BS: Where are the WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:33 PM

Jeeper LH,

Yet another minute of political agreement! Is it possible that you are secretly a moderate?

My feeling about Bush is this. He couldn't fix the economy he and his energy ilk destroyed with Enron, Harken Oil, California electrical voltage, while making tidy personal profits. So he deflected it by going to war with Saddam. It is only in his great good luck that Saddam deserves to be, dare I say it? Yes I dare. DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD DEAD. That gives Bush even the smallest of credence. Why is it so easy for the right to believe Kosovo was Clinton's way of deflecting the Lewinsky affair and not believe that the selfrighteous GW Bush to capable of the same thing, only over money rather than a piece of consenting tail?

Face it Little Hawk, its not the diverse politicians you and I hate, its the hypocrites in politics we despise.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Apr 03 - 07:37 PM

Thanks LH.

Gareth, I direct you to this post of mine from two days ago. It is the only post you will find from me in which I have taken anything even resembling a stance on this war:

Another Comment from the Front Lines

(Wait a few seconds to load to the correct post.)

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:51 AM

MGOH,

""I believe that he will order their use when he decides that all is lost"

After all that was always the official American policy during the Cold War - "second-strike capacity" was the term used."

During the "cold-war" the term used was "second-strike capability" and it's purpose was to deter a pre-emptive strike - nothing whatsoever to do with a "when all is lost scenario", in fact in that scenario, if you have a "second-strike capability", your logical step would be to get in contact with those who launched the first attack and invite them to surrender on the premise that you have lost everything while they still have everything to lose - the doctrine was called "mutually assured destruction" - it was effective - it worked.

What CarolC presents as, "Other lies about this action in Iraq:", on examination, not lies at all, take a look at them and clearly identified reasons can be found for the changes in emphasis.

1. Regime Change:

"They said "We're not looking for regime change. We just want Saddam to dissarm." Then they said that nothing short of regime change would suffice."

The first statement regarding disarmament was what Resolution 1441 was about. Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime were to be given one last chance to disarm and honour its obligations to the UN.

Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime, however, did not take that last opportunity. The international community still require the disarmament of Iraq, undertaken in a manner that can be verified beyond doubt. If those in power in Iraq won't comply with that requirement, then it is logical that that regime must be replaced with one that will co-operate with the international community. Now that is not a lie, the change has been brought about by changing circumstances (In this case the Iraqi Regime saying we invite the inspectors back and will co-operate with them fully - then not following through with that commitment).

2. Weapons of Mass Destruction & Liberation

"They said, "This is about weapons of mass destruction." Then they said it's about liberating the Iraqi people."

Both are mentioned in previous UN Security Council Resolutions dating back to 1991. At no point has the American Administration ever changed its stance on either. Have they ever said, "This is no longer about WMD it is now about liberating the Iraqi people" - I don't believe they have - Again where is the lie?

3. Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda Links

"They lied about having proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, when they had no proof at all."

At the time they believed through their intelligence sources that a link existed, that people senior in Al Qaeda had contacts in Baghdad. That senior Al Qaeda figures had been in Iraq is not in dispute - the reasons for them being there was subject to the wrong evaluation. But that was what it was - poor, or highly speculative evaluation - Not a lie, because at the time that is what was believed to be the case. The threat lay not in the existing linkage, but the potential that that link was in the process of being formed.

4. Iraqi-Niger Uranium Cake

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq."

As with the above, another case of poorly handled information on the part of the intelligence community, although that might be being awfully unfair to some members of the US intelligence services, as reports exist that some analysists were unhappy about the way this information burst into the public domain. To make this a lie, it would have to be proved that the CIA (or who ever) deliberately started rumours about Iraqi approaches to the Government of Niger regarding sales of Uranium Cake years ago. That Saddam Hussein has been interested in a nuclear weapons programme cannot be disputed, this interest has been well documented over the past 25 years. You would then have to prove that members of the current American Administration knew that these documents were forgeries prior to presenting them to the public. I do not think such proof exists on either count.


Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 04:02 AM

Apologies hit the submit button too quick:

The last point that Carol makes,

"Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress."

Pure conjecture, based upon what Carol would have liked to have seen. The support the President got in both houses was greater than the support his father received for "Desert Storm". The massive support, current, at the time the President went to the Senate and House of Representatives was not solely based on the prospect of the Iraqi regime acquiring material from Niger - the important aspect was the perception that Iraq was still pursuing programmes directed at acquiring WMD, chemical/biological and nuclear.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 09:33 AM

Teribus et al-

On point 4, Iraqi-Niger Uranium Cake, this half-baked forgery which even our intelligence service considered suspect before the Bush cabal decided to use it as a major basis for its appeal to the United Nations to win approval for "use of force" against Iraq, I agree with you that it doesn't necessarily constitute a "lie." No, it's more an example of arrogant misrepresentation of the facts before an international body, and subsequently regurgitated to Congress where it helped to convince a strong majority to support "use of force." Colin Powell can be proud of his role in this pivotal moment in our nation's history.

You can have your cake but please clean up the crumbs after you've finished wolfing it down.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 11:26 AM

LOL! "Don't Cry For Me, little Niger...the Truth is I never left you...all through my wild lies...my fabrications...I kept my promise...I led the nation (to war)" - Colin Powell

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:18 PM

Time Magazine, April 7 edition, has a report entitled 'Battle Scars of a Fallen Airbase' in which there is a paragraph:

"Behind the newly erected surgical unit, hospital chief Colonel Harry Warren shows me three large crates full of Iraqi gas masks found on the base; stamped inside the unused masks are the words MADE IN GERMANY."

My question: Does/Did Germany market all their gas masks with English language, rather than German, markings? If so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:21 PM

A good question, Ebbie. Probably the easiest was to find out would be to cantact the company in Germany and ask.
Another reason presents itself however. Since trade with Iraq was proscribed, the gas masks probably had to come in through another country rather than straight from Germany to Baghdad. In fact, they likely made several stops before arriving at their final destination.
A possible route might be Germany to Ireland (or any other English speaking country) to Turkey or Jordan and on to Iraq.
Illegal but common enough and not especially sinister.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:30 PM

It's quite likely (seems to me) that the journalist reported the English translation rather than the actual text on the items.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:49 PM

Good point, Dave. I Never thought of that angle.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:49 PM

Dave O, that is not the impression that the article gives. I transcribed it verbatim.

And I think readers should be able to decipher 'Gebildet in Deutschland'.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 03:53 PM

Come on, you guys. You can do better than that.

* For instance, you could suggest that these are gas masks that are left over from the Iran-Iraq war.
* You might conjecture that English speaking countries are Germany's best customers.
* Or...?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 04:26 PM

Ebbie: English is the predominant language of international trade. Unless the country in question has a specific law or regulation requiring that its own language be used on imported products, English marking is the likely choice for the most cost-efficient means of production.

I don't think the language employed on these products will leead you anywhere in tracking the route used to get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Gareth
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:07 PM

Bit long CarolC Digging thru 6000+ posts, and as at the moment I'am workin 12 on 12 off I dont have that much time.

But yes the specifics are there, your full comments in

"Another comment from the Front line", ang "Muslem Sargent..." provide sufficient evidence.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Apr 03 - 06:42 PM

Provide sufficient evidence of what? What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

CarolC - You were challenged by myself in other threads to back up your allegations. This you have constantly failed to do. When anyone has pinned you down you change the point.

Back again. Gareth, if you can't provide any specific examples of my having done this, your accusation has no credibility. It would appear that you are the one who doesn't back up allegations when challenged.

As for your last post, I am assuming you were drunk when you made it, because it makes no sense whatever.

With regard to Teribus' points, I'll start working on answering them after my guests leave and I can devote some time to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 11:43 AM

I think Gareth might have got CarolC mixed up with some other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 12:26 PM

Well, it's always nice to start the new day with a good laugh... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: TIA
Date: 06 Apr 03 - 11:50 PM

CarolC;

Please don't waste your time working up a comprehensive response. After guests, I'm sure you could use a good feet-up.



The little boy called "wolf" because he thought the villagers had told him to call wolf even when it was just a dog, and even though they told him "don't cry wolf", he says he must follow their earlier instructions.

The next time he cried "wolf", it was because he was misled by another littler boy who mistakenly said "I think there's a wolf".

Then he said (well okay, maybe his assistant said) "when will you believe there's a wolf, when there's a dead sheep over your head?" But the villagers still haven't seen a dead sheep.

Then he said "I will only cry wolf if I see an wolf", but he cried "wolf" and told the villagers it was because he smelled a wolf.

What the hell is wrong with those villagers? They sense a credibility problem!

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:14 AM

Back to the original question: suppose we wait a few weeks and see?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:20 AM

Ebbie, my wife just returned from a week in Japan where she visited our son and his wife, She bought lots of small gifts to give to various people including the parents who volunteer in her classes.
One of the gift items that she bought was a bunch of little change-purses in a blue and white batik. I spent part of today helping her remove tags from those purses.
They were marked, in English, "Made in China".

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 06:01 AM

Saddam would supply his troops with masks and other anti-chemical warfare protection even if he didn't have any of these agents available to use. Although he might be certain himself that the US/UK troops wouln't use them, I'm sure that he would want his own forces (and civilians) to believe that they would. It's all part of the propaganda demonising the enemy that both sides have engaged in.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 08:55 AM

Hmmmm! A warehouse in a captured military compound 60 miles south of Bagdad full of 55-gallon drums and a dozen or so U.S. troops stricken with vomiting and dizziness! I suppose those symptons could just be anxiety but they may have stumbled upon the real thing. Don't know what your newspaper have to say but mine do not make good breakfast reading.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:40 AM

Hey, Doug and troll and teribus - thanks for providing a loyal opposition on these threads. It makes for a pretty boring discussion when everybody agrees 100% on something, and it's a situation usually only seen in fanatical religious groups...or dictatorships.

Besides, it gives the rest of us useful exercise in developing and defining our own views... :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:41 AM

... it has tested positive for sarin gas.


Troops, POWs and journalists at the facility have all tested positive for the poisons and many were experiencing symptoms of exposure. They were not searching for the WMD - this was an initial visit to the place. The exposure would have been only to the residual amounts of agent in the environment. If there is any WMD left at the faility, in significant quantity, I'm sure it'll take a much more thorough search to locate them.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:44 AM

What would make him certain that the US or the UK wouldn't use them anyway? : "These people have said they won't use weapons like those, so of course I must believe them, because I know they would never tell a lie."

In addition of course there are other potential enemies, such as Iran, Israel and Turkey,

Given that it will be extremely valuable politically for stocks of unused chemical or biological weapons to turn up, and extremely embarrassing if they don't, if this is claimed to have happened, it clearly can't be a question of just taking the word of the governments involved - more espeically if it does turn out, as everyone must hope, that there is no use of made these weapons in face of the invasion. Any evidence will need to be verified by people who do not have anything to win or los

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:23 AM

I'll be impressed if "they" turn up substantial quanities of nasty chemical stuff, rather than an occasional bottle sitting on a shelf. Hopefully, "they" will examine this site very carefully and invite some outside professional analysts to observe.

However, this story may be radically changed in a day or so and it may just turn out that the dozen or so soldiers who got sick have food poisoning.

Pity that the UN inspectors hadn't surveyed this particular site earlier this year.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:27 AM

The U.S. currently maintains stockpiles of close to 30,000 tons (yep, tons! Count 'em!) of "chemical agents" including Sarin and other nerve gasses that it admits to (and who knows how many additional tons that it doesn't publicly admit to) much of it leaking and endangering civilian populations, as the folks near Umatilla in Oregon, Tooele in Utah, the leaking Army WETEYE nerve gas canisters in Denver, Colorado, and other locations across the country can attest.

If mere possesion is a crime, we'd damn well better get the U.S. invaded and occupied ASAP- if only to protect its own citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:21 AM

Here ya go. Fully loaded chemical munitions. Why am I not surprised?

But I do not believe for a minute GWB "knew" about them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

This is what Reuters has to say about the news item Amos linked to above:

"The U.S. news station National Public Radio, reporting what appeared to be a separate discovery, said U.S. forces found a weapons cache of around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons.

NPR said the rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire."

It said the cache was discovered by Marines with the 101st Airborne Division, which was following up behind the Army after it seized Baghdad's international airport.

Officers from the 101st Division were unable to confirm the report and U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar had no immediate comment."

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:41 PM

Charlie: had the Iraquis cooperated with the inspectors, they WOULD have found them. The point is, they told the U. N. they did not have them, and it appears that Bush's charge that they did was correct.

Greg F: when was the last time the U. S. USED any of those chemical or biological weapons?

L. H.: I can't speak for Teribus or troll or others, but I aim to please! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:24 PM

For those looking at their map of Iraq from the National Geographic the site of these supposed poison gas barrels was south of the central Iraqi town of Hindiyah, about 60 miles south of Baghdad.

"20 medium-range missiles equipped with potent chemical weapons", I haven't run across that story yet.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:45 PM

Gee, Douggie, looks to me like Saddam didn't USE them either- or, I mean, they wouldn't have been sitting there to "find", you know?

You don't you count the agent orange the US is and has been dumping on Columbian peasants for years, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Terry K
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:12 PM

Don't you people keep up with the news?

Did you not see the coalition troops entered Iraqi primary schools and found heaps of protractors, compasses and slide rules?

Proof enough that Saddam is stockpiling weapons of maths instruction.

OK, all groan now.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: SeanM
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:58 PM

Don't go ringing the "smoking gun" bell so fast...

The first "smoking gun" isn't - it's bug spray.

Weapons of Mass Gardening

The report includes that all the "victims" who stumbled on the find are doing just fine now.

No word on the "ready to fire" shells yet. But the supposed treasure trove in the barrels was nothing more serious than what you find at Home Depot. Or are we now protecting the lives of innocent Iraqi tomato bugs?

M

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: robomatic
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:24 PM

NPR must be really desperate for (US) government money. Big business advertising not paying enough?

Maybe we should export Susan Stamberg.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 03:50 PM

I'm going to answer this one first:

"Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress."

Pure conjecture, based upon what Carol would have liked to have seen. The support the President got in both houses was greater than the support his father received for "Desert Storm". The massive support, current, at the time the President went to the Senate and House of Representatives was not solely based on the prospect of the Iraqi regime acquiring material from Niger - the important aspect was the perception that Iraq was still pursuing programmes directed at acquiring WMD, chemical/biological and nuclear.

This response is pure conjecture on Teribus' part. He has no way of knowing what I have or have not seen, read, or heard on this subject. My assertion is based on what I have heard and read coming from members of Congress themselves. Here's a synopsis:

Who Lied to Whom? Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq's nuclear program?

"Last September 24th, as Congress prepared to vote on the resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to wage war in Iraq, a group of senior intelligence officials, including George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, briefed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq's weapons capability. It was an important presentation for the Bush Administration. Some Democrats were publicly questioning the President's claim that Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction which posed an immediate threat to the United States. Just the day before, former Vice-President Al Gore had sharply criticized the Administration's advocacy of preëmptive war, calling it a doctrine that would replace "a world in which states consider themselves subject to law" with "the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States." A few Democrats were also considering putting an alternative resolution before Congress."

"Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq's attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq."

Now, if Teribus had actually read my post, instead of projecting his own fantasies of what I said into my post, he would have noticed that I said:

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq. Without that lie, there are serious questions about whether or not he would have gotten that authorization from Congress.

I did not say "proof". I said "serious questions". And serious questions there are. Before the Bush administration used these forged documents as its main "proof" of Saddam's WMDs, there was opposition to passing legislation authorizing Bush to wage a first strike attack on Iraq. After the presentation of this "evidence" all opposition in Congress disappeared.

Here's what some members of Congress have to say about it:

"There is a possibility that the fabrication of these documents may be part of a larger deception campaign aimed at manipulating public opinion and foreign policy regarding Iraq," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) wrote last Friday to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

"In a letter sent to Bush on Monday, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) asked for a full accounting of "what you knew about the reliability of the evidence linking Iraq to uranium in Africa, when you knew this, and why you and senior officials in the administration presented the evidence to the U.N. Security Council, the Congress, and the American people without disclosing the doubts of the CIA.""

Washingtonpost.com

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:28 PM

Thanks, Sean, I needed that link! But, you know, I won't be too surprised if they stumble across the real thing. And I doubt if DougR will be too surprised if they don't find anything.

Now how about them 20 chemical loaded missles?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:31 PM

I think we're still waiting for confirmation on that one, Charley.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:47 PM

I'm completely open minded as to whether these unused stocks of weapons are there to be discovered. But discoveries made by the occupying forces are a pretty unsatisfactory sort of evidence in themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Walking Eagle
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 08:56 PM

Well so far, we all think that both govts would do anything to save their ass, including lie to us. We also think that the reasons for invading Iraq have become so convoluted that no one can figure it out. Depressing, isn't it?

I know one thing, the U.S. would do well to have those weapons tested in some other country (perhaps France or Germany?)to keep things on the up and up, as much as they were/are. SERIOUS mistake not to test them in some other counrty, in this ol' Cherokee Hillbillys educated opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:25 PM

It seems clear that our 600 SAT-score Resident got him a letter from a Nigerian banker and figgered it was too good to pass up, huh?

"Hello,

Although you do not know me I hope you will extend to me the courtesy of reading this serious business proposition which may be greatly to our mutual benefit.

I am Subrosa Inkarnata, third daughter of the late Nigerian prince Skayumem Inkarnata, who was killed in riots in our central city only eight months ago. Before he died my father left me 500,00 pounds of uranium oxide which he had saved over the years that he was employed by the Nigerian government...."

Good shew, Georgie!! That college degree sure turned out to be good for sumpn after all!




A

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:28 PM

Well so far, we all think that both govts would do anything to save their ass, including lie to us. We also think that the reasons for invading Iraq have become so convoluted that no one can figure it out. Depressing, isn't it?

I'm not sure about "all" but that seems to capture my feelings.

Changing the subject for a second, one thing that really got to me today was on the BBC news this evening. A young (?12 year old) boy with no arms left and most of his family wiped out. I believe what he was saying was along the lines of "please give me new arms or just let me die".

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:40 PM

Ahhhhh, like with the media being manipulated with their "embeddedness" with Bush's war machine, like who is going to really believe what ever trumped up WMD that that Bush/Blair say they have found? Ahhhh, just a show of hands will do here, folks...

What choice do they have? None!

Bush: "Ahhh, we're real sorry. We messed up. We *thought* you all had a bunch of WMD and weere getting ready to attack us! Really! We had it from reliable sources. Like I said, sorry. If there's any thing we can do, just ask. Yeah hear?"

LIke how many folks think that this little speech is in Bush's future?

Yeah right.

You can bet that there's some real shakey stuff going on right now to come up with something other than a worn out army fighting with ancient equipement...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 09:47 PM

It appears that even our friend Gareth doesn't trust Bush. Or at least that's what he seems to be saying in this post to another thread:

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth - PM
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

Well, that's *is* progress, Carol. Man, if Gareth has cracked then the rest will be close behind him.

Something about someone yelling from the back of the crowd, "Hey, the Empereor has no pants!"

Once the world starts to figure out that the Bush administartion is no more than a house of cards, then it's over for this sad episode of American history...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:22 PM

It makes absolutely no difference whether WMDs are discovered or not. Some of us will swear to and support the truth of it and some of us will insist in was placed there by Coalition forces to make the Iraqis look bad and justify the invasion.

In a rare moment where I was happy with his comments, Rumsfeld today said he wouldn't confirm any WMD's had been found or even say something suspicious was found. Not until he had confirmation in either direction. (I hate it when I have to agree with someone I don't like or even trust.)

Don

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Troll
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:43 PM

Well said, Don.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:33 PM

"The lie about the documents from Niger (which turned out to have been forged) are a big part of the case the Bush administration used to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing Bush to attack Iraq."

As with the above, another case of poorly handled information on the part of the intelligence community, although that might be being awfully unfair to some members of the US intelligence services, as reports exist that some analysists were unhappy about the way this information burst into the public domain. To make this a lie, it would have to be proved that the CIA (or who ever) deliberately started rumours about Iraqi approaches to the Government of Niger regarding sales of Uranium Cake years ago. That Saddam Hussein has been interested in a nuclear weapons programme cannot be disputed, this interest has been well documented over the past 25 years. You would then have to prove that members of the current American Administration knew that these documents were forgeries prior to presenting them to the public. I do not think such proof exists on either count.

Here is an article that was originally published in the Baltimore Sun on April 4, 2003. It addresses concerns that the intelligence gathering agencies have about the way the Bush administration is using/misusing information about Iraq:

"Some former intelligence officers and historians say they are seeing a worrisome pattern of Vietnam-style politicization of intelligence, with pressure to play up the threat from Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and to minimize the potential for Iraqi resistance and the threat the war poses to regional stability.

They note complaints from current CIA analysts as well as glimpses of deeply flawed evidence used by the administration to make the case for war, including documents purporting to show Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. The documents turned out to be forgeries, as CIA analysts had warned before the alleged uranium quest was used by President Bush and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to illustrate the looming danger from Iraq".

"Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst, said current agency officers have contacted him and other agency veterans in recent weeks with complaints of political influence.

"We've heard from multiple sources inside the agency about the pressure to conform," says Eddington, who resigned from the agency in 1996 after accusing superiors of covering up evidence of possible causes of gulf war syndrome. "They say they feel pressure to shape estimates to support the administration's positions - or at least not contradict the administration's positions.""

Some Worry U.S. May Bend Facts for Policy:
Analysts pressured to spin reports to support White House position, veterans say

Here's an article from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity: Cooking Intelligence for War

Subject: RE: BS: Where are the WMDs?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:15 AM

I agree that it makes little or no difference whether or not WMD's are found in Iraq, because:

It is not a crime to have a weapon, it is a crime to use it unlawfully in an act of civil crime or international aggression.

Thus the whole original issue of whether or not Iraq "has WMD's" was spurious from the start. But you will not get any recognition of that in the USA administration, because they don't care. They feel that they have the right to preemptively attack and occupy and govern any country that might someday attack them or help somebody else to someday attack them. At this point, that gives the USA carte blanche to attack almost every country in the World! And that is now clearly perceived in most countries too. The USA is a giant rogue state which accuses little countries of being rogue states (which may or may not be true in a given case), and then attacks them on mere suspicion of future eventualities! That is unprovoked aggression. And it's against people who might someday commit the sort of crimes that the USA freely practices on others whenever it wants to.

The WMD thing is a spurious argument concocted to provide a moral fig leaf for an act of naked aggression, following 12 years of desultory aggression and economic warfare against a badly defeated small country.

The only thing Iraq has EVER done to the USA was to fail to conquer Iran in the 1980's. And to fail to obediently follow USA orders since the first Gulf War.

Al Capone rubbed out people not willing to cooperate, and so does the USA. Same attitude, same technique. First bribe, then blackmail, then threaten. If that doesn't work, kill.

Saddam is just a former hit man who failed to complete the hit (on Iran), and then went into business for himself (in Kuwait). The Mob kills guys like that. Depend on it. Independent operators are not allowed to pull heist's on the Big Boss's turf.

It's just as seamy and vulgar as that, and it has nothing to do with democracy in any sense whatsoever. In fact, Bush's administration is doing its level best to dismantle and destroy American democracy in every way it can. The only thing that's holding them up is that they have not managed to fool everyone in the USA, and Americans don't easily give up their freedoms, unless they are mesmerized by a foreign threat...which is where guys like Saddam come in so handy to the lads who have their guns trained on your Constitution.

- LH