have I ever said that I did such a thing?

But Dubya seems to have had a problme with taking "yes: for an answer....

Teribus: I didn't write it, I have read it and it clearly states that they were not there to search for WMD.

That's pretty strange. Because they brought a lot of equipment and instrumentation in to do precisely that, and in fact that's what they were doing. What you're quoting is a bit of politicking, a bit of fluff that was intended to nudge Saddam into fuller co-operation and trotting out any WoMD (which he didn't have). But make no mistake, Blix wasn't as stoopid as you seem to be here, and wasn't going to settle for Saddam to come rolling the WoMD up to the Hotel Palestine for him to bless; he was going to check on his own to make sure that Saddam was being forthright. But Saddam's co-operation was hardly necessary for the success of Blix's actual mission ... they could have sent Bolton, Cheney, or one of the other numbnuts in the Dubya maladministration if all they wanted was some formal turnover ceremonies; instead they sent an actual inspector. It's curious you can't figure this out ... or are you jkust being intellectually dishonest here?

Teribus: A decision had to be made and that decision had to reflect worst case scenario.

No wonder you have all this time to post! Your problem solving skills have you reduced to an irrational ability to leave your own house for fear of errant cricket bats, falling meteors, and the ubiquitous lightning bolt ... not to mention the far more common lorry with shoddy brakes....   ;-) "worst case scenario"   LOL....

Teribus: Was the intelligence 'doctored' - NO, far too many people were involved, they may not have all agreed on the conclusions and rcommendations reached, but, on any given subject, no large body of experts ever will.

The best evidence was on the ground. Hell, that's why we pushed to get the inspectors in there. And their evaluation of the U.S. 'intelligence' was pithily put as "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". It was kind of a case of "Who're you gonna believe, Chalabi's drunken thugs and crooks, or your lyin' eyes." Time for a reassessment, I'd say, but such seems to be beyond the cognitive skills of the Dubya maladministration (although in this, they were clearly below the peak of the bell curve, with most Security Council members urging a more cautious and patient approach).

Teribus: Now just because you say that we are 'in a disaster' is no reason at all for everybody to rush about like headless chickens believing it.

Oh, quite true. But if you bother reading a newspaper....

Teribus: Having just voted for the adoption of a document that will form their constitution, ...

My, the U.S. woudl have had quite the constitution with Tories installed in power and a spate of recoats in every town....

But I'd note that the success of the constitution was remarkable ... with some Sunni areas reporting that 99% or so of eligible voters were in favour of it. Will miracles never cease?

Teribus: ... in just over a month they will elect a new fully sovereign government of Iraq.

Under the benevolent eye of a force of 140K foreign troops which are the only things keeping the polliticans and candidates (or at least a substantial portion of them) from a quick and gruesome death....

What does that have to do with WoMDs?

And I'd note the ultimate silliness of a constitution as the hallmark of legitimacy, human rights, or a stable and just state (see, e.g. "USSR"; as Stalin said, it's who counts the votes that's important).

Teribus: You call Iraq a disaster, if you believed that everything would be all sweetness and light at the touch of a switch, then you are being particularly naive.

More fallacy of bifurcation (as well as a bit of "straw man" fallacy). See if you can spot your error.

Teribus: In general the world is in no greater danger from terrorists now than it was before, don't take my word for it,...

... just go read the latest State Department report on world terrorism.   ;-)

Cheers,